Printable View
My belief in a meritocracy and the self-made man fits in entirely with my belief that the provision of education must be universally excellent for all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I believe in self-made adults, not self-made children. Only if children have been given a good start to life can they make themselves as adults. The sins of the parents should not be passed down to the children.
You've established the answer to this one long agoQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
What do you think affects the extent to which a child can make use of freely provided "universally excellent" education? Note that you emphasise the provision of excellent education, but say nothing of the actual results.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
What are the determinants of success for an adult?
Eh, it's like any philosophy, got to treat it like a buffet.
You can recognize some truths in it, without accepting it in it's entirety.
I enjoyed the book..had some interesting ideas.
That wasn't the question :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
And I've never accused you of being an idiot or not thinking.
Well, obviously my critiquing the quality of writing is hypocritical as I've not read it myself. Making fun of the idea that the ideology the book espouses requires breaking the laws of thermodynamics, and (this is opinion) fundamentally immoral agents as the leading thinkers of their world is, well, I mean I'm making fun of the ideas presented in the book which are readily available in most summaries. Reading her propaganda around these ideas might make it seem more palatable to me were she a decent writer, but as I said above I don't have the time or inclination to get emotional highs over ideas which in practice result in horrendous things. (I got enough of that with the Nazis!) And as for making fun of her fans, and the "the other one, of course, involves orcs!" is just based on my own observations and reports from other observers having reached the same conclusion. And I've read (biased) accounts of the bitch's life, which (though through the haze of an alcoholic's memory) fuel my distaste of her as a person.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It might be unfair, but as I'm sure you'd agree, life itself isn't fair.
How does "the ideology the book espouses requires breaking the laws of thermodynamics"?
He goes Galt after inventing a free energy device?
It's been awhile since I've read the book granted, but as I recall it, the technology Galt uses to power his machines isn't free energy any more than solar or wind power is free energy. If I remember correctly he is harnessing an ambient and hereto unknown force to drive his motors. Furthermore, how is this any more disagreeable than faster than light travel or dark matter drives, or any other hypothetical technology common in other science fiction?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
For that matter, how is it different from Rearden's metal, or Project X?
Well, Star Trek makes communism work with free energy and efficient energy-to-matter conversion. But I'm not convinced Star Trek is viewed as pro-Communist propaganda. And so on.
The Galt machine is more or less a perpetual motion machine and these tend to, uh, not work. At least not if Homer gets a word in edge-wise.
Is a windmill more or less a perpetual motion machine?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
And, even if that were true, is that different from any other science fiction deus ex machina?
I've been Googling for awhile now and I can't find a decent summary of the device. I get it's a "machine that extracts energy from the static electricity in the atmosphere". If you could provide a more detailed description, that'd be swell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
A wind mill is more or less a rather inefficient solar energy collector. If that's what the Galt engine is as well, he couldn't compete with oil as I'm going to guess that the static electricity won't produce nearly as much energy as wind power, unless he had a global network to capture all lightning etc.
How is a perpetual motion engine any different from a deity in founding a philosophy?
His engine ran on static electricity from the air, if I remember right.
There's probably a better science-y way to describe it..:noob:
I'll find the relevant passages later tonight. I don't recall Rand spending too much time detailing the specifics of the engine, or its internals, nor was it an integral part of the novel. It was a MacGuffin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
It might help if you've read the book in question. Galt's motor plays no role in Objectivism. Do phasers or Dilithium crystals define the philosophy of Star Trek?Quote:
How is a perpetual motion engine any different from a deity in founding a philosophy?
No, near-free energy and cheap energy-to-matter conversion do. And again, Star Trek isn't really seen as a triumph of Communist propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Okay, please help me out here with not reading the book bit. I thought that Galt could only "go Galt" (isolate his übermensch self and others from society at large) thanks to having a source of energy for their compound. Was I mistaken there? I mean, you could "go Galt" with wind power today if you wanted, but you couldn't compete with "collectivist" society at large because of inefficiencies and so forth.
No that really, really wasn't the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
How enlightened I am by this responseQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'm not saying it is. I'm just pointing out the irrelevance of theoretical technology to the underlying philosophy. Does it matter if it's Dilithium crystals powering the plow, or the strong, willing arms, and sweaty brows of our happy comrades?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
The motor was certainly utilized in Galt's Gulch, but it wasn't necessary for it's construction, or for Galt to leave the wider society. The only requirements, as I see it, were privacy/secrecy, and a commitment to Galt's oath. Had you replaced Galt's motor with hydroelectric, solar, or wind power, the results would have been the same. Galt's community didn't have to compete with collectivist society, individuals who had, "gone Galt" did so because they were already fed up with the wider collectivist society.Quote:
Okay, please help me out here with not reading the book bit. I thought that Galt could only "go Galt" (isolate his übermensch self and others from society at large) thanks to having a source of energy for their compound. Was I mistaken there? I mean, you could "go Galt" with wind power today if you wanted, but you couldn't compete with "collectivist" society at large because of inefficiencies and so forth.
(Sorry if you weren't done with this bit) I feel so unable to communicate :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Star Trek isn't trying to sell communism, it's just portraying one (probably impossible) end result of societies embracing it with technological advancements. Atlas Shrugged very much is a sales pitch for objectivism. No?
But this brings us back to Bob the Angry Flower, discovering he has to till a field after going Galt. How do the super-men exist outside of society without magic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
To answer, No...Going Galt wasn't anything Bioshock-ish that involved or required technologicaly advanced cities under the sea or anything of that sort.
The motor wasn't really a terribly important part of the story, other than to demonstrate his abilities..a lot of the characters had similar things..Reardon had his Reardon metal, Wyatt perfected a method of withdrawing oil from shale (IIRC), etc.
They basically took their toys and left, but they didn't need the toys.
They actually lived more simply afterwards than they had in the "real world"
So how is the Randian New Man different from the Soviet Man?
I did post too soon, my apologies. I've since edited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Again, we are struggling with your interpretation of what the book is about, and what the book is actually about. Advanced technology is not required for Galt's society to work. People willing to embrace his ideology are.
They embraced the life style and lived fairly simply. They didn't live in mansions, eating filet mignon, they worked hard, day in, day out, and sold their services to others within their community.Quote:
But this brings us back to Bob the Angry Flower, discovering he has to till a field after going Galt. How do the super-men exist outside of society without magic?
Again I feel there's a disconnect between what the book is advocating, and what you think the book is advocating. The book would say a man can enjoy his labor, work, and be satisfied, even if that labor is tilling a field. No one is forcing the man to till the field, or forge the plow, or mend their broken bones, he is choosing to do so, and he is being compensated for his effort.
Randian New Man sets the own value of his work and demands not a penny more or less for it, regardless of the "needs" of others.
Soviet Man has the worth of his work decided by the states needs, regardless of his ability.
I surrender. I'll return if I'm less drunk at some future juncture.
I niether like the argument that we are somehow determined to be self-centered/selfish nor do I like the argument that we ought be. What a waste of life to live that way.
So if I invented a miracle cure to all the world's known diseases, and a plan for how to successfully deal with the population boom that will result from implementation of this miracle drug, and demanded 5 Trillion dollars for me to publicly release this information...you'd be cool philosophy-wise with me keeping it to myself and dying with it if nobody could come up with the 5 Trillion dollars to pay me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowheart
Yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Would you prefer to be a slave?
How I would like this to pan out is that society then ignores this person. He walks up to a person to ask the time? Ignored. Walks into a supermarket to get food? Denied service. Attempts to use his money to purchase anything? Denied service. Nothing illegal (in the realm of what you would consider illegal, I guess, since the power company would be cutting service to his property, etc.), or that infringes his natural liberties, just completely and utterly isolated from society. If he wants to keep his cure and ideas from society we can keep society from him. All of us collectively are not a slave to him either, and he needs us just as much as we need him. He is special only because of what he can contribute to society as a whole, not who he is as an individual. His not sharing the cure and solution with us is the same as if he never created it to begin with from our perspective, as we're still diseased and dying. We are a collective. No person gets to where they are without the assistance of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
He can still of course ask to be compensated for his ideas and such, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is when a single person hinders society because of greed, or gluttony. Or who think they are better or above society as a whole.
Society is the sum total of individual's thoughts and actions within a community. If that means ignoring those you find distasteful, dishonest, and morally repugnant, that is your right. If that means breaking bread with prostitutes and tax collectors, that's your prerogative. To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what point you're driving at here, and what it has to do with this thread. Ayn Rand didn't advocate forced inclusion, she also didn't advocate forced association. So far you haven't described anything that is counter to what Rand believes should be society's standard operating procedure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Because Rand's protagonists and the others like them would be dead after society ignored them. Or at least their standard of living would be reduced to that of what constitutes the poorest parts of Africa (depending on their knowledge and skill in survivalist living). There would be no grand utopia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red