EPTI've just passed a monologue describing the destruction of the communist 20th Century Motor Company, which at least I can agree that wouldn't work so well. Though I wouldn't see it as applicable to any western economic system.
Atlas Shrugged: Help Me! - Page 2
| Blogs > Falling |
Falling
Canada11258 Posts
I've just passed a monologue describing the destruction of the communist 20th Century Motor Company, which at least I can agree that wouldn't work so well. Though I wouldn't see it as applicable to any western economic system. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On April 23 2015 17:10 virpi wrote: I tried reading "Atlas shrugged" once and had to put it away about 300 pages in. It's not a very good novel, both its language and the characterization of the protagonists are clumsy. For my taste, it's also too ideological. I just can't read hundreds of pages of ramblings about things I disagree with on a fundamental level. It's meant to be ideological, it's the entire point of the book. But I agree that it's a tough read because everything lines up for her doesn't it? The fictitious evens line up to fit her views in a way that wouldn't in reality, human nature is mischaracterized to the point where it looks like a big caricature of the point she's trying to defend. The book and objectivism are largely ignored by intellectuals for good reason, it only reinforces the beliefs of people naive enough to believe in those ridiculous turns of event. | ||
|
Kranyum
77 Posts
Seeking "a point" in the actions of the characters which the book has decided to paint as irrational is utter pointless, as the underlying message is that in an irrational world mindnumbingly crazy outcomes are possible. With that in mind, the genius of the book becomes very apparent if you end up living in a corrupted "developping" country or work in an uncompetitive workplace where the events and characters described in the book become painfully real. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On April 24 2015 07:44 Kranyum wrote: I believe you are missing the point of the book and the storytold within. The irrationality in the decisions and plotlines is a caricature of the irrationality of people in our world, taken to the extreme. In a sense everything in the book should be looked at like a carricature of the real world. Seeking "a point" in the actions of the characters which the book has decided to paint as irrational is utter pointless, as the underlying message is that in an irrational world mindnumbingly crazy outcomes are possible. With that in mind, the genius of the book becomes very apparent if you end up living in a corrupted "developing" country or work in an uncompetitive workplace where the events and characters described in the book become painfully real. Much like Rand, I believe you are missing how storytelling and the real world actually works. A book's ideological front is bollocks if it portrays all characters as caricatures, which it does (in particular, her description of the heroine's sex scenes are so shockingly turgid and ludicrous you forget a woman wrote them). Furthermore, "irrational actors" do not exist. That is simply a word used to discredit those who don't adhere to whatever values and belief systems one holds. Note this is different from being wrong (which requires outside criteria to resolve) or doing irrational actions (which are whether they correspond to the agent's desires and values). | ||
|
Bswhunter
Australia954 Posts
On April 24 2015 04:08 Falling wrote: If Fountainhead is the better book, why are politicians in the States waving around Atlas Shrugged? Is it the essay-like monologues that I'm running into now that more easily distill her philosophy? I've just passed a monologue describing the destruction of the communist 20th Century Motor Company, which at least I can agree that wouldn't work so well. Though I wouldn't see it as applicable to any western economic system. Probably because Atlas is more of a modern day fable that unashamedly pushes objectivitism by exploring it through the lens of society as whole (and therefore through corporations and governments), whereas the Fountainhead is about exploring objectivism through the individual. I think that Atlas being far more absurd then the Fountainhead is the entire point. She deliberately chose to make it extremely polarizing so you would either really enjoy the book (and its message) or dislike it immensely. As for the practical side of Atlas in regards to economics, I have no idea. If I were to take a guess, I would say its a mixture of her expressing her dislike for socialism brought on by her upbringing, along with trying to show how objectivism would work in regards to managing that sort of thing. I doubt its supposed to be taken literally. (that being said, could be completely wrong) | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16365 Posts
On April 24 2015 04:08 Falling wrote: If Fountainhead is the better book, why are politicians in the States waving around Atlas Shrugged? Is it the essay-like monologues that I'm running into now that more easily distill her philosophy? I've just passed a monologue describing the destruction of the communist 20th Century Motor Company, which at least I can agree that wouldn't work so well. Though I wouldn't see it as applicable to any western economic system. both her big books are works of fiction. by their nature they are impractical. for a more practical application of objectivism to current real world events i recommend "The Ominous Parallels" by Rand's intellectual heir, Leonard Pieikoff.... it is interesting to see what Peikoff got right and wrong in this intriguing look at the USA and its eroding constitution. On April 23 2015 11:25 Falling wrote: In the 1950's or earlier, were similar argument actually made in all sincerity? Is Ayn Rand actually responding to real policy ideas in the western world when she published the book in 1957? Socialism versus Capitalism was a huge battle in the 1950s. THe USA took a hard left turn politically and in economic policy in the 1950s. for an idea of the political climate of the day.. .check out some of Ronald Reagan's speech "A Time For Choosing" Reagan's impassioned plea in this speech involves ZERO philosophy. Only Rand provides a philosophical defense for Capitalism. Until Rand the USA constitution and Capitalism had never been defended on a philosophical level. Both were just said to be "practical". On April 24 2015 04:07 farvacola wrote: The Fountainhead is only marginally better than Atlas Shrugged and I think most of this can be chalked up to the fact that audiences are generally fascinated with architects a la George Costanza. orginally Atlas Shrugged was to begin with a marine biologist who was pissed off about government regulations screwing with his research.. this is why Costanza pretended to be both professions. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16365 Posts
On April 23 2015 11:25 Falling wrote: On to Atlas Shrugged. I was curious about it as it highlighted by so many modern conservatives/ libertarians in the States and yet the book was not thought too highly by an older generation of conservatives such as William F Buckley. I have also heard Atlas reviled by many others (or else claims that the book is interminably boring.) Not content to rely upon others opinions, I had to see for myself. \ Rand took big public shots at the conservatives who were in her age range. She wrote stuff like "what is it conservatives are trying to conserve?". Rand felt these conservatives were basically a fraud because they didn't defend the US system from a philosophical perspective. Kinda like how Catholics hate other Catholics who have a slightly different interpretation of the bible. Rand was very public about her disdain for the right wing people in her age range. This is why guys like William F. Buckley didn't like her. Her circle of friends were highly educated 20-somethings at the time of writing Atlas. It's kinda cool to see how this little group of followers turned out.. Alan Greenspan highlights the list. On April 23 2015 11:25 Falling wrote: Am I wrong? Did people actually talk and think like this in the 50's and earlier? And I don't mean hyper-partisan reinterpretation of views. Is there some truthful commentary represented in the views of the Last Men of Jim Taggart, Mouch, Ferris (I haven't even touched his nonsense philosophy. . . was that supposed to be a representation of post-modernism?), Boyle and company. Because as a work of fiction, and on its own terms, I find it most unbelievable. again, check out Ronald Reagan's speech "A Time For Choosing" .. it was 1964 but it'll give u a good idea of how the Capitalism versus Communism debate was going in 1957 when Atlas Shrugged was published. in the 1950s , 1960s , 1970s the US-propaganda-media-machine made it seem that the entire world becoming communist was a distinct possibility. On April 23 2015 12:16 AxiomBlurr wrote: As human being she was very unhappy and unable to follow her own ideas when they contradicted her wishes, for example her failed relationship with a married man and her inability understand him leaving her. Surely he was just following objectivism to leave her as he desired another woman. Yet Rand near killed him Ayn Rand nearly killed Nathaniel Branden? with what weapon? you got a source on that? having read Branden's Judgement Day and his account of their break up i find that hard to believe. if u mean she "near kill"-ed his career. Her flip-flopping on Branden's "The Psychology of Self Esteem" only increased the publisher's interest in making that book a reality. so she came no where close to a "near kill" on Branden's career or his book which launched him into the position as the "father of the self esteem movement". | ||
|
Falling
Canada11258 Posts
Probably because Atlas is more of a modern day fable that unashamedly pushes objectivitism by exploring it through the lens of society as whole (and therefore through corporations and governments), whereas the Fountainhead is about exploring objectivism through the individual. I suppose its didactic nature is fable-like, but it seems to be missing the animal component of a fable (and it is hardly short.) But I don't think that's an excuse for such contradictory motivations. Humans may not be animal rationale, but rather rationis capax. But all the non-industrialists don't seem even capable of rationality. And if extremes are used to satirical effect, I think a solid understanding of the opposition is necessary before Swiftian satire can be wielded. And I don't know that she has done that (hence my question.) If you look at something like the Great Society ideals, it's targeted at poverty in the lower class, racial injustice, environmental damage, and education for children. Now whether government is the best method to deal with these problems is an entirely separate subject- my point is that the Last Men don't use those sorts of arguments. They use such strange, convoluted, and self-evidently contradictory arguments that it seems more like gross mischaracterization rather than a reasonable caricature. both her big books are works of fiction. by their nature they are impractical. I don't know what you mean by impractical, but I maintain that it is a hand wave to say that fiction naturally does not have realistic motivations because it's fiction. Rather, I think that is the difference between good fiction and bad fiction. I also reject a lot of hand waving in fantasy fiction when there are clear self-contradictions. "It's just fantasy" diminishes fantasy rather than defends it. I don't attack the notion of America devolving down into horse and buggy- I like the idea and would love to read a good story that does that. I attack the reason it got there. Thanks for the Reagan video, I will watch the rest of it when I have time. But I'm not sure