• 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.

Problems with Atlas Shrugged??

Whomp

Thinker
W
Joined
May 9, 2003
Messages
185
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!
 
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.
 
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
 
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 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.
 
Joshua Korosi said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
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.
Click to expand...

You must hate Adam Smith as well.

AS
 
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"...
 
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.
 
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.
 
AmateurScientist said:
You must hate Adam Smith as well.

AS
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
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.
 
Whomp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
yes, but

Kevin_Lowe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom