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.
Rand's ethical system is founded upon the constant alternative of life and death that every living creature faces every second of day. that is real. when is the last time someone close to you died? if its never happened its hard to relate.
if out-of-touch morons have chosen to use AS as their excuse for doing really stupid things.. so what... that's their problem.
On April 25 2015 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote: That being said I haven't finished the book (haven't had the strength), so I am talking in ignorance.
there is only a small part of Galt's speech u need to understand .. to understand the foundation of objectivism.. its all about the alternative of life and death.
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.
when u r at the top for 20 years you make mistakes. however, to remain at the top longer than any other chairman in history you get stuff right as well. i'm just waiting to hear what a failure Ed Snider, Nathaniel Branden and Barry Goldwater were... and those 3 guys really are just the tip of the iceberg..i'm sure John Ridpath .. u can get some shots in about him.
"a self esteem guy" : try to find anything about self-esteem written in the 1960s. LOL and Étienne de Harven is just another one of those electron microscope guys.
so far based on your posts your knowledge of intellectual history is very low... might i recommend a course curriculum authored by John Ridapth
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.
you read any of Branden's work? how many times have you met him? sry man, he and his work are as real as real gets.
how about you write something .. and get it published in say 2020 in whatever your 2nd language is. and then let's see if it sells 445,000 copies in 2075.
this is part of John Galt's speech that forms the climax of the book
There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence-and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and-self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it does; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.
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.
This is my sense as well. I resisted thinking that way initially as I wanted to get a fair assessment, but by the time I got to the Directive it seemed very conclusive that character motivation was subordinated to ideology. . .barring some historical argument that perhaps I wasn't aware. Hence my question as I did/ do not want to close that door entirely.
On April 25 2015 22:54 corumjhaelen wrote: Ok, falling, finally read your whole post^^ I'd like if you spend all that energy on a book I've actually liked and read 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.
Thanks The first part didn't require that much patience. However, the deeper I go, the more I find my pace slowing and requiring much more patience. Perhaps, I will become inspired to write about why a story I like works. For me it's interesting to figure out why a story does or does not work.
I don't care one bit for or about objectivism, but I must say I took Rand herself a bit closer to my heart after watching a documentary about Putin's Russia and the preparations for the Olympic Games. If Rand came from a society with leaders as corrupt as that portrayed in the documentary, I think her mindset is more understandable.
Atlas Shrugged opens well, but I always get bored and stop reading about half way in or so. I forget exactly where.
I got banned from the Ayn Rand facebook page for asking a critical question. They were promoting the elimination of public education at the time. No wonder everything on there is so ra-ra-Rand. Everything else gets deleted ;(
Every philosopher I've asked, and I mean professors, doesn't take her seriously. One directed me to her essay "The Virtue of Selfishness," and broke apart her main premise: value requires life, therefore the definition of value is that which promotes life, a logical error.
I like some parts of it mind you. She's appealing because of what she promises, not what she delivers, imo.
Check out her Ayn Rand Campus courses btw, very interesting,if biased, stuff in there. Especially "Philosophy: who needs it," and the "History of Philosophy."
On April 27 2015 06:29 HewTheTitan wrote: Every philosopher I've asked, and I mean professors, doesn't take her seriously. One directed me to her essay "The Virtue of Selfishness," and broke apart her main premise: value requires life, therefore the definition of value is that which promotes life, a logical error.
John Ridpath takes her seriously... that's just 1 guy.. but i know a few others.. and i'm just 1 guy.. there must be plenty of others.
I do not think her wider generalizations are correct. However, i think the deepest foundations of the philosophy are bang on the money. Specifically, her meta-ethics and epistemology.
The closest approximation to my views on what is right and wrong with Objectivism are stated by Nathaniel Branden in his work "The Benefits and Hazards of Objectivism".
I've been to a few of these "Objectivism Club Meetings". And, the majority of the people at these things do not understand that basics of her philosophy.
On April 26 2015 15:33 Falling wrote: This is my sense as well. I resisted thinking that way initially as I wanted to get a fair assessment, but by the time I got to the Directive it seemed very conclusive that character motivation was subordinated to ideology. . .barring some historical argument that perhaps I wasn't aware. Hence my question as I did/ do not want to close that door entirely.
her characters are 2-dimensional projections of her philosophical principles. they don't really develop or change.
For example: Eddie Willers is the man of good ethical character ( in her view of what good is) but only average ability.
From 1957 to 1968 the book was dedicated to Nathaniel Branden. and he echoed this exact criticism even when the book was still dedicated to him.
her 2 big books are almost like one of those deterministic simulation programs with interacting physics objects that you might create in a 2nd year university computer science course... and her characters are simply objects in the simulation.
i made a little mini solar system. it messed up once some of the planets hit the edge of the screen though
any how, her books, to me, feel like a giant deterministic simulation.
Atlas Shrugged... some people love it other hate it. I read through ti and the biggest take away I found was that she was wrong. Specifically her views on philanthropy. I am glad that others don't share her views that widely.
@JimmyJ That's an interesting interpretation for her characters as projections and simulations. However, if true I submit the book lacks applicability in any meaningful sense as it doesn't factor in real human behaviour. So I don't really see it as taking her ideology, plunking in humans and seeing how they would operate. The simulation seems stacked to get a certain outcome. Character motivations are sacrificied I guess if you agree with her ideological premises, the book has some meaning, but because the characters lack truth, it is a much harder sell for me. I don't mind reading books that have a different ideology than myself. I do mind if any ideology (even one that I am sympathetic to) interferes and imposes upon characterization and dominates storytelling. I don't that is good art. Or at least, that is not what I look for in good secondary world creation.
As a libertarian I found Atlas Shrugged crude and ineffectual. My favorite literary work of fiction is probably The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. As for the history of railroads, you're wrong insofar as you proclaim that there was no transcontinental railroad funded and built without Government assistance of some kind - the Great Northern Pacific was entirely private and was of such superiority that they out-competed the other railroads even with all of their advantages and monopolies from the Government (e.g. land grants, subsidy, Government-security, et. al). As an aside, James J. Hill was quite the guy - there's a bit of good reading about him if you're so inclined.
Ah. I stand somewhat corrected by the Great Northern Pacific. However, it seems to me that even he benefited from government assistance when he bought up the St Paul and Pacific Railroad which itself came into being through massive land grants that they still had possession of at the time of Hill's purchase and that rail was also built using government backed bonds. Now while true that rail line went bankrupt, the rails on the ground got there by earlier government intervention.
There was also the 1887 Treaty of the Sweetgrass lands that benefited Hill as they could use timber and stone found in the 75 foot right of way.
Did he not benefit from a Minnesota Land Grant as well?
But certainly it was built with the least amount of government intervention and certainly not be request, but he seems rather strategic in purchasing and harnessing former government intervention agreements.
On April 28 2015 04:35 Falling wrote: Ah. I stand somewhat corrected by the Great Northern Pacific. However, it seems to me that even he benefited from government assistance when he bought up the St Paul and Pacific Railroad which itself came into being through massive land grants that they still had possession of at the time of Hill's purchase and that rail was also built using government backed bonds. Now while true that rail line went bankrupt, the rails on the ground got there by earlier government intervention.
There was also the 1887 Treaty of the Sweetgrass lands that benefited Hill as they could use timber and stone found in the 75 foot right of way.
Did he not benefit from a Minnesota Land Grant as well?
But certainly it was built with the least amount of government intervention and certainly not be request, but he seems rather strategic in purchasing and harnessing former government intervention agreements.
I think that rather is bit specious. As long as Government exists, it'll have its hands in ways that you can make argument that 'nothing' is truly private then. Buying up industry assets is not Government assistance, even if those prior assets had used Government. Is it preferable? Not really, those assets/properties should have been relinquished to their prior rightful owners, and/or put up for homesteading, but that wasn't really an option then. At a certain point you start to fall into fallacy territory.
As for the Minnesota Land Grant, I'm almost positive, no. The point was that there was a railroad without the use of Government, and it was certainly achievable. I mean, private industry can build all sorts of advanced things, but they can't built some straight tracks on some land or in modern terms, a road? It's pretty silly.
