Problems with Atlas Shrugged??

[Whomp]

So it seems this book is universally reviled, but I'm not exactly sure why.

I'll admit, I actually had to look up "fascist" in the dictionary last night. (Feeling stupid)
I fail to see how the label applies at all.

She's a bit heavy handed and overstates things to make a point, but is hardly the only author ever to have done so.
I found alot of food for thought in there, and was wondering why it's so poorly thought of.

Whomp!

[Bikewer]

I dunno.
I have heard Rand described as an "Objectivist", and read a bit on the subject when I was posting on an objectivist BBS that since went defunct.
Seemed to me that as a Humanist, I could find little to complain about with Objectivist philosophy. They were a bit heavy-handed on the Personal Responsibility, as I recall, but otherwise I found nothing frightening.

[AmateurScientist]

I don't know that it's universally reviled. I think a lot of modern Rand bashing results from her unequivocal condemnation of altruism. I suspect most modern bleeding heart liberals find such a stance cold, heartless, and cruel. It goes against the grain of their very reason for being political beings at all.

Frankly, I don't understand it.

I respect Rand very much.

AS

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think the reason her work is reviled is that it's an intellectually empty, mean spirited justification for exploiting others.

In the state of nature, humans cooperate and help each other out. That's what we do. We're a social species.

Rand starts from the assumption that it's natural to be a sociopath, and works from there. People who want to act like sociopaths love this stuff, because it helps overcome the cognitive dissonance. :rolleyes:

Basically her ideas about what is "natural" are made up out of whole cloth, with no reference to reality. It's a religion dressed up as philosophy.

[Checkmite]

I don't know about Atlas Shrugged, but I read Anthem and found it almost as difficult to follow as Burgess' A Clockwork Orange. Anthem (as far as I could tell) is about socialism run so horribly, ridiculously (and completely unconvincingly) rampant that first-person case words are illegal and everybody refers to themselves as "we". Everybody also has names like "Justice 4714" and "Liberty 7109". Utter tripe, I don't care what message it had or wanted to send. If Atlas Shrugged is anything like Anthem, you can keep it.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I don't know about Atlas Shrugged, but I read Anthem and found it almost as difficult to follow as Burgess' A Clockwork Orange. Anthem (as far as I could tell) is about socialism run so horribly, ridiculously (and completely unconvincingly) rampant that first-person case words are illegal and everybody refers to themselves as "we". Everybody also has names like "Justice 4714" and "Liberty 7109". Utter tripe, I don't care what message it had or wanted to send. If Atlas Shrugged is anything like Anthem, you can keep it.

Anthem is about a society in which the self has been totally subjugated to the state, to the point where no one has names beyond impersonal numbers. No music or art exists, and creative thought is prohibited, except for the elite and secretive leaders.

The theme is that the celebration, reverence for, and protection of self and the individual is the most important virtue in any free society. It is absolutely essential.

It's not anti-socialism as much as it is anti-statism of any kind. The individual is superior to the state. That's Randism in a nutshell. It's not a surprising message to come from a young intellectual Jewish women who grew up in repressive Soviet Russia.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
I think the reason her work is reviled is that it's an intellectually empty, mean spirited justification for exploiting others.

In the state of nature, humans cooperate and help each other out. That's what we do. We're a social species.

Rand starts from the assumption that it's natural to be a sociopath, and works from there. People who want to act like sociopaths love this stuff, because it helps overcome the cognitive dissonance. :rolleyes:

Basically her ideas about what is "natural" are made up out of whole cloth, with no reference to reality. It's a religion dressed up as philosophy.

You must hate Adam Smith as well.

AS

[reprise]

I didn't absolutely hate Atlas Shrugged, but nor did the work make any compelling argument in support of the objectivist philosophy.

I can't help thinking that the protagonists of Atlas Shrugged are precisely the kind of people who would label themselves as "brights"...

[JesFine]

I tried to read that book when I was in college. Made it to about page 10 before I put it down forever. To this day that is the only book I have ever decided not to finish. My dislike has nothing to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy, but with her ability as an author (and maybe a little bit with the way she spells her name). In fact, I didn't know until fairly recently that she had a philosophy.

It was probably ten years ago when I tried to read it, so the details are fuzzy, but the thing that I remember most was that the symbolism was just awful. Awful in that it was too obvious for my taste. It reminded me of Pilgrim's Progress, but at least that was written in like 1600 so I am assuming symbolism was a new thing. She should be better at it.

Maybe I'd like it if I tried it again now, but those memories of dislike are pretty strong. Somebody would probably have to pay me.

[arcticpenguin]

Why look beyond the obvious? Atlas shrugged is boring.

I personally prefer my works of fiction not be interrupted by socio-political posturing for dozens of pages at a time.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

You must hate Adam Smith as well.

AS

Adam Smith was a man of his times, I suppose, and he gave it his best shot. Arguably it's not his fault his work was seized on by the kind of sociopaths I mentioned earlier.

I'll put my hand up to kind of hating anyone who thinks Adam Smith is relevant any more, though.

It's not exactly news that people don't make rational buying decisions. Not all people have the same preferences. People's preferences change with their income. Sellers influence demand. There are barriers to entry in every industry.

These facts are indisputable and (awkwardly for economists) the fact that they are true means that classical economics is pure bunkum. This probably explains why classical economics has the predictive power of astrology.

[Whomp]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
I think the reason her work is reviled is that it's an intellectually empty, mean spirited justification for exploiting others.

In the state of nature, humans cooperate and help each other out. That's what we do. We're a social species.

Rand starts from the assumption that it's natural to be a sociopath, and works from there. People who want to act like sociopaths love this stuff, because it helps overcome the cognitive dissonance. :rolleyes:

Basically her ideas about what is "natural" are made up out of whole cloth, with no reference to reality. It's a religion dressed up as philosophy.
I think I've gotta cry bulls**t on that one.
Rand's stance was that altruism should not be something that is forced. There was nothing there saying altuistic acts were wrong, but rather they should not be "expected" by society.
A "Love Offering" that is mandatory becomes a fee or tax, and should be called such.
Rand's charactors weren't even close to being sociopaths.They simply felt that they had the right to make choices. They felt that other people's unfortunate circumstances should not obligate them to help.
How, exactly, is that exploitation?

Ugh. Need ... more ... coffee...

Whomp!

[DrMatt]

I once tried to read some Ayn Rand. *yawn*

[Supercharts]

See the movie (maybe)

http://www.ios.org/articles/annc_atlas-shrugged-film.asp

[uneasy]

I actually liked Atlas Shrugged. I knew nothing about it or Rand before reading it. I heard of the name before, so I bought it used and gave it a try. I disagreed with the viewpoints proposed, but I found it somehow compelling and interesting.

I did not read the whole 55 pages where the guy just gives a lecture on the radio. Very heavy handed and highly unrealistic. Did Rand think of how long it would take him to give that speech? Everyone would have been asleep or had to go to the bathroom before he got done.

The main flaw I see in the viewpoint she proposes in the book is that it assume capitalists will always deal fairly and honestly. Somehow being a capitalist makes them moral. When I read more about her, I found this was generally her point, that our tests of morality are worthless, and hers works just fine.

It defies history. When given free reign, capitalists will be as devious and underhanded as anyone else. Those idealistic capitalists in that hidden valley seem to assume that none of them would lie to each other just to make a profit. The idea that a capitalist might false advertise or use unethical bidding procedures, for example, doesn't seem to enter Rand's head. It's naive.

The historical evidence is abundant. See 17th century black tulip craze, 19th century USA railroads, 19th century Chicago, 1920s Florida real estate market, Enron, etc. etc. etc.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Supercharts
See the movie (maybe)

http://www.ios.org/articles/annc_atlas-shrugged-film.asp
This is not intended as a comment on Rand, Objectivism, but the the following quote from that website, describing the novel, is laughable.
She portrays the producers--including wealthy, successful industrialists--as moral heroes who are being exploited by a society of parasites.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Whomp
I think I've gotta cry bulls**t on that one.
Rand's stance was that altruism should not be something that is forced. There was nothing there saying altuistic acts were wrong, but rather they should not be "expected" by society.


My criticism was more of Rand's work as a whole than of AS in particular.

If you've characterised her thesis accurately, it seems a bit like saying that it shouldn't be mandatory to give presents at Christmas.


Rand's charactors weren't even close to being sociopaths.They simply felt that they had the right to make choices. They felt that other people's unfortunate circumstances should not obligate them to help.
How, exactly, is that exploitation?


In the general case, no person is an island. I only have the money I do because I am part of a society that makes it possible for me to earn that money, and I didn't do anything in particular to earn that privilege. Thus I don't see myself as having absolute property rights that transcend the obligation to give other people a helping hand.

Of course there's no helping some people. But in general, people are poor or needy because they are living in a society and/or an environment that makes people poor and needy.

If I didn't do anything morally relevant to earn my privileged position, and they didn't do anything morally relevant to earn their underprivileged position, I don't see why I should get to keep the goodies to myself. Unless some other compelling reason is in play, of course, and we could discuss all the possible reasons why inequality might be best for everyone in the long run forever.

But as a general kind of rule, property rights are necessary rules to keep the capitalist system working. Not absolute moral rules. Our society wouldn't work if we could pinch each other's money, or if we drove on whatever side of the road we pleased. But that doesn't mean that communal societies haven't worked, and the Yanks are living proof that you can drive on the wrong side of the road and it still works. :)

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
I think the reason her work is reviled is that it's an intellectually empty, mean spirited justification for exploiting others.

In the state of nature, humans cooperate and help each other out. That's what we do. We're a social species.



Yes but there is a fundamental difference between choosing to act cooperatively and being "social" and having "social"ism enforced by the state. You make the mistake of thinking objectivism advocates people exploiting each other to their own ends, but that simply is a misunderstanding. Objectivism takes forgranted that people will cooperate and take care of each other because that is their nature, as you allude too. And if that is the case, what is the good of inserting the state into that equation? The assumption is that we have noble, high minded leaders who will guide us into helping each other like they think we should. I believe people can make those choices for themselves.

There are all sorts of wonderful, private charities. There a private soup kitchens and charity organizations all over the place. On the one hand you say that people are naturally cooperative and then on the other you imply that we need a "big brother" to ensure that we take care of each other. I believe that most people are fundamentally decent and are inclined to want to care for each other, in fact I know this - adding the state to that adds nothing. In fact, the state and it accompanying beauracy is often a barrier to people doing the good things they would normally be inclined to do.

I simply do not understand the notion that we must be "governed" down to the smallest details of our lives. If people are not fit to govern themselves, how on earth could they be fit to govern other people - unless you believe our leaders uniquely noble and decent and morally elite. It has been my experience that it is the more corrupt who gravitate toward power.

[MoeFaux]

Atlas Shrugged changed my life.
It wasn't my first Rand book, my first was The Fountainhead.
I'd never read anything like it before. It was an incredible romance novel, but instead of the garbage that housewives read, it was full of real ideas. Her writing voiced ideas about things I had been wondering about for years. It was such relief and a pleasure to know that someone thought that way.
I waited 9 months to read Atlas Shrugged. I just wasn't emotionally ready to deal with the heavy ideas that I knew lay between the covers.
I think it took me about two weeks to read. Wow, I was so impressed.
I loved everything about it. The way the characters were so strong, and how they treated one another, and the idea to never stop.
After coming from a strong fundamentalist background, and wondering what was wrong with people, finding Rand was wonderful. Her writings gave me the strength I needed to form my own ideas about life, and who I am.

[uneasy]

MoeFaux, I agree with the romance angle in Atlas Shrugged. I liked Dagny a lot. :) I'll have to check out Fountainhead when I think I'm strong enough to have Rand beat me over the head with her ideas again.

But if you are saying you agreed with everything Rand proposes in Atlas Shrugged, sorry, I'll have to put you down the my "creepy" column. :) I disagreed with it, but still liked the romance and intrigue. I actually carried it around with me places because I wanted to finish it asap. To like and dislike something at the same time. I doublethunk it was a good book.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by uneasy
MoeFaux, I agree with the romance angle in Atlas Shrugged. I liked Dagny a lot. :) I'll have to check out Fountainhead when I think I'm strong enough to have Rand beat me over the head with her ideas again.

But if you are saying you agreed with everything Rand proposes in Atlas Shrugged, sorry, I'll have to put you down the my "creepy" column. :) I disagreed with it, but still liked the romance and intrigue. I actually carried it around with me places because I wanted to finish it asap. To like and dislike something at the same time. I doublethunk it was a good book.

I've admitted to being a whackjob. My ideas aren't too popular.
But, I don't mind if you don't agree, I have enough friends who do, and the only thing I'll really fight with others is woo-woo-ism.

The romance was wonderful. So we'll agree on that. :)

[uneasy]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I've admitted to being a whackjob. My ideas aren't too popular.
See, that would make you Dagny. And I claim to disagree with you, so that would make me Francisco. And you know what that means... ;)


couldn't resist :)

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by uneasy
See, that would make you Dagny. And I claim to disagree with you, so that would make me Francisco. And you know what that means... ;)


couldn't resist :)

Oh baby.
But, I'm looking for John.
Let's just remember the good times. :D

[uneasy]

Note to self.
If you ever get a woman like Dagny again, forget all plans about saving the world. Remove John Galt from rolodex. Do not return his calls.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by billydkid
Yes but there is a fundamental difference between choosing to act cooperatively and being "social" and having "social"ism enforced by the state.


Not really. Not if you were going to cooperate anyway. I'd wear a seat belt whether or not it was legally required, so the law makes no difference to me. It only affects people who wouldn't wear seat belts if they were left to their own devices.


You make the mistake of thinking objectivism advocates people exploiting each other to their own ends, but that simply is a misunderstanding. Objectivism takes forgranted that people will cooperate and take care of each other because that is their nature, as you allude too. And if that is the case, what is the good of inserting the state into that equation? The assumption is that we have noble, high minded leaders who will guide us into helping each other like they think we should. I believe people can make those choices for themselves.


I'm deeply suspicious of claims like yours above, for the reason I laid out earlier. Making social welfare optional only changes things for the people who want to opt out of contributing towards social welfare.


There are all sorts of wonderful, private charities. There a private soup kitchens and charity organizations all over the place. On the one hand you say that people are naturally cooperative and then on the other you imply that we need a "big brother" to ensure that we take care of each other.


Hmm. Spot the loaded words in that statement.

But yes. In societies bigger than an extended family or at most a small town, you need some kind of agreed-upon coercive system to get people to take care of each other. Because otherwise freeloading becomes too easy and attractive.


I believe that most people are fundamentally decent and are inclined to want to care for each other, in fact I know this - adding the state to that adds nothing.


You "know" this? :rolleyes: So you'll have no trouble naming a few societies with populations in the millions where everyone is taken care of without any kind of state agency involved?


I simply do not understand the notion that we must be "governed" down to the smallest details of our lives. If people are not fit to govern themselves, how on earth could they be fit to govern other people - unless you believe our leaders uniquely noble and decent and morally elite. It has been my experience that it is the more corrupt who gravitate toward power.

False dichotomy city.

Unless large-scale social welfare programs are both mandatory and enforced, they are very unlikely to work at all and a subset of the population is certain to freeload off the decent people.

I'm not saying that modern governments are not terribly inefficient - they are. But some kind of central agency, which might or might not resemble the modern bureaucracy, is necessary to make large societies work. Leaving it up to the free market, as it were, is a recipe for disaster and social fragmentation.

Until we genetically engineer morally perfect people, at least.

[epepke]

Apart from the fact that it is about three times as long as it should be, the fact that it beats a dead horse into its constituent molecules, the fact that you can guess who the Good and Bad characters are by looking at their names, the fact that it can be reduced to "big Alpha Male weenies are kewl," and the fact that it is badly written, there's also the complete lack of imagination.

I mean, come on! Railroads and typewriters and a magical entropy-reversing enging that John "Biggus Dickus" Galt can't think of an application for other than a better locomotive? In the 1950s? This stuff may have been good enough for Upton Sinclair, but there were these thingies called "years" that happened since then.

[Rosencrantz]

Some spoilers follow.

I read Atlas Shrugged twice -- I usually read a book twice when I want to really understand it because I tend to skim large parts, and I think I skimmed Atlas Shrugged more than usual -- and on reflection I decided Rand's political theory didn't hold up. I mean, I think a lot of Objectivism seems great, but in Atlas Shrugged I decided it would break down without two important things: unlimited resources and boundless human endurance.

You see, all the characters keep going and going and going, and when they finally break down it's not because of their own weaknesses, it's because the world has let them down. No one ever gets tired of their job or has a midlife crisis. They all do exciting high-profile jobs; no one works as a common laborer or salesman or whatever. Emotionally, Dagny can have a romantic relationship with every single eligible man in the story, and it's okay; they don't lose respect for each other or get jealous. I don't think human emotion can stretch to this point without breaking, and if one of the objectivists has a mental or physical breakdown, what happens to their community? Will others pick up the slack? And sometimes what might seem like a small issue in a tiny community can become dangerously divisive in a large nation. I remember thinking after reading the story that polygamy could easily occur in Galt's paradise. That's one of those issues that I think could lead to civil war in the right circumstances, and how does objectivism deal with that?

The other problem I have is with the unlimited resources. One of the premises of the story is that John Galt has developed an ever-replenishing power supply, and another character invents a better kind of steel that is cheaper and stronger and easier to manufacture, and they luckily find a secret valley with lots of iron and copper and everything else they need to prosper, protected by an impenetrable forcefield. In this setting, objectivism seems to work very well. But what if there were natives who disliked these pioneers using their land in this way, did not understand their ways, and who competed with them for food? Or rival powers with similar or even stronger military might to be convinced not to simply invade and take what they want? I don't think the political system could survive in that environment. Without unlimited resources and protection, the settlers do not have the luxury of enlightened self-interest. I think they must act as a community to prevent outside subversion and aggression.

I don't know a whole lot about Ayn Rand and the Objectivist movement, but the few scraps of information I've picked up on message boards and the like lead me to believe that this is what happened among her group of followers in the years after she wrote Atlas Shrugged. Didn't their community have troubles because of internal strife, brought about by tangled emotional relationships and failing resources? I'd appreciate it if someone with more knowledge of her later years would summarize what happened for me, because this impression I have could be pretty misleading.

[MoeFaux]

Rosencrantz,
You're observations are excellent. I liked you questioning and not criticizing.

You see, all the characters keep going and going and going, and when they finally break down it's not because of their own weaknesses, it's because the world has let them down. No one ever gets tired of their job or has a midlife crisis. They all do exciting high-profile jobs; no one works as a common laborer or salesman or whatever.

That was my favourite part about the book. That it showed strong people who never gave up. That's the type of person I want to be. And I'm lucky enough to know people like this, who just keep working no matter what. It's very admirable. And, in my opinion, very attractive.
Also, the last sentance isn't true - Galt worked all those years on the railroad. That's pretty much a common laborer, don't you think? He kept going and just built on that.
Dagny started off in the switch house as a teenager. That's common labor, too.
Rand showed common people doing common things turning into remarkable people doing remarkable things. I love that.

Emotionally, Dagny can have a romantic relationship with every single eligible man in the story, and it's okay; they don't lose respect for each other or get jealous. I don't think human emotion can stretch to this point without breaking, and if one of the objectivists has a mental or physical breakdown, what happens to their community?
I know people like this. I've loved someone who was like this. It happens. I can't do it, but, yeah, some people are able to not be jealous and still be respectful and still be wonderful friends. It happens.

The other problem I have is with the unlimited resources. One of the premises of the story is that John Galt has developed an ever-replenishing power supply, and another character invents a better kind of steel that is cheaper and stronger and easier to manufacture, and they luckily find a secret valley with lots of iron and copper and everything else they need to prosper, protected by an impenetrable forcefield. In this setting, objectivism seems to work very well.
Yup, this is why we probably won't see a libertarian/objectivist goverment. It's what we work for, and it's what we want, but it's just a dream. Objectivism works well in a small setting. I don't think it would in a large one.
I've got my own Galt's Gulch. I'm very lucky to know a lot of strong, like minded people. But, on a large scale, trying to get everyone else to agree with us is impossible (and why would you want to make everyone agree with you anyway?). That's why you just have to make things work for YOU. Doing things your way and working hard for yourself is a great idea, but not everyone wants to be held accountable for their actions.

I don't know anything about Rand's later life. I've watch documentarys on her, but that doesn't tell you anything. I like her ideas, though. I don't see anything wrong with the basis of being strong, working hard, and treating others with respect. It all seems great to me.

[Rosencrantz]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Rosencrantz,
Your observations are excellent. I liked you questioning and not criticizing.Thanks. :)

Originally posted by MoeFaux
That's the type of person I want to be. And I'm lucky enough to know people like this, who just keep working no matter what. It's very admirable. And, in my opinion, very attractive.Do you think anyone can (and should) do this? I think it's very important to maintain a good balance between work and "life" (home, kids, rest, etc.). I mean, yes, when I'm working on a big project, like a new song or a database application or artwork or whatever, I can (and do!) go for days without stopping, but I have found that I need to take a proportionate amount of time off afterwards to recouperate or I get sick. I know you don't mean keep working no matter what including eating and sleeping and other essential duties, but at what point do you consider stopping essential?

How about failure? Suppose you work and work and work, and at the end of the day it still doesn't look right. Is there ever a point that it's okay to break down and give up on a project? Failure is horrible, but it's even worse when you aren't allowed to fail. I have found I need to take time after a failure to restore my confidence or I'm likely to fail again. :(

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Also, the last sentance isn't true - Galt worked all those years on the railroad. That's pretty much a common laborer, don't you think? He kept going and just built on that.
Dagny started off in the switch house as a teenager. That's common labor, too.
Rand showed common people doing common things turning into remarkable people doing remarkable things. I love that.That's true; I forgot about that. I mostly remember the characters as CEOs and pioneers, but you're right that Rand does give them a detailed back story of how they got to that point. I can believe that -- people who work hard often rise to positions of authority, although Dagny and Francisco did have an advantage in that they basically inherited their roles. But in any case, the John Galt character does say that a common person can rise to the top.

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I know people like this. I've loved someone who was like this. It happens. I can't do it, but, yeah, some people are able to not be jealous and still be respectful and still be wonderful friends. It happens.I gotta say, it gives me the jibblies. It's happened to me before, too. There's this whole unspoken formerly-requited-now-unrequited love thing. Maybe the person gets over it and falls in love with someone else, but there's always this subtle tension between them. In the workplace, that's dangerous. In a community where everyplace is the workplace, I would think that would be even more dangerous. I don't think you can design a social structure that doesn't take jealousy into account as a powerfully divisive force.

Also, children throw a wrench into the works. Did any of the characters have to worry about pregnancy? It seems to me they sort of had sex when they felt like it. I wondered at one point what would happen if Dagny had gotten pregnant with the steel magnate's child. That might have brought her career to a screeching halt, at least for a few months, and then who would look after the kid while she was saving the world, since there weren't day care centers in the 1950s? Maybe in Galt's Gulch there would be, but I still think there would be these uncomfortable issues of "ownership." Who's heirs are they? Who cares for them, since they can't produce goods themselves to exchange for the service? I think Galt might have addressed that briefly in the end chapters but I don't remember his solution.

And what happens to the utopia when you have people who inherit a place in the Gulch without having to pull their own weight? Suppose Dagny had a son who ended up just like her brother. Couldn't the next generation ruin everything that this one worked so hard to set up? You'd have a lot of people who could just sit around and sponge off their inheritance. Who would actually produce the goods they need to survive? What keeps the Gulch from becoming just like the rest of the world over time?

It seems like the economy is dependent upon a stream of immigrants, to some extent. They have the best incentive to work hard and establish themselves, and to keep things from becoming stagnant. Is there a process for immigration? Does anyone who manages to make it into the gulch become a citizen? Do they all pay taxes to help maintain the forcefield?

I know, these are stupid questions with no answers -- I'm just stretching the metaphor in my head. Objectivism seems very cool to me in many ways, but I really don't believe it can hold up under the strain of human emotion and limited materials. And if that doesn't sink it, I worry that it's inevitable the government will eventually dominate the community. You see, the community must fund a central government, which means that there's going to be some people whose job it is to govern, and if those people follow the tenets of objectivism and work really hard in their own self-interest, they're going to create more and more government.

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I don't know anything about Rand's later life. I've watch documentarys on her, but that doesn't tell you anything. I like her ideas, though. I don't see anything wrong with the basis of being strong, working hard, and treating others with respect. It all seems great to me. I agree -- those things seem great to me, too. On an individual basis, the system is wonderful. It's kind of like a well-thought out religion or cult: it will work as long as everyone else believes in it. But when some of the people don't fall in line with the majority, the community will divide. I hate to think that my whole community could fail because Doofus next door decided not to come into work any more.

It really sucks: it seems like the stupidest little demons are the downfall of so many great ideas. Perhaps I'm looking at it the wrong way, but Rand's ideal world sounds to me like another try at Colonial America, just this time with no Indians and better guns.

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by JesFine
I tried to read that book when I was in college. Made it to about page 10 before I put it down forever. To this day that is the only book I have ever decided not to finish. My dislike has nothing to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy, but with her ability as an author (and maybe a little bit with the way she spells her name). In fact, I didn't know until fairly recently that she had a philosophy.

It was probably ten years ago when I tried to read it, so the details are fuzzy, but the thing that I remember most was that the symbolism was just awful. Awful in that it was too obvious for my taste. It reminded me of Pilgrim's Progress, but at least that was written in like 1600 so I am assuming symbolism was a new thing. She should be better at it.

Maybe I'd like it if I tried it again now, but those memories of dislike are pretty strong. Somebody would probably have to pay me.

Hear hear! I agree. I got about as far into this one as you did, and my reaction was much like yours. Umberto Eco was at least being obfuscating and dull on purpose, to achieve some end (strange as it may have been). This woman is just DULL!!!!!

[wilzoid]

While the John Galt rant was a bit over the top, I found Atlas Shrugged to be one of those books that I could not put down. I think her characters are wonderfully developed and the impetus of the plot kept me wanting more. While her need to promote "objectivism" and "egoism" can be somewhat overbearing, it doesn't ruin a good bit of fiction. I have read all of Rand's novels and I think Atlas Shrugged was a monumental achievement. I am also a fan of Hemingway, DeMille, Proulx and even Anne Rice, so perhaps I am easy to please...

[jackel88]

Originally posted by Rosencrantz


I'd appreciate it if someone with more knowledge of her later years would summarize what happened for me, because this impression I have could be pretty misleading.

[jackel88]

Originally posted by Rosencrantz


I'd appreciate it if someone with more knowledge of her later years would summarize what happened for me, because this impression I have could be pretty misleading.

If you get the Independent Film Channel, they run a documentary about her every so often. It's about two hours long and quite thorough. It has a long section about the end of her life. (IFC repeats their films on a fairly regular basis. It's best too check their web site, IFCTV.com to find out when they might run it again.)

It seems she was so in love with her husband, that when he died, she didn't become morose, but didn't lead the vibrant life she once did. She was a frequent guest on the Phil Donohue (sp) Show, and she spoke of this feeling of a great lose from the result of his death on the show.

I have to admit that I haven't seen it for some time and details escape me. But I highly recommend this film for any fan of Ayn Rand. I found it to be very interesting and informative and I'm not really a fan of hers.

Forgive the previous post. I still am trying to work my way around here and do some dumb things sometimes.

[Mr Sagan]

I found ATLAS SHRUGGED to be very obvious. Heavy-handed. No subtly.

[QuarkChild]

Originally posted by Rosencrantz
Who's heirs are they? Who cares for them, since they can't produce goods themselves to exchange for the service? I think Galt might have addressed that briefly in the end chapters but I don't remember his solution.
He did address it, in two ways. With regards to children, he implied that given a toy (or whatever) to your child is not altruism; giving your child's toy to your neighbors' child is altruism. So feeding and giving gifts to your children doesn't contradict his philosophy. Neither, as far as I can tell, would caring for your spouse, because at some point Galt made an oblique comment like, "there is other exchange involved there," referring to sex or emotional support or whatever.

You'd have a lot of people who could just sit around and sponge off their inheritance. Who would actually produce the goods they need to survive? What keeps the Gulch from becoming just like the rest of the world over time?
But the whole point of the philosophy is that these people wouldn't be allowed to mooch off others. They'd either have to work or starve. Without the option of free handouts, they would have to pull their own weight. At least, that's the idea. This doesn't seem to take into account people who can't work, for whatever reason. It doesn't explain what happens to disabled people or orphans whom no one cares about. Are they left to starve then? I don't think the book addresses that problem.

I know, these are stupid questions with no answers -- I'm just stretching the metaphor in my head. Oh. Oops.

Well, anyway, I like the book, although I disagree with a lot of the philosophy. Mostly I read it because of the exciting way Rand portrays heavy industry (steel works, etc.) She makes industry seem dramatic and glamorous. It's fun to read. Unfortunately, I agree with epepke as far as her choice of technology--the book would have been more appropriate if it had been written earlier. It seems oddly anachronistic somehow--people living with 20th century morality and 19th century technology. Well, maybe not the Diesel engine part. And sometimes she throws in the odd reference to airplanes.

And don't start me on The Motor.

("But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?")

[epepke]

Originally posted by QuarkChild
Mostly I read it because of the exciting way Rand portrays heavy industry (steel works, etc.) She makes industry seem dramatic and glamorous.


Heavy industry is dramatic and glamorous. If you can manage it, try to get a chance to tour a steel mill. You might not get to see the open hearth or a run on the Bessemer converter, which are of Wagnerian proportions, but you may get to see a case of hot rolling steel, which is at least 1.5 Lucases on the raw sensuous excitement scale.

It seems oddly anachronistic somehow--people living with 20th century morality and 19th century technology. Well, maybe not the Diesel engine part. And sometimes she throws in the odd reference to airplanes.

Diesel is still 19th century technology. There's a part of my brain that, whenever I read a book, tries to figure out what it would look like as a movie, and whenever I read Atlas Shrugged, it keeps bringing up images from Fritz Lang's Metropolis. The few airplanes in the book "look" to me like the airplane in Disney's The Rocketeer.

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by Rosencrantz
I'd appreciate it if someone with more knowledge of her later years would summarize what happened for me, because this impression I have could be pretty misleading.
http://www.skeptic.com/02.2.shermer-unlikely-cult.html

[Rosencrantz]

Originally posted by QuarkChild
He did address it, in two ways. With regards to children, he implied that given a toy (or whatever) to your child is not altruism; giving your child's toy to your neighbors' child is altruism. So feeding and giving gifts to your children doesn't contradict his philosophy. Neither, as far as I can tell, would caring for your spouse, because at some point Galt made an oblique comment like, "there is other exchange involved there," referring to sex or emotional support or whatever.This aspect of the social order sort of requires monogomy, doesn't it? I mean, if you don't know whose children are whose, or whose spouse is whose, how can you tell whether or not you're being altruistic or providing for your own family?

Originally posted by QuarkChild
But the whole point of the philosophy is that these people wouldn't be allowed to mooch off others. They'd either have to work or starve. Without the option of free handouts, they would have to pull their own weight.But they have money, don't they? Perhaps I'm remembering wrong, but I thought Galt had a mint and made coins. My point is, if children inherit their parents' hard-earned money, why do they have to work or starve? Can't they just buy food?

Originally posted by QuarkChild
At least, that's the idea. This doesn't seem to take into account people who can't work, for whatever reason. It doesn't explain what happens to disabled people or orphans whom no one cares about. Are they left to starve then? I don't think the book addresses that problem.I suppose their families must look after them, or barring that, some caring soul finds a pretense for exchange. Perhaps someone in the community decides they like the feeling they get when they give money to someone who needs it. Of course, at that point the entire system breaks down. A shame, really.

[Rosencrantz]

Originally posted by bangdazap
http://www.skeptic.com/02.2.shermer-unlikely-cult.html Ah, yes, this was also in Why People Believe Weird Things. I knew I'd read about it somewhere. I agree with Shermer that their actions don't invalidate their philosophy, but also that there cannot be an absolute morality. Still, it's fascinating how the ideals of Objectivism were subverted by the collective's veneration of Rand, and how at the end of the day it was sex and her emotions that caused her to forsake her ideals.

It's almost like a tragic, lost ending to Atlas Shrugged, with Branden as John Galt and Rand as Dagny. It's sad, but rings with such truth to me.