that Atlas Shrugged is targeting Communism for the most part. Or if it is, then I fail to see why so many politicians think it is so applicable as big government in a capitalist country is VERY different than communism. There is the one 20th Century Automotive company that was blatantly communist- 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Or perhaps she sees all forms of big government in light of communism, but I would very much disagree with that, even if I would prefer a reasonably small government. But regardless of the efficacy of big government and whether it has much in common with communism (for the anarcho-capitalist, I'm sure it does) the Last Men don't really use communist arguments from what I am aware. They aren't concerned about the proletariat or the exploitation done by the bourgesois- they NEVER talk about the average worker. They intentionally embrace irrationalism as some sort of philosophy. I believe that people can and do embrace wrongheaded notions and can and do support policies that are actually bad for them. Humans have great self-destructive capabilities. But there is another explanation or justification that they believe to be more valid, or some sort of interfering emotion or something. I do not see an adequate counter-justification given that any emotional human capable of rationality would accept. btw, I've now reached what must be Galt's Gulch, though it has not been named as such. Big reunion for all the industrialists. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16365 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_realism On April 24 2015 15:28 Falling wrote: Thanks for the Reagan video, I will watch the rest of it when I have time. But I'm not sure that Atlas Shrugged is targeting Communism for the most part. Or if it is, then I fail to see why so many politicians think it is so applicable as big government in a capitalist country is VERY different than communism. There is the one 20th Century Automotive company that was blatantly communist- 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Or perhaps she sees all forms of big government in light of communism, but I would very much disagree with that, even if I would prefer a reasonably small government. many objectivists view adding even 1 small government regulation as "the slippery slope of falling into a communist dictatorship". Remember, Rand fled a country which turned from free market to communist in a matter of a year or two. and this book was published during the Mccarthy era. people were going to jail for "being communist sympathizers" in her eyes you can go from free market democracy to communist dictatorship in a heart beat. the Red Alert RTS series of games did a humourous take on this possibility. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11258 Posts
If Ayn Rand wrote Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, we would be asked to sympathize with the Count Karenin, who is buried in his work, neglecting Anna, and then we'd listen to the justification of Karenin's adulterous relationship. I had a hard time with the Hank-Dagny relationship because Hank started neglectful. I think part of what makes Anna Karenina works because it is Anna that is being neglected, not doing the neglecting. That, and although my pace of reading was much slower in Tolstoy, his characterization is infinitely better. Horrendous mistakes are made, but the characters makes sense even if they have fits of emotions, irrationality, or are just plain stubborn or impetuous. And this, even if he also goes off on massive tangents on the nature of Russian peasantry and industrialization. | ||
|
gade1123
United States144 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16365 Posts
On April 24 2015 15:57 Falling wrote: But I don't think it is a footnote in her philosophy, I think it's intricately tied to her philosophy of caring for self first. So in marriage relationship, one cares for self first rather than mutual sacrifice. I don't think you can separate it out. i wouldn't read into that one incident that you must always attend to ur work stuff first and your own single minded pursuits first and foremost according to objectivist ideology. Objectivism does not provide a recipe or flow chart for decision making in the relationship with ur spouse and family. from my convos with John Ridpath ...in a really good marriage its all about work//family life balance. so if something really important comes up with ur wife ... u attend to that. if something critical comes up at work and nothing critical is going on at home.. u attend to that. from what i've seen of John Ridpath's and Nathaniel Branden's marriages they were just like marriages of non-objectivists with the same tough choices and decisions... and no real formulae a point in your favour though... maybe these 2 guys were "being bad objectivists" by being so good to their wives... LOL. btw Nathaniel Branden died 5 months ago.  | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7802 Posts
On April 24 2015 16:20 kingcastles wrote: watered down nietschke Oh please, Nietzsche is worth better than that. Every time I hear of AS, I think of that quote from John Rogers: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16365 Posts
On April 24 2015 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote: Oh please, Nietzsche is worth better than that. Every time I hear of AS, I think of that quote from John Rogers: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." Alan Greenspan, Ed Snider, Nathaniel Branden, and Barry Goldwater did not have a lifelong obsession with Atlas's unbelievable heroes. Alan Greenspan had the longest reign at the top of the Fed of all time... 19 years. | ||
|
TheExile19
513 Posts
