• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ayn Rand

Melendwyr said:
Nor was he willing to investigate and determine what the problem was. Nor was he willing to call or send a messenger to find out what was going on or how he should respond. In fact, he wasn't willing to make any kind of decision at all -- he would only act when a predetermined signal told him to take a predetermined action, and he'd do nothing but that.
Click to expand...
If he was in a position to radio in and didn't, then I agree he failed to make a decision, but this is the exact scenario you won't accept when it comes to the security guard who wanted to radio in regarding a possible change of orders. How can failing to contact his superiors denote the lack of rationality for the train driver, when attempting to contact his superiors is taken as evidence for lack of rationality in the guard?
 
Melendwyr said:
Yes, that is what happened in Atlas Shrugged. Let me know when you can point out the differences between the government in AS and a totalitarian one.
Click to expand...

The government can be whatever you'd like it to be in Atlas Shrugged. I don't care. You're ignoring my point.

In Atlas Shrugged, society collapsed because the brave industrialists went on strike, not because the government was totalitarian. Can you demonstrate anywhere in history where this has happened?
 
Melendwyr said:
That sort of thing has happened in the real world, drkitten. You're objecting because you think
Click to expand...

No, I'm objecting because I think Rand's interpretation of it is absurd -- and contradictory -- and philosophically ill-grounded -- and badly written.
 
Melendwyr said:
Nor was he willing to investigate and determine what the problem was. Nor was he willing to call or send a messenger to find out what was going on or how he should respond. In fact, he wasn't willing to make any kind of decision at all -- he would only act when a predetermined signal told him to take a predetermined action, and he'd do nothing but that.
Click to expand...

I know this is like talking to a wall, but anyway. All the comments about how this is a contrived and badly written book are well taken, but let's pretend for a moment that the fiction is real.

In that event, this employee acted this way because that's who she hired. And she probably hired him because he was cheap. (Maybe he had Down's syndrome and couldn't get another job). And she probably got a grant from the government under Social Security to do so and certainly didn't bitch about that, because it was money. And the reason that she did this was that all the "rational" people are out inventing impossible engines and having violent sex and won't work for the pathetic wages that she gave for that job classification (which probably has about 37 layers of bureaocracy to prevent people from getting raises, even in the company). And up until then, she probably made oodles of presentations on how great the company was for getting him and thousands of others so cheap (and, BTW, damn the unions, because they're too rational and selfish) and so cutting down their overhead. And she's perfectly willing to piss on the customers, who probably have to deal with such delays on a regular basis (after all, it's a monopoly, but monopolies are good, because the owners are rational, which means they get bruised during sex).

But this one time, when she is subjected to the conditions that she has helped to create, then it has nothing to do with her incompetence in management, oh, no, it's a big fat hairy Philosophical Point.
 
drkitten said:
No, I'm objecting because I think Rand's interpretation of it is absurd -- and contradictory -- and philosophically ill-grounded -- and badly written.
Click to expand...
Then I was mistaken. You're objecting because you don't think.
 
epepke said:
I know this is like talking to a wall, but anyway. All the comments about how this is a contrived and badly written book are well taken, but let's pretend for a moment that the fiction is real.
Click to expand...
You proceed to pretend, at length, that the fiction isn't real.
But this one time, when she is subjected to the conditions that she has helped to create, then it has nothing to do with her incompetence in management, oh, no, it's a big fat hairy Philosophical Point.
Click to expand...
Except that didn't happen.

It's rather like criticizing Stephen Hawking for his rabid anti-dogracing position in A Brief History of Time.
 
When I started reading this thread, I thought, perhaps I should read this strange book and see what it's all about.

I would just like to thank Delphi_ote and Vagabond for quoting from it, and saving me from making a terrible mistake.
 
Melendwyr said:
Defensive? No. I go on the offensive when I come across rampant stupidity.

By and large, the people in this thread are not interested in Rand's ideas, even to the minimal degree needed to evaluate them. They've decided they don't like them, and they will seek any rationalizing excuse to justify the stance they've chosen.
Click to expand...


This is fascinating ... sounds exactly like (un)interesting Ian's defense of his beliefs ...
 
epepke said:
That's pretty weak, but I'll bite.

How didn't that happen? Who hired that guy?
Click to expand...
Let me make this simple enough for you to understand.

Authors get to define everything about the worlds they invent. They're also forced to leave out most of the detail -- as Douglas Adams once pointed out, no one wants to read about trivial minutiae. Therefore, when we decided to accept the fiction as written, the default position must be that the situations presented make sense in the context of the world and the work -- the burden of proof is yours that it's not. Authors get the benefit of the doubt. If the situation wouldn't make sense in reality, and it wouldn't make sense in the contrived context of the book, you win.

So: go ahead, epepke. Demonstrate that the conductor was doing his job, that he could not reasonably be expected to behave otherwise, and I will concede that example.

(edited to correct minor error)

We'll be waiting for quite a while, I think.
 
Last edited:
Melendwyr said:
Authors get to define everything about the worlds they invent. They're also forced to leave out most of the detail -- as Douglas Adams once pointed out, no one wants to read about trivial minutiae. Therefore, when we decided to accept the fiction as written, the default position must be that the situations presented make sense in the context of the world and the work -- the burden of proof is yours that it's not. Authors get the benefit of the doubt. If the situation wouldn't make sense in reality, and it wouldn't make sense in the contrived context of the book, you win.

So: go ahead, epepke. Demonstrate that the conductor was doing his job, that he could not reasonably be expected to behave otherwise, and I will concede that example.
Click to expand...
In other words, Rand's interpretation of the conductor's actions are perfectly valid because the role of 'conductor' can come to mean whatever she wants it to mean.

Remember, we're not dealing with pure fiction here - Rand was using her novels to promote a prescriptive philosophy. If she's to be taken seriously, it's very much up to her to convince the reader what she says is valid in the real world.
 
Melendwyr said:
Let me make this simple enough for you to understand.

Authors get to define everything about the worlds they invent. They're also forced to leave out most of the detail -- as Douglas Adams once pointed out, no one wants to read about trivial minutiae. Therefore, when we decided to accept the fiction as written, the default position must be that the situations presented make sense in the context of the world and the work -- the burden of proof is yours that it's not. Authors get the benefit of the doubt. If the situation wouldn't make sense in reality, and it wouldn't make sense in the contrived context of the book, you win.

So: go ahead, epepke. Demonstrate that the conductor was doing his job, that he could not reasonably be expected to behave otherwise, and I will concede that example.

(edited to correct minor error)

We'll be waiting for quite a while, I think.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty straightforward claim that AS is strictly fantasy and has no bearing on real life. So either Objectivism has no bearing on real life, or AS has no bearing on Objectivism. Please elaborate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom