Chicks On Lit discussion
Archive 08-19 GR Discussions
>
Atlas Shrugged *chunky read*

I don't see the world as black or white, right or wrong, left or right, democrat or republican. I am definately more a "middle ground" person, wh..."
I didn't mean to come off black or white, right or wrong. I guess I took this line and ran with it: "who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility"
I am tolerant of other views that don't agree with mine. I think by taking stand and voicing opinion allows for a dialog to begin and this is where progress is made. When people don't simply care to educate themselves about what is going on around them - that is where they become harmful, not neutral like they are intending.
When people don't care, either by lack of education, lack of heart and empathy towards those who are being affected - or whatever reason...I think this is when people like Hitler (as an example) make their appearance on the stage and do irreparable damage.
Just as people who won't take the time to learn and get involved hurt the world, so do people that are intolerant of other opinions.

The part of her philosophy I have problems with, is her attitude about not living your life for anyone but yourself. I don't believe in absolutes there. For many people that is interpreted as not taking care of others. I personally believe we DO have a level of responsibility to those that are unable to function. In reality we can't abandon or escape that element of our society. The complaints against welfare arise because we can't separate those that truly need help, i.e. the mentally ill, the disabled, the PTSD, whatever - from those that are taking advantage of the system. We have fixed rules and guidelines. You are bound to have those mooders. Too bad we couldn't determine welfare and immigration and all those social issues on a case by case basis, although I don't think it would be any more fair. In my ideal world, one could judge recipients according to true need, who is deserving, who has good intentions. IF ONLY that were realistic. We are capable of mistakes in judgment because of that human element. So we are forced to have gualifications that, although attempting fairness, still allow in those scammers as well. On the other hand I don't think you can generalize, stereotype and thus deny everyone services because of those who are lying and cheating the system.
I would imagine Rand doesn't support welfare or social charity, although I don't think she is AS hard core as her writing is interpreted. I think what she has hinted at in some of the videos I have watched, is getting away from governmental involvement. Our previous administration would suggest we could more fairly distribute charity when it is privatized and locally controlled - that allows for a more case by case identification.
There are pros and cons to privatized and regionalized charity/ One historical example comes to mind - the immigration of the Hmongs from the northern mountains of Laos at the end of the war. They were promised protection by the Americans for their support against No. Vietnam. Our government tried to forget about it, but was forced to make good on their promise. Having grown up in the Twin Cities, I know that as a culture they follow their "clan" leader. Many of them came to Minnesota and Wisconsin, not only because the leadership moved there, but because MN and WI have always been known for generous, easily accessible welfare money and churches who supported war refugees back in the 70's and 80's. We've seen some of same with various African refugee groups. They immigrate to certain parts of the US not only to take advantages of staying together as a community, but also because of economic support is better in certain regions. So then what is fair when an area provides more assistance than others? Is that fair from the standpoint of the care-takers or the recipients?? Does a national policy on either mental health, homeless or refugee care make anything more equitable for both the giver and the reciever?
And honestly, from a Christian standpoint, I would of course tend to disagree. And I am one of those personalities that sees both sides of issues and believe in a grey zone, that life is not black and white, in the box.
SORRY I'm on a ramble... probably not making any sense - I quit!!

What I worry about is all those people who are convinced they have all the info and are radically dug in to their opinion, never to contemplate the other perspectives...????? PLUS - most of our education sources are so media based or partisan sourrces that I don't trust anything anymore.

Hi Nancy :)
Re: "I worry about is all those people who are convinced they have all the info and are radically dug in to their opinion, never to contemplate the other perspectives"
I might be totally wrong, but I feel like we will see progress if dialog is established and then majority rules. In theory, I think this will rule out the radicals, but it this only works toward the betterment of the people if the people actually participate. However, if the discussion never gets started government is allowed is make decisions for us with their own agenda in mind which might not line up with what the people want.
Through my rant, lol, I guess what I was trying to say is that through activism we can make great changes. By doing nothing and allowing others to chose your fate, that person is not being neutral like they are intending, I think they are hurting the common good of the people.

Emily wrote: "For me, the "middle ground" represents people that don't really do anything. In this democracy, we need people to inform themselves responsibly (not just by listening to pundits and paraphernalia)..."
Interesting Emily. But what if the "middle ground" represents people who look at all the facts on both sides of an issue, and say to both sides "I can see valid points in your arguement, let's work off of that, come to a compromise, and meet in the middle."?
That is how I see myself as being "middle ground". Like Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?":o)
I think that is why I thought "what the heck" on the two quotes I posted from the book. One says directly "the middle is always evil" and the other says "the man who declares there are no absolutes...is the man responsible for all the blood now spilled in the world."
I picture "the blood now spilled in the world" as wars and violence, actual blood spilling, and wonder how trying to be middle ground causes this? I see wars and violence as being caused by two opposite views fighting with each other to decide who is right.
Am I totally out of it with my thoughts? :o)
Interesting Emily. But what if the "middle ground" represents people who look at all the facts on both sides of an issue, and say to both sides "I can see valid points in your arguement, let's work off of that, come to a compromise, and meet in the middle."?
That is how I see myself as being "middle ground". Like Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?":o)
I think that is why I thought "what the heck" on the two quotes I posted from the book. One says directly "the middle is always evil" and the other says "the man who declares there are no absolutes...is the man responsible for all the blood now spilled in the world."
I picture "the blood now spilled in the world" as wars and violence, actual blood spilling, and wonder how trying to be middle ground causes this? I see wars and violence as being caused by two opposite views fighting with each other to decide who is right.
Am I totally out of it with my thoughts? :o)
Maybe part of my problem is that I just don't understand Ayn Rand's Objectivism Philosophy. In my opinion, her views (as represented in "the speech") are just all over the place.
Honestly, the speech was so long and boring that I may have missed certain key points. But I do recall reading statements that Galt made that seemed to contradict other things Galt said.
And Objectivism doesn't seem to be a huge part of politics today. Was this just a fad of her time? Has anyone studied more of her philosophy?
Another interesting thing is that while this book is not doing it at all for me, I remember reading her book Anthem in high school (20+ years ago) and I remember really enjoying it. I may have to go back and reread Anthem, since I don't remember all the details of that book, and see how I feel about it now. :o)
Honestly, the speech was so long and boring that I may have missed certain key points. But I do recall reading statements that Galt made that seemed to contradict other things Galt said.
And Objectivism doesn't seem to be a huge part of politics today. Was this just a fad of her time? Has anyone studied more of her philosophy?
Another interesting thing is that while this book is not doing it at all for me, I remember reading her book Anthem in high school (20+ years ago) and I remember really enjoying it. I may have to go back and reread Anthem, since I don't remember all the details of that book, and see how I feel about it now. :o)






I love this discussion!

I'm not sure I'm going to pose this thought or question clearly, but I'll put it out there anyway. Atlas Shrugged to me was obviously about communism versus capitalism, individual rights versus the good of the society. Her characters were one extreme or the other - no middle ground there either. So they seemed to be either the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys' - truth or lies. I would have the impression that Rand herself was also SO entrenched in her own philosophy that she didn't have much time for opposing opinions. I doubt there would have been compromise with her regarding her objectivist philosophy. In several of those youtube things I watched, the implication to me was that you were plain stupid if you don't believe in the rational individual rights. Also plain stupid for having faith in a higher power - that wasn't rational. I really wonder if she had lived into this era what her views would be - if she would have mellowed at all? I doubt she would have mellowed on religion, but politically I wonder where she would have been.
Talk about sociology of change - whole other subject in some ways, but interesting to look historically at where the Republican versus Democratic party philosophies have gone in cycles of who was actually considered to be liberals versus the conservative party and on what issues. That hasn't been historically stable either!

They way I see it, she LIVED in the opposing world of capitalism, which was communist Russia, so anything that others would said, in theory, since they had not lived it and to whom it was then a philosophy of living, had little meaning for her. And I don't think she would had mellow today....
I also believe that middle ground for her meant not making decisions.

I'm done! I finished it! Hallelujah! I made it! Thank you to Meg and the Chunky Read's for helping me get through this monster! :o)

I am so grateful to all of you. This was my first chunky. I am so pleased to have gotten through it, genuinely glad to say it has been conquered. It was very very good in lots of ways. So now I'll apologize - I probably drove everybody nuts with my repetitious, not always on the subject rambling. Thanks for not ragging on me and putting up with it! This was such a tough book. Remind me next time I volunteer to do a chunky I should pick something less intellectual and/or controversial - or use some duct tape on the mouth and just lurk.

After that will be Fall of Giants.
I've read both GWTW and Moby Dick already, and don't think I will be doing a re-read on either. Moby Dick was a rough one for me to get through too!
So I will be getting a break from the chunky reads reading schedule, but I will be following the discussion on both books to see what everyone thinks of them. :o)
And CONGRATULATIONS and a big round of applause (CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP) to everyone who made it through Atlas Shrugged! :o)
So I will be getting a break from the chunky reads reading schedule, but I will be following the discussion on both books to see what everyone thinks of them. :o)
And CONGRATULATIONS and a big round of applause (CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP) to everyone who made it through Atlas Shrugged! :o)

I'm also really excited to see that I wasn't the only one quite overwhelmed by her style. The long speech, I have to admit, I didn't finish. There wasn't a better way she could get her points across? They were all previously stated in the novel many times. Did she really have to "put it all out there" like that?
Honestly, the only thing that really kept me reading was to see what happened with romance. I wanted to know if they ended up together. Can two people with such strong drives and work ethic end up happy together?
And I'm with Nancy on the middle ground issue. There really was not middle ground in the book. It was almost as if Rand had no time for people who could see the good in both. Or at least no positive opinion of them. *lol*


After you have read it Nancy, please do share if you learn anything new or interesting about Ayn. :o)


Does anyone else find this very strange? Her entire belief system is about being selfish but yet they are going to send me a free book that I did not "earn."
This is an odd situation. :)




But anyway, I would never complain about a free book. I'm kind of looking forward to getting it in the mail.


I watched the trailer on YouTube, and it actually looks like they did a good job of translating it to the big screen.


I missed it too. I don't know how I missed the memo. Maybe next time.


About a month ago there was an article in USA Today about Jesus and Atlas Shrugged. I wish I saved the article, it was pretty interesting. If I find it I will post it.

Books mentioned in this topic
A Dog's Purpose (other topics)The Art of Racing in the Rain (other topics)
A Dog's Purpose (other topics)
The Art of Racing in the Rain (other topics)
A Dog's Purpose (other topics)
More...
I don't see the world as black or white, right or wrong, left or right, democrat or republican. I am definately more a "middle ground" person, who can see the points on both sides of issues.
On any political or religious issue today I can see points on both sides. And I think the people who are so adamantly sure that only their side is right, only their view is correct, only their answer is the best, are the ones who cause the blood to be spilled in the world.
And it is not that I don't make decisions, or take the time to study and learn about issues so I can form opinions or judgements. I think in fact the more I study and read about and learn about any issue, the more I see there are no absolutes.