On April 24 2015 15:57 Falling wrote: As a side note, I'm not sure why Conservative Christians would be advocating the philosophies contained in this book, as she seems rather deliberately against common Christian teachings, such as self-sacrifice and for caring for the least of these. Or her very strident defence of Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart's adulterous relationship. Combine that with the justification given for Hank ignoring his wife because he find ultimate fulfillment in his work- I can think of few Christian teachers that would advocate that sort of prioritization. But I don't think it is a footnote in her philosophy, I think it's intricately tied to her philosophy of caring for self first. So in marriage relationship, one cares for self first rather than mutual sacrifice. I don't think you can separate it out. If Ayn Rand wrote Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, we would be asked to sympathize with the Count Karenin, who is buried in his work, neglecting Anna, and then we'd listen to the justification of Karenin's adulterous relationship. I had a hard time with the Hank-Dagny relationship because Hank started neglectful. I think part of what makes Anna Karenina works because it is Anna that is being neglected, not doing the neglecting. That, and although my pace of reading was much slower in Tolstoy, his characterization is infinitely better. Horrendous mistakes are made, but the characters makes sense even if they have fits of emotions, irrationality, or are just plain stubborn or impetuous. And this, even if he also goes off on massive tangents on the nature of Russian peasantry and industrialization. rand's characterization always read to me as plot and ideology coming before character, like she had her philosophical boxes to tick and that mattered to her more than trying to justify any of her paper-thin characters. you don't need counterarguments really when you classify non-selfish acts as immoral right out the gate, it slams the door shut on pretty much any conception of humanity that you'd see from any other literary source. I think my best contribution to your thread would probably be to note that I, like I would assume many have been, got targeted by the ayn rand institute when I was most of the way through high school. they advertise scholarships, have you write essays on the general awesomeness of howard roark/dagny taggart et al., and even if you don't win, they happily send you a brand new personal copy of atlas shrugged so you can go evangelize with it. it is so unfathomably creepy to me, then and now, how intimately objectivists understand that the perfect age and time to hook young people with the ideas that others don't matter, and charity is a vice, is right before you actually go out into the world and really have to cope with other people's viewpoints. I'm not smart enough to give a non-speculative answer about the weird amalgam of christianity and objectivism, but both movements know damn well to get 'em young if you can. ultimately though, it's more a belief system than a cogent philosophy. you're really only asking for pain if you want to dissect AS so you can argue with people about it - though there are a lot of surprisingly polite responses in this thread - because you're going to hit the bedrock of conservatism eventually with anyone who takes rand seriously and not have anywhere to go. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7802 Posts
On April 24 2015 23:24 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Alan Greenspan, Ed Snider, Nathaniel Branden, and Barry Goldwater did not have a lifelong obsession with Atlas's unbelievable heroes. Alan Greenspan had the longest reign at the top of the Fed of all time... 19 years. Greenspan believed the market was magic and that the most you deregulate finance, the better. He ended up lending money for basically nothing to banks, create that great bubble that ended up with this wonderful mortgage crisis and the utter mess we are in. Now if you need a hockey guy and the founder of the self esteem movement to tell me how great Rand supporters have been, we are in a mess. What I know is that AS is the bible of that part of the American right that has completely lost touch with facts and reality. Starting from Paul Ryan, and extending to all those nutcases from the Tea Party. Another good summary of Atlas Shrugged was given by Krugman on his blog a while ago: "After all, what is Atlas Shrugged really about? Leave aside the endless speeches and bad sex scenes. What you’re left with is the tale of how a group of plutocrats overthrow a democratically elected government with a campaign of economic sabotage." That being said I haven't finished the book (haven't had the strength), so I am talking in ignorance. | ||
|
Phil0s0pher
Australia317 Posts
| ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On April 25 2015 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote: "After all, what is Atlas Shrugged really about? Leave aside the endless speeches and bad sex scenes. What you’re left with is the tale of how a group of plutocrats overthrow a democratically elected government with a campaign of economic sabotage." I finally got it : it's a caricature (lol) of how Stalin's propagand depicted koulaks. Ayn Rand is a genius. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7802 Posts
On April 25 2015 19:58 Phil0s0pher wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM Some of the comments made me smile: "Pretty funny. I've read Atlas Shrugged twice, and I'm convinced that anybody who enthusiastically embraces Objectivism and Rand's view of an ideal world either doesn't really understand it or is (in the literal sense) touched with some greater degree of psychopathy." | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
 No dout it will come. Also, on the one hand I think deciphering Ayn Rand is a waste of time, on the other hand, there are people who actually swear it's a good book. Just very rarely in France, so I guess I can't feel the need. Also props for having so much patience because 500 pages of this sounds like quite the journey. | ||
| ||
