Ayn Rand

[epepke]

Let me make this simple enough for you to understand.

I appreciate your effort.

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.

I do not assert that the conductor was doing his job, and nobody capable of a remote semblance of literacy, let alone rationality, could possibly conclude that I was.

What I am asserting is that, within the framework of the novel, that conductor was hired. Now, specious_reasons pointed out that he was hired by Dagny Taggart's brother. That's an actual variation from what I said. I don't consider it terribly important, because a family business is a family business. In any event, you did not choose this in challenging me, so I take this to mean that this is not the problem.

In any event, the Taggart family hired the conductor. And this means one of two things:

1) He was exactly what the Taggart family wanted, or
2) The Taggart family were complete fraking morons for hiring him.

Stop right there and think a bit. What I have written is completely accurate within the context of the book.

Ready?

I will go further. I think I know why they hired him. He was cheap. Being a moron, he probably couldn't get work elsewhere. They made an executive decision. When they went to board meetings or parties where they wore diamond tennis bracelets, they felt perfectly good about their decisions.

They didn't care, at all, about the effects of this moron conductor that they decided to hire, because otherwise, they would have fired him.

But then one of the principals of the company is inconvenienced, then it becomes an issue. And oh, now, it's a great philosophical issue. And it's all about whether he could be reasonably be expected to do his job. Damn him for not doing so!

But what about the jobs of the people who hired him? They didn't do their fraking jobs either.

Rand's answer seems to be that if you have a big enough dick and/or a haughty enough attitude and/or a nice tennis bracelet, unless you trade it for one of Reardon Metal, you can't be blamed for failing to do your damn job, at the very least inasmuch as it has to do with hiring decisions. It's Somebody Else's Problem(TM). Which is no different in any way at all from what Rand criticizes in underlings.

Hello? Is any of this getting through?

 

[Melendwyr]

I do not assert that the conductor was doing his job, and nobody capable of a remote semblance of literacy, let alone rationality, could possibly conclude that I was.

Just so we have that established.

So what, exactly, is problematic about Dagny's being upset at his behavior?

What I am asserting is that, within the framework of the novel, that conductor was hired.

No kidding.

Now, specious_reasons pointed out that he was hired by Dagny Taggart's brother. That's an actual variation from what I said. I don't consider it terribly important, because a family business is a family business.

You should consider it important, because what's-his-name is one of antagonists -- he's an example of everything Rand is condemning.

In any event, the Taggart family hired the conductor. And this means one of two things:

1) He was exactly what the Taggart family wanted, or
2) The Taggart family were complete fraking morons for hiring him.

Dagny's brother was indeed a complete fraking moron. He was unwilling to take the trouble to think, possibly unable, and he and people like him ended up destroying not only Dagny's railroad system but the economic and legal structure of the entire society they were in.

I will go further. I think I know why they hired him. He was cheap.

You are an idiot.

Rand's answer seems to be that if you have a big enough dick and/or a haughty enough attitude and/or a nice tennis bracelet, unless you trade it for one of Reardon Metal, you can't be blamed for failing to do your damn job, at the very least inasmuch as it has to do with hiring decisions.

No, her answer is that the idiot who made poor choices SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS, and it's a screwed-up system that protects him from those consequences.

Did you even read the book? Rand goes over this idea, and over and over. She puts in a dozen different ways and twice as many situational examples to be sure no one could be so stupid that they would fail to pick up on and understand (if not necessarily agree with) her point.

You have failed to pick up on her point. You have failed to understand it.

Goodbye.

 

[epepke]

Just so we have that established.

So what, exactly, is problematic about Dagny's being upset at his behavior?

Nothing.

Dagny's brother was indeed a complete fraking moron. He was unwilling to take the trouble to think, possibly unable, and he and people like him ended up destroying not only Dagny's railroad system but the economic and legal structure of the entire society they were in.

If that were your objection, then you should have pointed it out earlier. But let's see. How did Dagny and her brother come to have influence over the railroad? Was it meritocracy? Could he possibly have been put in charge of it because he was a descendent of the people who actually built it? No, of course not. Must have been fairies. Or the Pope. Yeah, that's it. The Pope. No human stupidity involved.

You are an idiot.

Thank you, sir! Coming from you, that is quite a compliment. And I am quite sure that this personal attack will not be edited by the moderators.

No, her answer is that the idiot who made poor choices SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS, and it's a screwed-up system that protects him from those consequences.

I know that this is a difficult concept for you, but fire him. That's it. It isn't more difficult than that.

Did you even read the book? Rand goes over this idea, and over and over. She puts in a dozen different ways and twice as many situational examples to be sure no one could be so stupid that they would fail to pick up on and understand (if not necessarily agree with) her point.

Oh, yes, I read it. "A dozen different ways" is an understatement. She beat the horse well after it was reduced to its component atoms. Possibly even quarks.

Listen. You won't understand this, but I'll try anyway, mostly just because I don't have anything else to do right now. I got the point. I don't even disagree with it. I just think that the whole exercise was stupid, contrived, and highly ironic. I don't think you can comprehend that or even apprehend it.

 

[Melendwyr]

Nothing.

Then where is your objection?

If that were your objection, then you should have pointed it out earlier.

You're the one who's supposed to be making the objections. The burden is yours. So why have you failed to make any kind of coherent argument?

But let's see. How did Dagny and her brother come to have influence over the railroad? Was it meritocracy? Could he possibly have been put in charge of it because he was a descendent of the people who actually built it? No, of course not. Must have been fairies. Or the Pope. Yeah, that's it. The Pope. No human stupidity involved.

Rand was pointing out how stupid it was to have the brother in charge through inheritance. Dagny was more than capable enough to run it in a meritocratic system -- which is precisely what Rand was advocating.

Thank you, sir! Coming from you, that is quite a compliment. And I am quite sure that this personal attack will not be edited by the moderators.

Go play with Dembski. You have so much in common, I'm sure you'd find him to be a stimulating intellectual equal.

I know that this is a difficult concept for you, but fire him. That's it. It isn't more difficult than that.

And who would Dagny hire? People capable of competence and reason were scarcer than hens' teeth in the novel -- and you've accepted the premise that we have to permit the author to create whatever world she wishes. Your 'solution' is no solution at all.

Oh, yes, I read it. "A dozen different ways" is an understatement. She beat the horse well after it was reduced to its component atoms. Possibly even quarks.

And yet you still didn't understand it, as you've well demonstrated.

Listen. You won't understand this, but I'll try anyway, mostly just because I don't have anything else to do right now. I got the point.

No, you didn't. Get that through your head. You believe you understood it, but you don't have the slightest idea of what the book was actually about.

 

[specious_reasons]

Now, specious_reasons pointed out that he was hired by Dagny Taggart's brother.

To be clear, I was joking. Jim Taggert respresents everything Dagny isn't and is therefore evil. Hence, if the conductor is incompetent, Jim must have hired him.

Really, we don't know who hired the conductor, nor does it matter.

 

[epepke]

Then where is your objection?

I don't have one, in your sense.

You're the one who's supposed to be making the objections. The burden is yours. So why have you failed to make any kind of coherent argument?

My arguments are coherent; you just find them incomprehensible, because they don't relate to your preconceived categories.

Rand was pointing out how stupid it was to have the brother in charge through inheritance. Dagny was more than capable enough to run it in a meritocratic system -- which is precisely what Rand was advocating.

Being in the family didn't hurt.

Go play with Dembski. You have so much in common, I'm sure you'd find him to be a stimulating intellectual equal.

No, but better than you.

And who would Dagny hire? People capable of competence and reason were scarcer than hens' teeth in the novel

No, that's not true. She could have hired the man who ran the magazine stand who liked to smoke. From memory: "I like smoking. It is fitting that a man should hold a fire in his hand, controlled, while there is a fire burning in his brain." Or something like that. Of course, she would have had to pay him more than he could make from selling magazines and cigarettes, and probably pay a lot for his health insurance, because he smoked. Tough titty.

And yet you still didn't understand it, as you've well demonstrated.

Better than you. You don't even remember the magazine stand guy, do you? Nor do you remember the guy who went West because they were getting more oil out of old wells. The idea was that people who could do it were all around, not "scarce as hen's teeth," but oppressed by the social structure.

 

[Skeptic]

And who would Dagny hire? People capable of competence and reason were scarcer than hens' teeth in the novel

Yes, precisely.

Indeed, which is one of Rand's less pleasant characteristics: she considered herself a genius, and like all self-proclaimed geniuses, had a great deal of contempt for the majority of mankind. Her view of mankind in general is that mankind, with the exception of a few individuals (which, by a curious coincidence, agree with her philosophy) is generally lazy, stupid, incompetent, etc., etc., etc.

This is a Marxist view, in effect:the proletariats are too stupid to understand what's good for them, and they need a messiah to lead them to the promised land (in the form of a Galt or a Roark or, better, still, Rand herself.) She differs from Marx only in inessential things, e.g., what exactly is the cause of this awful stupidity of 99% of mankind and what to do about it. They both share that most important quality--contempt for humanity--which is blatantly obvious in both, despite all their talk about helping mankind and producing a new golden age.

Had Rand's political vision had ever come true, it would have devolved into a totalitarian police state just like Marxism did, for the same reason: for both of them, human beings are a means, not an end. Tt does not matter how many of the worthless "enemies of the people" or "incompetents" starve along the way. The ideology comes first.

This luckily didn't happen, but this contempt for humanity poisons anything it touches, and is the core reason why both Marx and Rand are practically unreadable novelists (and yes, Marx is for all intents and purpose a novelist--a fantasy writer, more precisely--rather than a serious political philosopher.)

Neither has any idea what makes human beings tick or what humans are really like. They only "know" the shallow "truths" about people in general. The result, naturally, are totally unrealistic characters acting in absurd ways which would be laughably absurd and unworkable in real life, yet magically succeed in bringing the wished-for utopia.

How different this is from, say, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, or Dickens! They, like all great writers, understood--no, not humanity in general, but human beings in particular. It is this, first and foremost, why they are great writers.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Indeed, which is one of Rand's less pleasant characteristics: she considered herself a genius, and like all self-proclaimed geniuses, had a great deal of contempt for the majority of mankind. Her view of mankind in general is that mankind, with the exception of a few individuals (which, by a curious coincidence, agree with her philosophy) is generally lazy, stupid, incompetent, etc., etc., etc.

I don't consider myself a genius, but I also think that most people are idiots, including, at times, myself.

And now for some somewhat topical Mark Twain quotes:

H'aint we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain't that a big enough majority in any town?

All I care to know is that a man is a human being, and that is enough for me; he can't be any worse.

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform.

Such is the human race. Often it does seem such a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat.

There isn't any way to libel the human race.

Man is a Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute.

 

[delphi_ote]

Still no example of a society collapsing because its brave industrialists decided not to play anymore and take their ball home. I'm waiting to find out how this silly premise might in some way represent a reality.

 

[Skeptic]

I don't consider myself a genius, but I also think that most people are idiots, including, at times, myself.

And now for some somewhat topical Mark Twain quotes:

But that's not the point; Twain was an excellent satirist who had a wonderful eye for the absurd. But his contempt (or rather, despair) of mankind in general did not lead him to think that individual human beings, qua individuals, are worthless, or that their desires and goals don't matter, even if they might be wrongheaded, naive, or stupid.

Your first quote, for example, is not Twain's view--it's the view of one of the two villans in the book, the con men who travel with Jim and Huck for a while. They think nothing of trying to take a poor orphan's money leaving her with nothing, because she's one of those "worthless fools". Twain clearly despises this view--not because it might not be that many people are fools (or, rather, naive and misugided) but because you simply do not treat people like that.

Twain despised mankind in the abstract, but loved men and understood them very well. Rand and Marx loved mankind and had all sorts of glorious things planned for it, but despised men and had no idea what they are like.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Still no example of a society collapsing because its brave industrialists decided not to play anymore and take their ball home. I'm waiting to find out how this silly premise might in some way represent a reality.

You're really not being fair. Society in AS is pretty much in the crapper already because the "brave industrialists" aren't running the show. They get tired of fighting the system and retire from society, yes, but that's more the last straw than the cause of the societal collapse.

You can call it bad writing, if you want, and I don't entirely disagree. It was definately in need of a good editor. But, I look at it as near-future distopian Sci-fi, written in the 30s. As such, I think it holds up pretty well. And while I think Rand's philosophy has some flaws in it, it is a product of her times and experience. When you see the evils of Soviet communism first-hand, it's understandable if your reaction is to embrace an opposing philosophy. (Just as I suspect a lot of your strong reactions are in response to Melendwyr's abrasive posts.) And I really can't find fault with exalting the individual and holding in reverence those exceptional people that actually do and create and innovate.

Finally, I try to judge a work on it's own merits and not consider the person who created it. For example, Axl Rose is, as far as I can tell, a Grade-A a**hole, but I still love Appetite for Destruction

 

[ZirconBlue]

Twain despised mankind in the abstract, but loved men and understood them very well. Rand and Marx loved mankind and had all sorts of glorious things planned for it, but despised men and had no idea what they are like.

While I think that Rand had very skewed views of what "real people" are like, I think she was trying to present the polar extremes of what she felt were "good" and "evil", and show all the negatives of communist idealogy. She was trying to make a point through archetypes, not present a "balanced" or "realistic" view of life in the mid-20th Century.

 

[drkitten]

She was trying to make a point through archetypes, not present a "balanced" or "realistic" view of life in the mid-20th Century.

I agree.

I also think that this is why her novel fails at so many levels.

First, stories about archetypes are almost never successful.

Second, her archetypes themselves are not at all believable as embodiments of virtues or even personality traits.

Third, the situation in which the archetypes find themselves is not "realistic" to be analyzed as a serious attempt to address real-world problems, nor is it simplistic enough to be analysed as a philosophical thought experiment or fable.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Third, the situation in which the archetypes find themselves is not "realistic" to be analyzed as a serious attempt to address real-world problems, nor is it simplistic enough to be analysed as a philosophical thought experiment or fable.

Well, I think she was going for more of the latter than the former, or at least that's how I read it. At any rate, I guess it all comes down to tastes.

 

[delphi_ote]

You're really not being fair. Society in AS is pretty much in the crapper already because the "brave industrialists" aren't running the show. They get tired of fighting the system and retire from society, yes, but that's more the last straw than the cause of the societal collapse.

That brave industrialists are the only thing keeping a society together was more or less the moral of the book. If you missed that, you probably skipped most of the 50 page speech. Who is John Galt? He answers the question himself:

I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world.

Finally, I try to judge a work on it's own merits and not consider the person who created it. For example, Axl Rose is, as far as I can tell, a Grade-A a**hole, but I still love Appetite for Destruction

Axl Rose isn't trying to tell me how to live with every lyric to his songs. He doesn't write his songs to express a philosophy.

 

[Melendwyr]

They both share that most important quality--contempt for humanity--which is blatantly obvious in both, despite all their talk about helping mankind and producing a new golden age.

No, Rand holds humanity in contempt and elevates individuals. Marx holds individuals in contempt and elevates masses.

Had Rand's political vision had ever come true, it would have devolved into a totalitarian police state just like Marxism did, for the same reason: for both of them, human beings are a means, not an end.

Wrong. It would have devolved into a vicious libertarian state, primarily because Rand tended to overestimate the potential competence of human beings.

This luckily didn't happen, but this contempt for humanity poisons anything it touches, and is the core reason why both Marx and Rand are practically unreadable novelists (and yes, Marx is for all intents and purpose a novelist--a fantasy writer, more precisely--rather than a serious political philosopher.)

No, his analysis was right on. His failure was in a) believing that people would actually set aside their self-interest and b) not understanding that the self-interest of the propertied class would cause them to lighten the burden of the workers.

Rand holds stupidity and unreason in contempt. Unfortunately, most individuals are unreasoning and frequently stupid.

Neither has any idea what makes human beings tick or what humans are really like. They only "know" the shallow "truths" about people in general. The result, naturally, are totally unrealistic characters acting in absurd ways which would be laughably absurd and unworkable in real life, yet magically succeed in bringing the wished-for utopia.

Marx wasn't exactly a character author. And Rand's characters' behavior is unrealistic: no one's that rational, competent, or skilled. But they're not supposed to be 'real people': they represent rationality, competence, and skill.

You might as well complain that Aesop's characters didn't behave plausibly.

How different this is from, say, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, or Dickens! They, like all great writers, understood--no, not humanity in general, but human beings in particular. It is this, first and foremost, why they are great writers.

That's rather like praising Stephen King for his deep psychological insight. Novels are about specific characters, and so those who receive acclaim for their novels are those who can write interestingly about specific people. Duh.

 

[Piscivore]

That's rather like praising Stephen King for his deep psychological insight.

He has wonderful psychological insight, especially about what scares people.

 

[Melendwyr]

He has wonderful psychological insight, especially about what scares people.

No, he knows how to trigger visceral reactions in some people. That's not insight. It's not even universal.

 

[delphi_ote]

No, he knows how to trigger visceral reactions in some people. That's not insight. It's not even universal.

No wonder you like to read Rand. You don't know what any of the words mean.

insight n.
1. The capacity to discern the true nature of a situation; penetration.
2. The act or outcome of grasping the inward or hidden nature of things or of perceiving in an intuitive manner.

 

[Melendwyr]

Insight requires understanding. Deep understanding of human psychology is not needed to push some people's buttons. King knows where a few buttons are, and he can push them. He does so very well. But he does not possess insight.

I can't say how funny it is that you're critiquing my linguistic skills while failing to use them yourself.