InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Clean out your internet files!"

box_in_the_box (box_in_the_box) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-08-28 14:38:00

Entry tags:

creator: steve ditko, theme: objectivism

"If only that Ditko fellow was less subtle and more overt regarding his personal politics ..."
For as much fail as it churns out, Big Hollywood occasionally offers some genuine gems.

I can't stand Objectivism, but I find Steve Ditko's treatment of it irresistibly compelling, perhaps because the comic book medium is a far more appropriate venue for such a Manichean philosophy than the thousand-page rape-justifying tomes that Ayn Rand routinely shat out (it certainly helps that none of Ditko's characters ever barfed up a 70-page screed like John Galt, not to mention the fact that Ditko actually managed to create characters who were more believable as human beings than any of Rand's strawmen or Mary Sues, even when his characters were radioactivity-powered superheroes).

The following four pages constitute "In Principle: The Unchecked Premise," a short story originally published in the 160-page graphic novel Steve Ditko's Static in 1988:

As crudely simplistic as it is, it's still better than either reading or watching the "fireplace scene" between Howard Roark and Dominique Francon in The Fountainhead, but then again, so is getting punched in the crotch until you hemorrhage internally and die.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

Re: An even darker view:

runespoor7
2009-08-29 01:50 am UTC (link)

It'd be too easy to blame the failings of humans on determinism, whether biological or mystical. Humans are entirely responsible for their fuck-ups.

I'll give you the "one hell of a coincidence" on misogyny, but racism and war seem par for the course given human greed and egotism. If you want to get people to help you get other people's wealth, you're going to have to give them reasons. Say 'they eat babies!' or 'they don't look like us so they're not human so they don't count', and voila.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: An even darker view:

box_in_the_box
2009-08-29 02:07 am UTC (link)

I'm sorry, you seem to think that I'm inclined to let ANYONE off the hook.

If you're an evil human who does evil shit, then yes, you should still be punished for it, because you have free will, but if close to 75 percent of the people on the planet who have free will are not only making the WRONG choices, but also making the SAME wrong choices, then that means that they were PROGRAMMED to make the wrong choices, like a child who's raised by abusive parents.

No, once that child grows to adulthood, you don't let them off the hook for that crime, but you SHOULD be able to punish abusive parents for the monsters that they've made, especially in the case of God, who's an ALL-POWERFUL abusive parent.

As for racism and war, I'd point out that even ape tribes wage war, and even newborn infants exhibit preferences toward those who look like themselves, so once again, while we do have free will, we were kind of given a disadvantage out of the starting gate (like the child whose family contains multiple alcoholics, which is why I personally shy away from drinking).

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: An even darker view:

runespoor7
2009-08-29 02:18 am UTC (link)

No, I'm really not. I think it's just too likely that it would be used as an excuse by others, and I see no reason why I'd provide them with that weapon when I don't believe in God.

like a child who's raised by abusive parents

Precisely. Why bring God into it when there's the explanation that everyone is simply reproducing the behaviour they've seen around them all their life and that preceded them? (Moreover, doesn't the idea that God could have 'programmed' mankind kinda denies the possibility of free will? And if mankind developed free will against God's programming, then that means God isn't omnipotent.)

Ape tribes are close enough to humans that I wouldn't be surprised if they had developed their own culture. I had no idea newborn infants showed such preferences - we are talking about newborn, literally? - so thank you for bringing that to my knowledge.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: An even darker view:

xandertarbert
2009-08-29 01:03 pm UTC (link)

Like I said, if you define was as violence to a given cause, every living being on Earth wages war. Trees, ants, birds, bees, apes, dogs, deer, every-fucking-thing.

I wouldn't say newborns are racist, really. A preference for ones own race isn't inherently racist. I would say actively doing bad against another race is. So if newborns tend to pee on other races more often...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: An even darker view: runespoor7 2009-08-29 01:08 pm UTC (link)
	A preference for a race, whether your own or another's, is exactly racism. Racism is making a difference between races based on nothing more than races. And war isn't violence. War's a human concept that only makes sense in culture, not nature, and calling natural violence a war is a metaphor. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: An even darker view:

xandertarbert
2009-08-29 01:21 pm UTC (link)

A black person is going to hang out with another black person before he hangs out with me. That's not to say he doesn't like me, but he can identify with the other black person better than he can with me. He'd still hire the best person for a job regardless of race, he'd still date a white person, but he can identify with someone like him more easily then with a person with a widely different background.

How would you define war then?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: An even darker view:

runespoor7
2009-08-29 01:42 pm UTC (link)

I have no idea why you're dragging identification into the discussion. You were talking about "preference". To which I answer, having a preference for one race is racism.

War is a type of conflict, most often organized, decided by a power for political, economical or ideological reasons, and most importantly against a defined enemy. Violence in nature has no other goal than to ensure survival, there is no enemy to which you attribute motives or goals, and there's no other justification than survival.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: An even darker view: (Anonymous) 2009-08-29 04:43 pm UTC (link)
	Out of curiosity, could I ask about the source for that bit about newborns? I'd like to read more about it and if the babies showed preference only in regard to skin color or also regarding eye or hair color, similar face structure - in other words was it inter racial or also intraracial differences. And what about bi-racial newborns... (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -