Interesting article on Ayn Rand

[Nursedan]

mhaze, I want to respond to you but you keep editing your posts - make up your mind!!!

Anyway, see my post above for an explanation as to what he probably means by "the dead".

My memory could be fuzzy but I think the only people on board on the inaugural trip on the Jahn Galt line are Dagny and an engineer who was chosen from a pool of several men who wanted to be on the trip. They weren't scared at all. So the post about people dying because of Rearden metal failing is moot. The only people in danger wanted to be there. I could be thinking of another part of the book so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[mhaze]

mhaze, I want to respond to you but you keep editing your posts - make up your mind!!!

Anyway, see my post above for an explanation as to what he probably means by "the dead".

My memory could be fuzzy but I think the only people on board on the inaugural trip on the Jahn Galt line are Dagny and an engineer who was chosen from a pool of several men who wanted to be on the trip. They weren't scared at all. So the post about people dying because of Rearden metal failing is moot. The only people in danger wanted to be there. I could be thinking of another part of the book so correct me if I'm wrong.

Bad habit of mine, or I'm on my second glass of wine here maybe. I think he was talking in the hypothetical, asserting fear of the risk factor and the consequences there of. And there is an important point there, which Rand designed this paragraph to illustrate, which was if one was competent, and examined a technical issue and reached a decision, then he or she should not be swayed by fear, emotion, or insecure people who wanted a group consensus or collective decision, which abdicates personal responsibility. That Earthborn or Skeptic can contrive of scenarios where in the particular this falls the wrong way, does not minimalize the point Rand was making and the principle involved.

And this links back to your comment, that Dagny took the risk, and deserved the rewards, while those cowards who shirk from responsibility would not take a risk but would steal the rewards.

Those darn looters, they like cockroaches sort of. I did link earlier to a copy of AS online in google books, by the way. Sort of a pdf thing, I've got a txt file of it.

 

[Skeptic]

But you're missing the point. Sure, in the novel, Dangy's fearless fight against the horde of looters who have actually lied and deceived to steal the new metal is the correct thing to do... but only because it is done in a fictional world with little relationship to reality.

Note also that if the novel's world were true, the objectivist excuse for Dangy's behavior would be unnecessary. Because it would fit exactly with what all ethicists since Plato say about what is the correct thing to do -- namely, to fight and expose lies and stop stealing, in this case.

The question is, what does Rand's ethics tell us about the actual world. In the real world her advise of selfishness either doesn't work or simply agrees with what ethicists already claim. In the real world, Dangy's actions -- "I know best, the scientific community is all stupid, I need to make money" -- is the ethics of a corrupt tobacco company executive, not exactly a moral exemplar.

We see this again and again in Rand's philosophy. Whenever it disagrees with previous ethics in the real world, it's inevitably for the worse.

 

[Nursedan]

I did link earlier to a copy of AS online in google books, by the way. Sort of a pdf thing, I've got a txt file of it.

Didn't see that thanks.

 

[mhaze]

But you're missing the point. Sure, in the novel, Dangy's fearless fight against the horde of looters who have actually lied and deceived to steal the new metal is the correct thing to do... but only

No, I got your point the first time and do not completely disagree, because this argument can actually be made of ANY FICTIONAL PLOT.

For example, I can make exactly the same argument with Les Miserables and Hunchback...except that the vast depth of Victor Hugo is illustrated with 93, and The Man Who Laughs, so I won't...no way...That's called cherry picking, as I recall, that manner of arguing which I will not do, with reference to Hugo.

Now your argument then, is not against Rand's fictional book, but against the concept of this book embedding actual useful and practical technique in dealing with looters.

Well, then. You have any better ideas on how to deal with looters?

I'm all ears on that one.

Note also that if the novel's world were true, the objectivist excuse for Dangy's behavior would be unnecessary. Because it would fit exactly with what all ethicists since Plato say about what is the correct thing to do -- namely, to fight and expose lies and stop stealing, in this case....

Really? That would be why Dagny has been called the ARCH VILLIAN of the novel by Objectivists and likely Rand?

(it's late and I drunk so I don't recall for sure it was Rand or commentators)

I appreciate your generalized argument against Rand, however, which is based on the concept that her concepts displayed in fiction have little or no relevance in the real world.

The problem with this is simply that it is generalized to the point to where it is meaningless. I have not referred in the abstract to "Rand's ethics" or any other group of complexity.

Why is that?

Well, mainly because in this thread we take tiny baby steps. Frankly, a high number of flat wrong ideas have been expressed about what Rand said. That's why I brought some actual clips in, so we could deal with reality.

FYI there are many things that Rand thought that I don't agree with in whole or part, notably her extensions of philosophy to sex, art and music.

But you are going to have a hard time arguing that her concepts on capitalism and looters don't have relevance to the real world.

...indeed it's like the plotline of AS is unfolding daily, lately...like it or not....

 

[leftysergeant]

Rand was a teenager who never grew up. Her ideas were THE TRUTH; everybody else was STUPID; adulation from the world for her genius was HER DUE; critics JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND.

Sounds familiar? Well, yes -- that's you and me and the rest of the world... at age 16.

Or a twoofer nearing retirement age who found paint chips in a pile of rubbled and assumed it that itwas thermite.

 

[leftysergeant]

But you are going to have a hard time arguing that her concepts on capitalism and looters don't have relevance to the real world.

To the extent that Objectivists see taxation and government regulation as an obstacle to vtheir being what they think (pardon the oxymoron) that they are destined to be, this is true. But what they see as "looting" is really just the demand made by society that the entrepreneur give back something in exchange for the use of the commons.

...indeed it's like the plotline of AS is unfolding daily, lately...like it or not....

True dat. Dirtbag outfits like Haliburton and Dart and Xe Security are going Galt on us. Time to let them sit off shore with no acces to our markets, if that's the way they want to be. I'm sure the government of the Cayman Islands will find some use for their products and services.

 

[Skeptic]

No, I got your point the first time and do not completely disagree, because this argument can actually be made of ANY FICTIONAL PLOT.

Rand's main philosophical goal in the novel is to illustrate that objectivist morality is superior to conventional one. But she can do it only by creating a world so different than our own that what is usually morally wrong according to conventional morality is in those particular cases the correct thing.

The problem isn't that Rand's objectivism can be illustrated using a fictional situations; it is that Rand's objectivism requires outlandish situations to give recommendations that concide with our sense of natural justice, or with our ethical intuitions.

If my ethical principle is "eat any baby you find", I could create a fictional world (where I am held at gun point by someone who declares that unless I eat a baby he will kill me, the baby, and 100 innocent people) where it just so happens that this ethical principle's recommendations are the same as that of conventional morality. But it is obvious that this ethical principle is bad, partially because such a far-fetched world is necessary for its recommendations to coincide with normal ethical principles.

Compare this to Kirk and Spock's moral dilemmas in various Star Treck episodes. It is a science fiction show so it uses science fiction devices. But the moral conficts themselves, e.g., whether the "prime directive" should be followed or not when one notices some outrageous practice on another planet, do not require the science fiction setting.

It is rather the old, old moral problem about prevention of evil (or pain) vs. allowing other people autonomy; or whether morality is "law morality" (following the law the is on average the best -- the "prime directive) or rather "case morality" (choosing each case individually without overriding principles). Perhaps it touches on the old puzzle on whether objective morality actually exists or is all in our social agreements.

But none of these lessons really require the science fiction setting. They could all be made in a world very much like our own -- indeed using numerous examples of our own world.

Not so with Rand, nor with the fictional baby-eater I gave as an analogy.

 

[mhaze]

Yes; but the question is what is the relationship between the fiction and reality. .....she can do it only by creating a world so different than our own that what is usually morally wrong according to conventional morality is in those particular cases the correct thing. ...

I'm not sure you have actually said anything there. You have not identified how that fictional world is so different, you have used some undefined generalized phrase "morally wrong", and also some vague thing called "conventional morality", then asserted a conclusion.

No proof is offered, only the claim. That doesn't quite work logically...You could just as well have said "The entire plot is ridiculous! A woman running a railroad line? That could only happen in a fiction book!

...Rand's main philosophical goal in the novel is to illustrate that objectivist morality is superior to conventional one. ....

Let's see what is considered to be her goal:

The theme of Atlas Shrugged, as Rand described it, is "the role of man's mind in existence". The book explores a number of philosophical themes that Rand would subsequently develop.... it expresses many facets of Rand's philosophy, such as the advocacy of reason, individualism, the market economy, and the failure of government coercion.
​

To do this she develops a plot line that weaves around the question "What happens if the mind goes on strike?"

That's a very specific question, unlike a baseless vague generalization of "conventional morality", which can only survive as an argument by being vague and undefined.

But that's the best grounds you have for an objection to Rand's writing.

 

[mhaze]

,,,,The problem isn't that Rand's objectivism can be illustrated using a fictional situations; it is that Rand's objectivism requires outlandish situations to give recommendations that concide with our sense of natural justice, or with our ethical intuitions. ...

False.

You only need go to the Atlas Society website and look at their articles on any of a number of current day topics to see this. No outlandish situations are required.

http://ayn-rand.info/browse.aspx?type=6

and...

• Is there a right to healthcare? by David Kelley
• Faith, Reason, and the Good Life by Kenneth Livingston
• Free Speech and Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks
• Must Politics Rest on Morality? by Eyal Mozes
• Objectivism Against Anarchy by William R Thomas
• Radical for Capitalism by William R Thomas
• Reason and Value: Aristotle vs. Rand by Roderick Long
• The Problem of Animal Rights by Shawn Klein

Then again, our world presents us today with ample outlandish situations on which the Rand approach may be applied, also.

• Only in a weird Dystopian world would a bankrupt GM be handed over to the Union and the corporate preferred bondholders shafted by government edict.
• Only in a weird Dystopian world would the National Labor Relations Board strong arm Boeing into not building a plant in a non union state, South Carolina.
• Only in a weird Dystopian world would top AFL/CIO bosses be appointed to the Fed Chairman of NY job to control the money supply.
• Only in a weird Dystopian world would the US Attorney General's office actively promote discretion in what laws to enforce
• Only in a weird Dystopian world such as Rand's could ATF agents be engaged in selling thousands of assault rifles to Mexican drug gangs which are then used to shoot US Border Patrol agents...

Only in a weird Dystopian world? No....wait....

 

[Mycroft]

Let me give an analogy. Suppose I write a novel where everybody who has brown eyes is a murderous zombie, while everybody who has blue eyes (the minority) is an upright free person. In the novel all blue-eyed people kill evil, murderous brown-eyed people to stay alive.

This is fiction, so, yes, such actions are justified within the context of the novel, and, if they are meant as proof that, say, courage in fighting zombie hordes is a good idea. But it would be absurd to think that this shows us much about what blue-eyed people should do to brown-eyed people in the "real world".

Similarly with Rand. Sure, she creates a novel where within the context of the novel it is better (perhaps) to be an objectivist... but only at the price that the novel's context is so significantly removed from all real-world situations it doesn't mean anything in the real world.

Oh come on. This is like dismissing Animal Farm because pigs don't talk. While true, it misses the point that what the pigs do in that novel have real world analogs.

The elements of Rand's world has real world analogs too. Trofim Lysenko, as mhaze pointed out, was alive and firmly in control of Soviet agricultural science at the time this novel was written, and history has many examples where great advances were made by people trusting their own judgement and going against the established orthodoxy of the time.

I can think of many points where I disagree with Rand, but dismissing her because she created a world different from our own in order to make her points then you would dismiss Brave New World, Nineteen Eighty-Four and countless other novels as well.

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

Taking responsibility for being wrong wouldn't bring back the dead.

You mean if the rail/bridge failed and people died? Yes, responsibility here would have meant Dagny would be accountable for those deaths.

Why would an ethical person take that risk?

No, it wouldn't bring back the dead, but neither does any other punishment, and what if she had done rigorous studies to show the metal would hold and it didn't? Her confidence wouldn't play a role there. Your post makes it sound as if scientific study creates bridges and/or rails that never fail.

Actually it does, within given parameters.
The state of the art certainly allows for bridges that wouldn't break under operational stresses.

What causes bridges to fall down is bad engineering, business corruption, and insufficient maintenance.
All enabled by insufficient government oversight and regulation.

Reardon metal's strength has been proven to Dagny at this point in the book. She is no fool; she wouldn't order the track to be built nor would she ride the first train if she had any doubt about it's capablities.

The easiest thing in the world is fooling yourself into believing you are right.

Ignoring the collective state of the art out off intellectual arrogance in the quest for personal enrichment, and in the process endanger the well-being of others, is inherently unethical.
She can take such risks with her own life, not with that of others.

It's plain criminal negligence.
People who do that belong in prison.

(Another fine service provided by government.)

 

[Skeptic]

Oh come on. This is like dismissing Animal Farm because pigs don't talk. While true, it misses the point that what the pigs do in that novel have real world analogs.

But the problem is that in "Animal Farm", to continue your analogy, it isn't the case that the real-world moral conclusion of the fable -- that communism is evil -- depends on pigs talking in the real world. It depends on the pigs' actions towards other animals being similar to those of the communist leaders towards those under them, and the history of the farm being similar to the revolution-to-dictatorship arc of the communist story. Which it is.

Not so with Rand's fiction. For the people in her world to act in a way that is both objectivist (selfish) and moral requires that the non-objectivists be, indeed, "looters" with a "philosophy of death". In such a condition -- where the only non-selfish people on earth are liars, thieves, and murderers -- objectivism's goals coincide with "regular" morality's goals. All moralists agree that fighting murder, lies, and theft are good. But in the real world, where this is not the case -- where the vast majority of humanity is neither objectivist nor a bunch of faceless, worthless, parasitical "looters" -- the objectivist way of action would be one of massive injustice.

So while the analogy between Animal Farm and the real communist world holds, indeed is striking, the analogy between Atlas Shrugged and the real world fails.

It is, by the way, a testament to the far superior literary skills of Orwell over Rand that he, in a much shorter book discussing talking animals on one farm, manages to create a fictional world whose relation to the real world is so much more relevant than Rand, for all her tropes and attempts to be "realistic" and describe the running of a "hard-headed" modern corporation. Why? Because Orwell understood human beings and how they work, so even his most remote fantasies and prima facie unrealistic characters have a deep versimilitude. Rand never understood what people are: she only has caricatures, paper-machie figures who grasp desperately to look believable and utterly fail.

Whittaker Chambers (yes, that Whittaker Chambers) hit the nail on the head about Rand's novel long ago. The best adjective to describe the book -- "preposterous" -- has nothing to do with it not dealing with real events (Orwell's 1984 is not preposterous just because it speaks of "memory holes", "thought crimes", or "telescreens"), but with the note of falsity, of you-got-to-be-kidding-me lack of versimilitude that permeates the whole book.

If the characters ring true, the surrounding gizmos are less important, as in Orwell or in good science fiction novels. If the characters are fake caricatures, as in Rand, all attempts at making the scene "realistic" by having them pour over scientific reports or income statements will not make the novel one bit less silly. If anything it will make it look more silly by highlighting this failure.

 

[mhaze]

....For the people in her world to act in a way that is both objectivist (selfish) and moral requires that the non-objectivists be, indeed, "looters" with a "philosophy of death". In such a condition -- where the only non-selfish people on earth are liars, thieves, and murderers -- objectivism's goals coincide with "regular" morality's goals. .....

Well, yet again you have factually erred regarding the content of AS.

There are numerous characters in the book who are just regular people and who couldn't care less about these things. Some of them are cast as having to make a series of immoral decisions that lead them to become looters, others you don't know the outcome.

So Skeptic, you've been knocked down a half a dozen times, but you keep repeating the same argument using a different set of claims. At some point I think an intelligent person would ask "why am I repeating all these things I read against Rand that simply are not true?"

But to each collective their own.

 

[mhaze]

Oh come on. This is like dismissing Animal Farm because pigs don't talk. While true, it misses the point that what the pigs do in that novel have real world analogs.

....you would dismiss Brave New World, Nineteen Eighty-Four and countless other novels as well.

NO, Comrade. Orwell good socialist he just don't think straight sometime. We dismiss book trash from worthless capitalist not from good socialist.

Have more vodka you understand better.

Why would an ethical person take that risk?


Actually it does, within given parameters.
The state of the art certainly allows for bridges that wouldn't break under operational stresses.

What causes bridges to fall down is bad engineering, business corruption, and insufficient maintenance.
All enabled by insufficient government oversight and regulation.


The easiest thing in the world is fooling yourself into believing you are right.

Ignoring the collective state of the art out off intellectual arrogance in the quest for personal enrichment, and in the process endanger the well-being of others, is inherently unethical.
She can take such risks with her own life, not with that of others.

It's plain criminal negligence.
People who do that belong in prison.

(Another fine service provided by government.)

Dangy the character is cast as quite competent in engineering. Particularly for the era 1915-1920 and for a book written in 1957.

She looked at the bridge. It represented a problem badly solved, but she had had to accept it. The bridge, twelve hundred feet of steel across the black gap, was built in the days of Nat Taggart's son. It was long past the stage of safety; it had been patched with stringers of steel, then of iron, then of wood; it was barely worth the patching.

She had thought of a new bridge of Rearden Metal. She had asked her chief engineer to submit a design and an estimate of the cost.

The design he had submitted was the scheme of a steel bridge badly scaled down to the greater strength of the new metal; the cost made the project impossible to consider.

"I beg your pardon, Miss Taggart," he had said, offended. "I don't know what you mean when you say that I haven't made use of the metal. This design is an adaptation of the best bridges on record. What else did you expect?"

"A new method of construction."
"What do you mean, a new method?"

"I mean that when men got structural steel, they did not use it to build steel copies of wooden bridges." She had added wearily, "Get me an estimate on what we'll need to make our old bridge last for another five years."

"Yes, Miss Taggart," he had said cheerfully. "If we reinforce it with steel-"
"We'll reinforce it with Rearden Metal."

"Yes, Miss Taggart," he had said coldly.

​

And...

"Now about those crossties, Miss Taggart," he said hastily as they started. "Mr. Coleman of your office okayed them. He didn't say anything about too much bark. I don't see why you think they're-"
"I said you're going to replace them."

​

So you ARE talking about one of the smartest and most conscientious tools in the shed. But one who will take bold and innovative moves, and expects to take nothing but full responsibility for it.

 

[easycruise]

It depends on the pigs' actions towards other animals being similar to those of the communist leaders towards those under them, and the history of the farm being similar to the revolution-to-dictatorship arc of the communist story. Which it is.

Not so with Rand's fiction. For the people in her world to act in a way that is both objectivist (selfish) and moral requires that the non-objectivists be, indeed, "looters" with a "philosophy of death". In such a condition -- where the only non-selfish people on earth are liars, thieves, and murderers -- objectivism's goals coincide with "regular" morality's goals.

Not true. You obviously haven't read the book either, like so many others on this thread, as you do not know the plot nor the characters.

So while the analogy between Animal Farm and the real communist world holds, indeed is striking, the analogy between Atlas Shrugged and the real world fails.

Even more wrong. The parallels of the book to today's current events are quite eerie.

It is, by the way, a testament to the far superior literary skills of Orwell over Rand that he, in a much shorter book discussing talking animals on one farm, manages to create a fictional world whose relation to the real world is so much more relevant than Rand, for all her tropes and attempts to be "realistic" and describe the running of a "hard-headed" modern corporation. Why? Because Orwell understood human beings and how they work, so even his most remote fantasies and prima facie unrealistic characters have a deep versimilitude. Rand never understood what people are: she only has caricatures, paper-machie figures who grasp desperately to look believable and utterly fail.

Completely disagree. Rand went into much more plot detail and fleshed out the human characters, i.e. a novel, while Orwell just wrote a simple cartoon-like, more of a short story.

 

[easycruise]

At some point I think an intelligent person would ask "why am I repeating all these things I read against Rand that simply are not true?"

But to each collective their own.

Because in the left-wing lexicon, all propaganda against your enemies must be parroted, no matter the validity of it. As the saying goes, if you tell a lie often enough, some people will begin to believe it. And then they turn into useful idiots.

 

[mhaze]

Because in the left-wing lexicon, all propaganda against your enemies must be parroted, no matter the validity of it. As the saying goes, if you tell a lie often enough, some people will begin to believe it. And then they turn into useful idiots.

But this very issue is addressed in AS, although not using words that refer to modern political groups. "Left wing" I believe is not in the book, for example. Collectivists of any stripe should hate Rand, and Dagny, and Rearden, for the characters not only are stubborn individualists but insist on flaunting it:

"There are too many people yelping that rails of Rearden Metal are unsafe. So I thought I'd give them something real to yelp about. Let them see a bridge of Rearden Metal."

She looked at him and laughed aloud in simple delight.

"Now what's that?" he asked.

"Hank, I don't know anyone, not anyone in the world, who'd think of such an answer to people, in such circumstances-except you."

"What about you? Would you want to make the answer with me and face the same screaming?"

"You knew I would."

​

The twisted, sick premise use of the repetition of propaganda is in the book:

James Taggert to Dagny:

"On the air. It's going to be a radio broadcast. You're going to debate with him the question: 'Is Rearden Metal a lethal product of greed?' "
​

 

[easycruise]

But the fossil record shows that selfishness had little to do with our potential for survival, but rather altruism. The existance of so many ancient remains of severely disabled people who clearly lived a long time with those disabilities shows that we are designed to live in collectives in which individuals cared about each other.

Well, since you refuse to provide evidence for your claim, after repeated requests, I consider it debunked. then you said...

Show me a skeleton of any hominid from the Ice Ages that did not display some disability or healed severe injury. The Neanderthal type specimen was a geriatic arthritis sufferer.

Oh, so now you are giving up on your prior claim of "taking care of" and "nurturing" the "severely disabled" in the collective? And now you say they all (the elderly Neanderthal) had it? Wow, quite a change in your original claim.

The blithering sociopath's opinions to not stand the test of a million years worth of fossils of disabled people who were nurtured by the collective.

Your personal denigration against Rand has been noted. But it does not seem to be supported by any evidence.

You get to be the leader by being either really smart or a real badass. You scare people into submission or show them that you know how to make life better for everybody.

That's right. An elder shaman, witch doctor, medicine man got to their position by power, not by the sympathy nurture of the collective, and there is no way you can tell if a pile of bones was one of these guys or a plebeian.

 

[Skeptic]

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

Which name is more "realistic": "Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’Anconia", or "Winston Smith 6079"? Well, surely the former -- some people do have such long names, while still most people aren't referred to by number (as Smith is referred to in the novel a few times).

Yet "Winston Smith 6079" is precisely the kind of name people in Orwell's world of 1984 would have -- the combination of a bland, everyday name with the identifying serial number -- while "Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’Anconia" is not (alas) meant sarcastically, but as one of Rand's ways to emphasize his, and his family's, prominence and importance. It rings a totally false note; it is ridiculous.

In fiction, Aristotle correctly noted, one should prefer "probable impossiblities" to "improbable impossiblities". Rand's books are one long series of improbable impossiblities.