Anyways, I'd recommend giving The Moon is a Harsh Mistress a read. It's superb.
On April 27 2015 15:56 Falling wrote: @JimmyJ That's an interesting interpretation for her characters as projections and simulations. However, if true I submit the book lacks applicability in any meaningful sense as it doesn't factor in real human behaviour. So I don't really see it as taking her ideology, plunking in humans and seeing how they would operate. The simulation seems stacked to get a certain outcome. Character motivations are sacrificied I guess if you agree with her ideological premises, the book has some meaning, but because the characters lack truth, it is a much harder sell for me. I don't mind reading books that have a different ideology than myself. I do mind if any ideology (even one that I am sympathetic to) interferes and imposes upon characterization and dominates storytelling. I don't that is good art. Or at least, that is not what I look for in good secondary world creation.
i agree AND. Rand's #1 "disciple"/"intellectual heir" , the late Nathaniel Branden, on a very basic level agrees with you. his full answer to ur points would be 10 pages long
if u want a practical application of how the libertarian and/or objectivist perspective on life manifests itself in real world behaviours and action strategies ... and just plain old human living .. consult Branden's books. Rand's stuff. though sometimes mildly entertaining won't really help much.
if objectivism were properly applied to human psychology by Ayn Rand (it never was) the result would've been an archive of Psychology books very, very similar to the books Nathaniel Branden wrote throughout his life.
Here are his major stuff... but the guy wrote dozens of books..
Branden was a brilliantly effective psychotherapist...
Rand is all about suppressing conflicting thoughts.. Branden is all about bringing that stuff to the surface... and then sort of .. throwing it all out there.. and letting ur conscious mind sort of "cook on it".
The best part about Branden's work is that the guy is as practical .. as practical gets.
its too bad the guy is dead
From 1957 to 1968 Atlas Shrugged was not dedicated to her husband. it was dedicated to Nathaniel Branden.
the best part of AS has been the people it attracts and the people aroudn teh book as it was published. ironic that the characters in the book are almost mathematical representations.
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.
Buckley was one of them that kept Objectivists & Rand out of the conservative circle he helped build. Libertarians generally like the book much more than conservatives.
That's the reason, right there. She has these operatic caricatures, these superheroes, and it plays out like an explosions-first (and second and third) action movies. The antagonists are no different. But now, I'm aping what I think was the best Conservative take on Rand ever written. It's Whittaker Chamber's review on the book
The Children of Light are largely operatic caricatures. In so far as any of them suggests anything known to the business community, they resemble the occasional curmudgeon millionaire, tales about whose outrageously crude and shrewd eccentricities sometimes provide the lighter moments in Board rooms. Otherwise, the Children of Light are geniuses. One of them is named (the only smile you see will be your own): Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’Anconia. This electrifying youth is the world’s biggest copper tycoon. Another, no less electrifying, is named: Ragnar Danesjöld. He becomes a twentieth-century pirate. All Miss Rand’s chief heroes are also breathtakingly beautiful. So is her heroine (she is rather fetchingly vice president in charge of management of a transcontinental railroad). So much radiant energy might seem to serve a eugenic purpose. For, in this story as in Mark Twain‘s, “all the knights marry the princess” — though without benefit of clergy. Yet from the impromptu and surprisingly gymnastic matings of the heroine and three of the heroes, no children — it suddenly strikes you — ever result. The possibility is never entertained. And, indeed, the strenuously sterile world of Atlas Shrugged is scarcely a place for children. You speculate that, in life, children probably irk the author and may make her uneasy. How could it be otherwise when she admiringly names a banker character (by what seems to me a humorless master-stroke): Midas Mulligan? You may fool some adults; you can’t fool little boys and girls with such stuff — not for long. They may not know just what is out of line, but they stir uneasily.
The Children of Darkness are caricatures, too; and they are really oozy. But at least they are caricatures of something identifiable. Their archetypes are Left Liberals, New Dealers, Welfare Statists, One Worlders, or, at any rate, such ogreish semblances of these as may stalk the nightmares of those who think little about people as people, but tend to think a great deal in labels and effigies. (And neither Right nor Left, be it noted in passing, has a monopoly of such dreamers, though the horrors in their nightmares wear radically different masks and labels.)
In Atlas Shrugged, all this debased inhuman riffraff is lumped as “looters.” This is a fairly inspired epithet. It enables the author to skewer on one invective word everything and everybody that she fears and hates. This spares her the plaguey business of performing one service that her fiction might have performed, namely: that of examining in human depth how so feeble a lot came to exist at all, let alone be powerful enough to be worth hating and fearing. Instead, she bundles them into one undifferentiated damnation.
I have heard it said that Atlas Shrugged is the key understanding the ills of big government. However, I find the book's premises groundless; I find it hard to find applicability when the world it describes is a non-reality, a No Place. A work may have the trappings of the fantastical- faster than light travel, or perhaps ageless elves, and yet capture an essential truth. From my readings so far, Atlas Shrugged does the opposite. It has the trappings of reality, but it rings false and hollow.
It does nothing to explain the ills of big government, though maybe smearing a general theme in a kid's cartoon fashion. If the opera were toned down and some vacuous expanse cut, it might even make a silly children's book with all its villains and heroes.
Tonight I'm not really pulling up any noteworthy academic introductions to the ills of big government. You already likely know ten authors that pulled for small government. While I'm thinking of him, Witness by Chambers is a fine read on a particularly human change from belief in the State (USSR) to opposition to its power and influence. If you were to read it, Falling, I think by the end of the journey you'd recognize the sickness of big government. Rand's fiction is just a sickness of a related type.
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.
Buckley was one of them that kept Objectivists & Rand out of the conservative circle he helped build. Libertarians generally like the book much more than conservatives.
That's the reason, right there. She has these operatic caricatures, these superheroes, and it plays out like an explosions-first (and second and third) action movies. The antagonists are no different. But now, I'm aping what I think was the best Conservative take on Rand ever written. It's Whittaker Chamber's review on the book
The Children of Light are largely operatic caricatures. In so far as any of them suggests anything known to the business community, they resemble the occasional curmudgeon millionaire, tales about whose outrageously crude and shrewd eccentricities sometimes provide the lighter moments in Board rooms. Otherwise, the Children of Light are geniuses. One of them is named (the only smile you see will be your own): Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’Anconia. This electrifying youth is the world’s biggest copper tycoon. Another, no less electrifying, is named: Ragnar Danesjöld. He becomes a twentieth-century pirate. All Miss Rand’s chief heroes are also breathtakingly beautiful. So is her heroine (she is rather fetchingly vice president in charge of management of a transcontinental railroad). So much radiant energy might seem to serve a eugenic purpose. For, in this story as in Mark Twain‘s, “all the knights marry the princess” — though without benefit of clergy. Yet from the impromptu and surprisingly gymnastic matings of the heroine and three of the heroes, no children — it suddenly strikes you — ever result. The possibility is never entertained. And, indeed, the strenuously sterile world of Atlas Shrugged is scarcely a place for children. You speculate that, in life, children probably irk the author and may make her uneasy. How could it be otherwise when she admiringly names a banker character (by what seems to me a humorless master-stroke): Midas Mulligan? You may fool some adults; you can’t fool little boys and girls with such stuff — not for long. They may not know just what is out of line, but they stir uneasily.
The Children of Darkness are caricatures, too; and they are really oozy. But at least they are caricatures of something identifiable. Their archetypes are Left Liberals, New Dealers, Welfare Statists, One Worlders, or, at any rate, such ogreish semblances of these as may stalk the nightmares of those who think little about people as people, but tend to think a great deal in labels and effigies. (And neither Right nor Left, be it noted in passing, has a monopoly of such dreamers, though the horrors in their nightmares wear radically different masks and labels.)
In Atlas Shrugged, all this debased inhuman riffraff is lumped as “looters.” This is a fairly inspired epithet. It enables the author to skewer on one invective word everything and everybody that she fears and hates. This spares her the plaguey business of performing one service that her fiction might have performed, namely: that of examining in human depth how so feeble a lot came to exist at all, let alone be powerful enough to be worth hating and fearing. Instead, she bundles them into one undifferentiated damnation.
I have heard it said that Atlas Shrugged is the key understanding the ills of big government. However, I find the book's premises groundless; I find it hard to find applicability when the world it describes is a non-reality, a No Place. A work may have the trappings of the fantastical- faster than light travel, or perhaps ageless elves, and yet capture an essential truth. From my readings so far, Atlas Shrugged does the opposite. It has the trappings of reality, but it rings false and hollow.
It does nothing to explain the ills of big government, though maybe smearing a general theme in a kid's cartoon fashion. If the opera were toned down and some vacuous expanse cut, it might even make a silly children's book with all its villains and heroes.
Tonight I'm not really pulling up any noteworthy academic introductions to the ills of big government. You already likely know ten authors that pulled for small government. While I'm thinking of him, Witness by Chambers is a fine read on a particularly human change from belief in the State (USSR) to opposition to its power and influence. If you were to read it, Falling, I think by the end of the journey you'd recognize the sickness of big government. Rand's fiction is just a sickness of a related type.
her stated goal for writing Atlas Shrugged was the projection of the ideal man. and PROJECTION is her word, not mine. i'm not going to say the guy's name because its a spoiler , but if you've read the book you probably know who the "ideal man" is. interestingly, some people read the book and don't know who it is.
people try to turn AS into something else. ills of government run and regulated industry .. the decline of the USA .. what happens when the gold standard is abandoned etc etc... and its none of those things..
re: all your "big government" talk... and its treatment in AS. + Show Spoiler +
its never the "government guys" versus "the industrialist guys" as a core conflict of the book that conflict is a giant smoke screen created by our international man of mystery. its that mysterious man versus "teh industrialist guys"... that form the primary conflict as the USA crumbles before our very eyes. the "government guys" are impotent and useless and can only be used as puppets by our international man of mystery..
government agents/advnocates and statists in Atlas Shrugged are.. once all the curtains are lifted IRRELEVANT in this book.
do not expect her to present big government or any form of statism as having any power at all
in this book .. big government and statists proponents are the running back and the 2 guards pulling out wide left.. meanwhile the QB out of the wishbone formation has tossed the ball to the left wide receiver and he is streaking towards the right sideline.
all statist proponents in this book are just 1 giant misdirection play... the football is far far away.
this is awesome stuff guys... can we put this in Madden 2016 or what?
In terms of plot style: Atlas Shrugged is a murder mystery. Few fully grasp this though...even though its printed right on the sleeve.
I think everyone should read the book (or better: The Fountainhead) just because it has had a definite impact on the way people think and it should at least challenge you to think about some of your premises about the world and how to live in it. Of course Rand gets the answers terribly wrong, but the questions behind what she brings up are actually good questions. The characters aren't realistic, but that's common in writings like these (Candide comes to mind). The only really true thing, to me, is that there are definitely people and organizations that act in ways very much like the "looters" and these should be struggled against. Things like Axiom's examplt of Tesla Motors, or telecom companies are real, and while they are usually much milder than shown in the book, they happen. Usually these sorts of decision are committies, lobbyist, congresses, and not given a singular voice like Jim Taggert, but they do exist.
The rest of it is pretty much bunk, but I read to expand my ideas, not to just read everything I already agree with.
Well I haven't read Atlas Shrugged.. I merely watched part one movie. But I'm reading Fountainhead at the moment and I find the hating for Ayn Rand pretty harsh.
Sure she's a little over-romanticized and the development(story or character) is sometimes jumpy. But I like how she can point out some patterns in society and human characters.
I think her concern was that the progress was stopped by men in power and that the average replaces the better. Which in my opinion is true in nowadays society. However I would argue that "progress is all good at it's core" is not true which is the definition Rand has probably set her ideals on.
Edit: Also what she displays is that many people/organizations are driven not by logic but by irrational pulses = ideologies, innate hate or love for somebody... and she puts them into play. And I agree that finding logic in human behavior is pretty senseless. That's also why economy as a science discipline does not work. It's set up on people acting rationally in the model.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MJzEak3.jpg)
