Atlas Shrugged
discussion
What effect did this book have on you??
message 451:
by
Ken
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Apr 21, 2014 08:16AM
If you're throwing around conservatism v. liberalism, you're on the wrong track here.
reply
|
flag
True Kenneth, shallow, selfish and stupid are more the categories for rands vision
Kenneth, I agree. If that's all Anthony got out of Rand's book, he likely didn't understand it. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors' goods."-- God
Janice, glad to know there is more to rand and her pathetic books
I am curious if any of you have ever spent anytime in Palm Beach? in its way, it reminds me of the fantasyland of Galt's.While thee is Worth Ave, and a few other shops of outrageous retail experiences, most of palm beach is this quaint little village filled with very rich people eating ice cream and going to the diner in most ordinary ways, in their khaki shorts and casual $200 shirts, sockless in topsiders. But of course, no working class people are invited, except as servants.
Anthony wrote: "no working class people are invited, except as servants."You obviously didn't carefully read the other thread about the book, where Ken rightly wrote:
"one tenet of pure Capitalism is equality of opportunity, not results. You get what you work for, and it doesn't involve stealing it from someone else, as is done in other systems, Socialism for example."
If those people are working class servants not able to afford $200 shirts it is only their own fault! Well, theirs and of Socialism of course.
Giansa, too funny!!! As the capitalists stole their money from the working class folks!!! Ih, you weren't making a joke were you? Poor thing
Ah. It's hard to express sarcasm online and in a foreign language but yes, I was making a joke. Unfortunately Ken, with the quote, was not.
Thank god!!:) (said the atheist:)
Political posturing is part of the dialog, sure, but it's the simplest level. At that simplest level, conservatives (of the neo-con persuasion) love Rand, and liberals detest her. But the real problems with Rand's pseudo-philosophies, the crux of her inadequacy goes beyond the political and into the logical, or, perhaps more aptly, lack thereof.
Mary wrote: "The main greed I saw in Atlas Shrugged was the government as they gained control of all aspects of your life - not the corporate wealthy. Funny how individuals all see different things."So true! Makes you wonder if those people actually READ the whole book. After reading several of these posts over a few months, I think they have not.
Kenneth wrote: "Sweta, you represent the kind of person who reads it as a motivational book. Others read it as a political-pseudo-philosophical platform and try to use it to rationalize their anti-social behavio..."
I read Atlas Shrugged as a novel, which it is, and not for motivational purposes, nor as a political-pseudo-philosophical platform to rationalize any anti-social behavior...since, as a former professional singer, current alternative healing therapist and author (UNBOWED-A Novel), I'm far from anti-social.
I found the book completely engaging. Great story with courageous ideas put forth. Rand champions the individual who has the gift of independent thought. (read ANTHEM) She also champions the artists, thinkers, captains of industry and the inventors of the world--which bureaucrats tend to criticize or feed off of-- and CREATED a wonderful story to express her passion & ideas. My only critique of her is that she was a little too much of an idealist when it came to businessmen and couldn't address the 'Free Rider', or selfish, irresponsible practices of some businesses.(check out her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal).
Ayn Rand had many followers. She and her husband always had people around them. An entourage of sorts. Check out the documentaries about her, if interested.
Lestine wrote: "Mary wrote: "The main greed I saw in Atlas Shrugged was the government as they gained control of all aspects of your life - not the corporate wealthy. Funny how individuals all see different thing..."Show me how you differentiate the government from multinational corporations in the modern world. If you can present a unilateral difference that illustrates one as magnanimous and the other as malicious, I'll grant your case. But you cannot.
I read it much earlier in my life and thought it was interesting. I re read it in 2010 and found it profound because it pretty much describes the state of mind of our present times/people/government. Idealists thinks making things equal will make it wonderful, they are sadly mistaken - it never works
Anne, some idealists believe as Rand does that saying "you're all free to succeed on your own merits!" makes things wonderful, but they are just as mistaken as the socialists.
This book made me sick. The best remedy I found was Booth Tarkington's "The Magnificent Ambersons," which points out that eventually, these self-made, selfish scumbags fail, and if they've stepped on too many people, crushed too many souls, nobody will be there to help them when they need it. Eventually, the tide turns against the recklessly greedy and they get the scorn they so richly deserve.
I loved reading of this book. It empathizes the human virtue of thinking. I believe myself as a productive guy. I make my fortunes by myself. I strictly oppose the concept "Let others do your work and while you take the credit".
As an individual I am fully responsible for my happiness. I must avoid moochers and looters in my path of achievement.
I was impressed by all the thought provoking diologues. I learned different things from different characters in this book.Be it a Dagny or Rearden or Francisco each characters bring out the reality. Every character has a different virtues.
I feel proud of reading the magnum opus of Ayn Rand. I follow her objectivism.
You mean, you're selfish and like that this book allows you a convenient defense of it?
The classic attack of the indoctrinated followers is that socialism is evil. They fail to consider that no one person, regardless of their personal merits, could accomplish the status of living achievable today, on their own. We are a society of individuals. To bend one's dogma severely toward one end or the other is to ignore and malign the very forces that created your environment. Yes, blind Leninist communism is bad. Yes, blind Rand dogma is just as bad. We must work together to achieve greatness, and while each may have something to offer independent of others, we must need rely on others to fill in our own shortcomings and our own needs. I could be an engineer, and not a doctor. A society requires social interaction, and social consciousness, to work. The root of the word is fundamentally tied to this concept.
I am currently reading Capital in the 21st Century by Piketty. I highly recommend it to the Ayn Rand Acolytes. It's only 50% as long and about 2000% more cogent.
Just a short excerpt of my discussion with Ken (a writer) in another 'Atlas Shrugged' thread, that came to my mind after reading what Maideen wrote. It was abot, which system is better:Ken:I can't say 100% what the answer is either, but I know without a doubt that it isn't Socialist Capitalism, or anything involving a big impersonal government that diminishes the value of the individual.
Me: ...all these Africans that mine tantalite and cassiterite for your iPhone. What about the value of these individuals? (Cheap shot, I know)
Ken:I assume African and all other races of miners are paid for the work they do. If they're mining material for the iPhone, then they have jobs because of the iPhone. If not, they should stop doing it and find something else.
Giansar wrote: "Just a short excerpt of my discussion with Ken (a writer) in another 'Atlas Shrugged' thread, that came to my mind after reading what Maideen wrote. It was abot, which system is better:Ken:I can't..."
wow, spoken like a true randian, sad. do you think slaves ought to quit working for free?
Anthony, I detect sarcasm in the above post. Don't go on the attack just yet! ; )It's a good example. The importance of individual freedom is not to be dismissed. But, we are, as I said, unquestionably part of a whole. The doctor or the engineer in my example could not do each others' job with the same proficiency. The Rand-nuts will say "of course! You should do the best you can at what you're good at and rise on your own merits!" Great. But when you are sick, you need to rely on that doctor. And when you are on the wrong side of the river, you rely on that engineer to build you a bridge. And they each have a team of people they work with, all good at something, all trying to improve their lives. It is cooperation that ties the whole thing together. That's what society is. Rand would be infuriated but would have to concede that. Individualism is nice. Objectivism is a farce. And idealistic pseudo-philosophies collapse when applied to real social conditions.
Those who point to her writing as a source of inspiration either missed the point and got a motivational speech out of it, or are using it as panacea to alleviate their moral guilt over being exploitive assholes to other people. Those others, they would say, should do as they have done and succeed on their own merits. Stop being a moocher. That's easy to say when your starting place in the "race" is from a wealthy, educated, Caucasian, American family. When you're a desperately poor black South African miner, or a Chinese digger through American refuse dumps searching for any heavy metals you can sell for a meal, your starting point is [b]not[/b] the same. The man or woman who points at them and says "you stop being lazy and achieve like I have" is morally exploitive and uses Rand's trashy novel to prop themselves up.
It's not philosophy. It's a poor excuse and a meager, ratty shield held up by the greedy, and misunderstood (to dazzling, laughable merriment by those greedy ones) by those in poor social standing as a means to find inspiration to drive themselves higher. They are unaware that the source of their inspiration is the very hand holding them down on the social ladder.
Still others realize the problems and scoff at the mere consideration that this dogma could be shelved as science. Some of these are socialists. Some of them have their own demons and their own failures of understanding, their own idealistic myopia. And some are none of these things, but attempt to correct and raise up their fellow would-be intellectuals, to bring them away from such vacuous writing lest their talents, in true Rand fashion, go to waste following the dead end paths.
Who is John Gault?(Sorry, had to put that in there).
I hated this book and sorely regret the time wasted that I spent on it.
Its great it caused such a reaction, interesting comments and varied.
Janice wrote: "I was amazed of how much this book reflects our current state of affairs and that Ayn Rand was a bit of a prophet as well."I could not agree more. When I first read this (several years ago), it was possibly the most influential book I had ever read. I was not a capitalist, but I was also not completely set on socialism. After reading this book, I thought, there's no way that anybody could be anything other than a capitalist!
Alas, I have grown since then and the influence of Ayn Rand is decreased, so I can come back to my own opinion of affairs. I still tend to lean toward capitalism, thanks in large part to this book. However, I am less happy now at the portrayal of socialism in this book. They make it appear as if everyone who wishes to help the poor and needy is just a really bad person. Which is definitely not the case. There is such a dichotomy presented in this book that is just ridiculous. This influenced my young mind a great deal, but now as I get older, I see that it is not always so black and white as Rand would have us believe.
soundbytes are so effective at getting to the truth. except, not.
Janice wrote: "I was amazed of how much this book reflects our current state of affairs and that Ayn Rand was a bit of a prophet as well."Took the words right out of my mouth. Frightening prophecy.
Geesus' H Budha! Ayn Rand. Prophet.Das Fuhrerprinzep for greedy pricks epitomized. Frightening.
It terrified me, because I could see it coming true in today's world as I read it.Also, I learned to enjoy the abhorrence it provokes in some people who (IMHO) take the novel way too seriously.
Kevin wrote: "It terrified me, because I could see it coming true in today's world as I read it.Also, I learned to enjoy the abhorrence it provokes in some people who (IMHO) take the novel way too seriously."
Since you enjoy others abhorrence of the "novel"..., I wonder what part of the fictional narrative terrifies you. What, exactly, do you take "seriously" that causes your fear? I think it's obvious. IMHO. :}
Bad book. In the final chapters the plot becomes,well what can one say except poor. Over the years this book was alluded to as some great work of philosophy. It is not. A straw man is more like it.
Liz wrote: "Janice wrote: "I was amazed of how much this book reflects our current state of affairs and that Ayn Rand was a bit of a prophet as well."I could not agree more. When I first read this (several y..."
I don't think the book says anywhere that people that want to help other people are bad persons. I even remember a passage where charity was considered a neutral affair, subject to personal choices. However, it does say that no one should tie himself to others while helping. Kind of reminds me of the quote of teaching a man to fish versus giving a man a fish.
I am very happy to have read this book. Some things in my surroundings I considered awkward can now be put into words without stutter.
Nicolaas wrote: "I don't think the book says anywhere that people that want to help other people are bad persons."It says precisely that.
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
This statement is not only abhorrent but is contrary to one of the basic traits of human social psychology, which is reciprocity. How hateful and miserable one must be to accept such statement as one's life motto?
Originally published by William Thomas on The Atlas Society website (http://www.atlassociety.org/atlas-shr... )."Many people still think Ayn Rand advocated a take-what-you-want-and-damn-everyone-else kind of selfishness.
For example, Chicago Tribune movie critic Michael Phillips shared this impression on April 14, 2011 while reviewing Atlas Shrugged Part 1:
"Rand's pet theory [is] known as Objectivism, which can be described as "Us? There is no 'us'!" In Rand's worldview it's me-time, all the time.... [T]here's nothing to do but ... start anew, in a civilization run by the mysterious John Galt, who respects the rapacious dog-eat-dog nature of humankind."
National film critic Roger Ebert seems to be making the same point in his own April 14 review of the Atlas Shrugged Part 1 movie: “For me, [Ayn Rand’s] philosophy reduces itself to: ‘I’m on board; pull up the lifeline.’”
Even some fans take Ayn Rand to task on this issue:
"[T]here is much to admire about Ayn Rand, her devotion to freedom of the individual. But that freedom comes at the cost of devotion to survival of the fittest."
In fact, the Objectivist ethics is a form of rational egoism, in which seeking happiness and dealing with others by trade are key principles. It sees positive relations with other people as an important component of a flourishing life. It isn’t an ethic of survival of the fittest or live-and-let-die. It’s an ethic of live-and-let-live.
Ayn Rand stated this point clear as day, in all-capital-letters, in the strikers’ oath in Atlas Shrugged:
I SWEAR BY MY LIFE AND MY LOVE OF IT THAT I WILL NEVER LIVE FOR THE SAKE OF ANOTHER MAN, NOR ASK ANOTHER MAN TO LIVE FOR MINE. (Atlas Shrugged, Part III, Chapter 1, “Atlantis,” p. 675)
No Conflicts of Interest
Ayn Rand explained what this meant in a speech after Atlas Shrugged was published:
"The Objectivist ethics holds the human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value. (“The Objectivist Ethics” in The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 31 paperback)
If the idea of a harmony of interests among rationally selfish people strikes you as implausible, just ask yourself: whom do I need to kill or make suffer in order that I can live and be happy? As long as overweening government doesn’t put neighbors at each others’ throats, as long as we are free to deal with each other based on our own interests, productive abilities, and judgment, no one needs to kill anyone in order to live.
In fact, we benefit when others flourish. America got rich, and England enjoyed Boeing airplanes and the ideas of jazz and rock’n’roll. It’s win-win, not win-lose. Because of this, a free society is not a cruel scene of conquerors and conquered. Instead, free-market capitalism and free expression allow people to flourish and cooperate. Freedom encourages independence and responsibility, too, because it respects the fact the we are each individuals. A community that ignores this fact will tend, not to liberate its people to live, but to enslave them to serve the leaders.
Altruism: A Self-Sacrificial Suicide Pact
Still, many moral philosophers— most,in fact—think that egoism is no ethics at all. That’s because they define ethics as a body of principles for dealing with others. (By contrast, the ancient Greeks viewed ethics as an overall guide to life.) In other words, many of today's ethicists equate ethics with altruism. Many think that acting for one’s self-interest may sometimes be necessary, but it just isn’t “moral.” With these blinders on, these philosophers have trouble seeing Rand’s view for what it is.
Altruism and self-sacrifice are still the standard of ethics in the minds of much of the general public. For evidence, just read the letters column of any big city newspaper, attend a meeting of boy or girl-scouts, or listen to most religious preachers. Many people think this because they see self-interested behavior as short-sighted, unfeeling, and destructive. Their model of rational selfishness is a sociopath.
Living by rational self-interest doesn’t mean pretending other people don’t exist. Other people can be a tremendous source of all sorts of values, from the most commercial to the most personal. We benefit greatly from having true friends and finding someone whom we can really love. But as Ayn Rand pointed out in The Fountainhead, “To say ‘I love you,’ one must first know how to say the ‘I.’” Altruism preaches self-sacrifice, but that is just what will destroy any healthy human relationship. Friendship and love flourish when they actually benefit the parties involved. The alternative is just vampirism.
In practice, most people in America understand what’s wrong with out-and-out self-sacrifice. Most try to seek happiness and take care of themselves. It is rare these days, for example, to hear that one ought to just suck it up and stay in that unhappy marriage for the sake of duty or the family. This healthy appreciation for individual happiness is not far from the Objectivist view—and it shouldn’t be, if Objectivism outlines true principles behind successful living and flourishing. The facts of human nature will continue to challenge the conventional view of ethics and egoism. Self-sacrifice ends in pain and death. It is rational selfishness that leads to health, happiness, love, and trust."
---------------------
Walter here. I don't think Rand's rational egoism is sufficient to address the question of "Who benefits?" I think morality involves both intrapersonal (within-the-person) and interpersonal principles. (Paul Kurtz makes this distinction in his ethics of humanism.) So the answer to "Who benefits?" depends on the situation. But That's a question for another day.
My point in posting the above quote is to show that Rand's ethical philosophy does not endorse an anti-social or sociopathic view of morality. A psychopath views people instrumentally; that is, as a means to an end. In contrast, Rand's ethics argues for a view of people as ends in themselves.
P.S. For those interested, I created a group to discuss Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism in a critical, yet respectful way. Discussion is not limited to what Rand wrote. In addition to your own thinking, feel free to introduce any Objectivist critiques, Objectivist scholarship, or any libertarian thought. (link below)
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
"The Objectivist ethics holds the human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."I think I will be repeating myself here but statements like the one above only prove how utterly ignorant Ayn Rand was of even basics of human psychology.
I would really like to ask Ayn Rand how am I suppose to raise my children without making sacrifices, without living for the sake of them? How am I to build relations with my family, fiends even acquaintances solely on a value for value basis? People are selfish in everything they do. Talking about altruism and self-sacrifice is utter rubbish because actions of an altruist are just as selfish as any Ayn Rand's rationally selfish robot's.
We are perfectly selfish in all we do but we are not rational therefore talking about rational self-interest like it is something that belongs in the real world is just misguided.
Taught me that it is OK to ridicule something, for example it is perfectly OK to ridicule this joke of a book, a pointless rant disguised as a philosophy.
Aristotle originally put forward the same-or similar-ethical, moral, and metaphysical ideas.., yet recognized that philosophy, economics, and politics had to deal with a very real human society. Rand's version relies on her "convictions" (what many would call "faith") that reality will conform to her ethical/moral/ virtue declarations. If everyone would just agree, that is. And know and accept their place in the "Social Order".Rand's rigidity, I think, compared to Aristotle's understanding of human nature..., is what makes it possible for "her" philosophy to be turned into a political pseudo-religion by those whose agenda requires one to bamboozle their "base".
E.D., you wrote:"Rand's version relies on her "convictions" (what many would call "faith") that reality will conform to her ethical/moral/ virtue declarations. If everyone would just agree, that is. And know and accept their place in the "Social Order"."
This is incorrect. Rand's version of moral values relies on facts. She may not have gotten the facts or conclusions right, but her epistemology for deriving those values, namely, evidence-based reasoning, trumps her conclusions. In other words, Rand could have very well been wrong about what values, or the hierarchical order of these values, in promoting our survival, flourishing and social harmony. Nonetheless, the epistemology of Objectivism allows for Rand's own conclusions to be wrong.
For what it's worth, there has been theoretical work being done in this area of Objectivism. In Nathaniel Branden's Six Pillars of Self-Esteem and Honoring the Self, he ties in the psychology of self-esteem to practicing virtues. David Kelley makes an Objectivist argument for benevolence--and its component virtues of civility, sensitivity, generosity, and tolerance--, as a primary value within the Objectivist hierarchy in Unrugged Individualism The Selfish Basis of Benevolence. There is other literature, but these are the works with which I am most familiar.
The people who turn Rand's philosophy into a closed or dogmatic system are indicative of these particular people's psychology, not the philosophy itself. The very epistemology of Objectivism is radically opposed to dogmatism. It's essentially the scientific method, which necessitates skepticism, thinking critically, and testing one's beliefs against reality. In short: rationality.
Walter,I see your point. I should have said "Rand's conclusions rely" rather than "Rand's version relies" to connect wholly with my point regarding Aristotle's rationality and conclusions. This would better reflect my intent.
Of course, we can still argue over Rand's conclusions. "Duh". :}
I agree that, much like fundamentalist biblical-benders, there are those who bend AS to their agendas. I still posit that Rand's rigid conclusions.., much like "The Word of God", make this possible--if not probable. The enemies of rationality are big on co-option.
Giansar, why do you assume that taking care of your children is sacrifice? It was in your self-interest to have children, was it not? Only if you regard it as sacrifice, it becomes just that. Not to live for the sake of others means not to act and plan without some personal gain. A narrow mind would fit this onto human relations, whilst the best of them consist of trading value for value.
Nicolaas wrote: "Not to live for the sake of others means not to act and plan without some personal gain."Well, if you want to get down to it, everything you do, barring some instinctive reflexes, is solely for your personal gain. It doesn't matter whether you decide to spend your yearly income on a luxury cruise or feeding starving children in Africa. Both actions will be equally selfish on your part. That is exactly why inventing some kind of spectrum with self-sacrifice and altruism on one end and rational selfishness on the other is pointless.
We are selfish. Period. We are not rational (which doesn't mean we are incapable of acting rationally or occasion). Period.
Reading this book left me with nothing but contempt for the author as a fiction writer. On a positive note, it's such a morbidly obese book that it makes a decent weapon.
This book really opened my eyes to a lot of the things that have happened to our society and I felt that the Government in America can be pretty sketchy at times. I personally feel in this book, if we were to make some symbolic connections, Jim represents the Government and Cherryl could represent the Public because of how naive the majority of citizens in America are about the ways of the Government. Once people start learning the truth behind the Government's actions, the People who work in the Government tend to do anything it takes to keep their actions silent and under radar to the public's eyes. This is what scared me the most in Atlas Shrugged, personally.
Kevin wrote: "Reading this book left me with nothing but contempt for the author as a fiction writer. On a positive note, it's such a morbidly obese book that it makes a decent weapon."I couldn't agree more Kevin. Adolescents read it with the idea that they have achieved some kind of catharsis. Unfortunately, many of them grow old without realizing that Rand was a self-serving hypocrite and a fraud in addition to being a terrible writer.
Got me thinking down avenues I might not have otherwise, and probably helped me survive my NPD mother and younger sister. I first read it when I was thirteen.
I am amazed at the crudity of some comments. Surely educated adults have a larger vocabulary than "pissed, horse shit, etc. This book was intended to be controversial, and it surely is. In todays world few would be interested in her concepts.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Six Pillars of Self-Esteem (other topics)
Honoring the Self: Self-Esteem and Personal Transformation (other topics)
The 10000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (other topics)
The 10000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence (other topics)Six Pillars of Self-Esteem (other topics)
Honoring the Self: Self-Esteem and Personal Transformation (other topics)
The 10000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (other topics)
The 10000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (other topics)
More...
