Ayn Rand

[Jon.]

People who refuse to think for themselves and pass on all responsibility for thought to authorities are less than animals. Animals by and large do not possess the capacity for rationality (it's rather more complex than that, but that's the simple version). Humans that have rejected their capacity for rationality are thus worse than creatures that lack that capacity.

If you possessed the capacity to think rationally, you would have understood the messages in the text. You wouldn't necessarily have agreed with them, but you would have been able to know what they were. Instead you create strawmen because it's easier than working to understand.

How, in the text, could the guard, by thinking for himself, have made a correct decision? He had no factual basis on which to judge whether Dagny was telling the truth. He was correct in wanting clarification from his superiors, who might have had knowledge as to whether Mr. Whatsispickle had in fact authorized her, and whether such authorization overrode his orders from Dr. Whosit. If this is intended as an example of Rand's philosophy (and I admit I haven't read any of her books) then I think you can get better philosophy from a James Bond book.

 

[delphi_ote]

... you can get better philosophy from a James Bond book.

And literature.

 

[Ian Osborne]

How, in the text, could the guard, by thinking for himself, have made a correct decision? He had no factual basis on which to judge whether Dagny was telling the truth. He was correct in wanting clarification from his superiors, who might have had knowledge as to whether Mr. Whatsispickle had in fact authorized her, and whether such authorization overrode his orders from Dr. Whosit. If this is intended as an example of Rand's philosophy (and I admit I haven't read any of her books) then I think you can get better philosophy from a James Bond book.

Far from passing the buck, checking with his superiors was the only course of action available to a critical thinker. To permit or deny Dagny access without doing so would be to make a decision which was not justified by the evidence available.

In fact, surely obeying the order to deny entry without considering the possibility of its changing due to circumstance or accepting Dagny at her word because of who she was would have been the antithesis of thinking for yourself, hmm?

 

[Melendwyr]

How, in the text, could the guard, by thinking for himself, have made a correct decision?

By making any decision other than to refuse than to make a decision.

Duh.

 

[Piscivore]

By making any decision other than to refuse than to make a decision.

Duh.

So was my restatement of the syllogism correct?

P: People who refuse to think for themselves and pass on all responsibility for thought to authorities are less than animals.
P: (unstated) It is okay to kill animals
C: killing people who refuse to think for themselves is okay.

According to Rand's philosophy, was Dagny justified in casually murdering a guard who could probably have been circumlocuted in a less than lethal fashion?

 

[delphi_ote]

By making any decision other than to refuse than to make a decision.

Duh.

Is the defining characteristic of humanity the impulse to make a choice as soon as someone demands that you make one? That's funny, because most animals I know don't hesitate to make decisions. Humans pause to think. Animals act on instinct.

 

[Ian Osborne]

By making any decision other than to refuse than to make a decision.

Leaving aside the fact that it wasn't his decision to make, whatever he decided would be based on an incomplete appreciation of the facts.

A) He could've assumed Dagny was lying, even though he had no evidence to indicate that she was.
B) He could've assumed she was telling the truth, even though there was no evidence for this assumption either.
C) He could've called his superiors and checked his facts before allowing or denying her entry.

Which option would you go for?

 

[hgc]

...
Which option would you go for?

Shoot first. Dagny sounds like one right bitch.

 

[delphi_ote]

Shoot first. Dagny sounds like one right bitch.

That's the decision the Objectivist is supposed to make. It's the decision Dagny made.

Violence guaranteeing our own survival is an instinctual reaction to a threat. All of the necessary triggers and hormones and brain systems to respond this way evolved millions of years before humans existed. We actually have a name for it these days, "fight or flight."

So whose behavior was really no better than that of an animal in this scene?

 

[UserGoogol]

I think that Atlas Shrugged would've been much more enjoyable if it had been written by Douglas Adams. Ayn Rand writes stories about the interplay between spineless wimps and self-righteous jerks. There is so much potential for comedy there, but she throws it away because she's trying to promote her philosophies.

I mean, replace Dagny with Ford Prefect or Zaphod Beeblebrox, and that scene is hilarious.

 

[Melendwyr]

No, actually, you just posted it:

P: People who refuse to think for themselves and pass on all responsibility for thought to authorities are less than animals.
P: (unstated) It is okay to kill animals
C: Dagny was justified in killing the guard.

Or am I wrong?

No kidding, moron.

 

[Melendwyr]

I feel your pain, but if yourself and a colleague gave that person contradictory advice, would you condemn him for being confused? The guard was put in an impossible position, then lambasted for not thinking, even though thinking wouldn't have helped the situation anyway.

The only thing he had to do to escape the impossible position was use his own judgment. The man demonstrably couldn't think for himself to save his own life.

 

[Melendwyr]

Leaving aside the fact that it wasn't his decision to make,

Of course it was his decision to make.

In totalitarian states, not obeying an order (even if you cannot confirm that the order actually exists) is frequently much worse than obeying non-existent orders. I suggest you review a few histories of the Stalinist regime, which Rand's work is partially a critique of.

whatever he decided would be based on an incomplete appreciation of the facts.

Let me know when you come across any decision that's based on a complete appreciation of the facts.

Which option would you go for?

Calling his superiors wasn't an option... which you'd know if you'd actually read the book.

 

[Orwell]

If I want an intelligent critique of totalitarianism, I'll read Annah Arendt or, heck, George Orwell, not Rand. As far as I'm concerned, her kind of extreme individualism mixed in with selfishness and self-righteousness is as bad as the totalitarianism she's supposedly denouncing. I'm convinced that a society built on her rules would be nightmarish.

 

[Freakshow]

...the same appalling disregard to outright hostility for anyone that does not live up to an uncompromising ideal is there...

I do have outright hostility to anyone that does not work their hardest to achieve, and then wants to take (either by themselves, or via a 3rd party, like the government) what others have earned for themselves.

 

[Freakshow]

If I want an intelligent critique of totalitarianism, I'll read Annah Arendt or, heck, George Orwell, not Rand. As far as I'm concerned, her kind of extreme individualism mixed in with selfishness and self-righteousness is as bad as the totalitarianism she's supposedly denouncing. I'm convinced that a society built on her rules would be nightmarish.

I personally think that people with your views ("Give me others' money, through this social program!") are much more selfish than people with my views ("Keep your f***ing hands off my stuff, and I promise to keep my hands off yours. Let's each go out on our own and make our own way in life. I won't bug you, and you don't bug me.")

Which is more selfish? Is it selfish to want to keep what you have earned? No. Is it selfish to want what others have earned? Yes.

 

[Freakshow]

"Chose not to think" is a little harsh, isn't it? Oftentimes it is more expedient to ask for help. Say Executive "A" has a presentation to make in an hour and he still has to go get the overhead projector from the stockroom and make sure the secretary brings in the water glasses, really quick, let me check the Powerpoint presentation on my laptop... Oh holy Jeebus, there's something wrong with the laptop!

Sure, he could probably figure out eventually what the problem was, but isn't it a lot more efficient for him to call IT support who is A) more knowledgeable, and B) probably thinking with a cooler head right now?

Even the smartest, most logical, most virtuous, sexiest person will make mistakes from time to time. Any philosophy (or novel, for that matter) that claims otherwise should be immediately suspect.

I would hope that the IT person is being paid money that is roughly equivalent to the value of the work he is doing. So what is the problem?

 

[Freakshow]

• But not just malice, the malice of mediocrity. I had never previously considered mediocrity to have a malicious component.

Mediocrity is indeed malicious when the mediocre person starts asking for other people's money. That starts becoming theft. Theft is very malicious.

 

[CFLarsen]

Mediocrity is indeed malicious when the mediocre person starts asking for other people's money. That starts becoming theft. Theft is very malicious.

So, in your line of work, you are simply the best of the best? There is absolutely no mediocrity involved in your work?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Of course it was his decision to make.

In totalitarian states, not obeying an order (even if you cannot confirm that the order actually exists) is frequently much worse than obeying non-existent orders. I suggest you review a few histories of the Stalinist regime, which Rand's work is partially a critique of.

He hadn't the authority to override standing orders, and only had Dagny's word for it that they were overrode by new orders. By what stretch of the imagination could this be his decision to make?

Let me know when you come across any decision that's based on a complete appreciation of the facts.

It should at least be as complete as possible. A decision made without calling his superiors would have been little more than guesswork.

Calling his superiors wasn't an option... which you'd know if you'd actually read the book.

From the section quoted on Page Four of this thread:

"But I can't choose, ma'am! Who am I to choose?"

"You'll have to."

"Look," he said hastily, pulling a key from his pocket and turning to the door, "I'll ask the chief. He—"

"No," she said.

Looks like he had every intention of doing this non-option, but Dagny would rather shoot him for not obeying her without question and then blame it on his not thinking for himself...