A thread about objectivism, Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged
I made a poop joke, although I am glad that the two definitions of the word digestion made it through to those who know English as a second language...I was afraid it would be lost...Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
No. Because no person has gotten to where they are on their own.Wonderful book isn't it
. . .
Which was really not the point of the book at all.
Anyway, I'm reading it again right nowand I'd suggest for you to do the same!
The present state of the world is not the proof of philosophy's impotence, but the proof of philosophy's power. It is philosophy that has brought men to this state-it is only philosophy that can lead them out.
-Ayn Rand
You may roll your eyes but he was being sincere and truthful. Insteaof rereading it why not read something like Outliers? It's not scifi but it's still very good.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
So its scifi where the one fantastical element that is accepted as fact, and makes the novel possible, like say...instantaneous faster than light communication, is instead that a person can achieve greatness without anyone's help.
. . .
It probably helps that they can break the second law of thermodynamics!
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
No doubt being influenced by personal views as well.
As for this 'Outliers' book, when I get the opportunity I'll look into it, and will make sure that I read it with an unprejudiced mind, which is what I'd suggest for the lot of you to do with Atlas Shrugged. That is if you haven't read it already with a prejudiced view of the author and philosophy.
The present state of the world is not the proof of philosophy's impotence, but the proof of philosophy's power. It is philosophy that has brought men to this state-it is only philosophy that can lead them out.
-Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged is a presentation of Ayn Rand's philosophy in novel form. Outliers is a pop-sci book exploring--among other things--some aspects of the concept of the exceptionally successful "self-made man". The two are entirely different beasts, enjoyable and useful in different ways
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No, it's your premise I'm objecting to. The central theme in the book is not that a person can achieve greatness without anyone's help. Galt wasn't a loner in a woodland cabin, he was a member of a community. Rearden didn't forge his metal alone, and Taggart opined bitterly about the lack of good people. She almost lost her company for want of good help, in fact she set off on a personal crusade to find it. D'Anconia, Galt, and Danneskjöld were all influenced by each other, and by Stadler.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 12-04-2011 at 06:29 PM.
A thread about objectivism, Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged
Ayn Rand was a heinous, wretched wreck of a human being, traumatized by the Soviet Union to the extent that she pretty much hated humanity and thought smoking cigarettes was the most exquisite way of expressing human dominance over...Something.
She wrote an atrocious, horribly mangled book that (I hear) uses far too many words to convey nothing worth conveying. She also fucked some guys while fucking other guys, I guess?
Objectivism is a philosophy that kinda-sorta says you can be all you can be, and that's all you can be, so good luck, go buy a pack of smokes. It also emphasizes personal responsibility and personal accountability, I guess? But in a sick and demented way, whereupon people starving on the streets is somehow a moral high-point. I suppose Rand saw too many people being shot on the street, or something? Much better that they get to choose to starve instead of being forcibly shot.
So hey, how about that Atlas Shrugged? What about the dystopia portrayed in Bioshock? Is it unfair to Rand's utopia, or a shlock-fest designed to generate profits in the finest Objectivist tradition of exploiting the dumb masses? Can objectivism be realized without breaking the laws of physics?
Discuss all these awesome things in this thread! And quit clogging up the pictures thread, you fucking insufferable pedantic assholes
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
It would be an exercise in awesomeNess to think about Ayn Rand on Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic couch. What turns their conversation might take.
Objectivism doesn't mean a damn thing without subjective human input...how can it? The human lens of life includes emotions that don't respond "objectively", because we're not fucking automatons or robots. Humans (in the essence of our very beings) are messy, complicated, romantic, confused, emotional, twisted and torn.
GGT, what is objectivism?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Don't ask me, read Ayn Rand instead. That's the best objective response I can give in this thread so far.
I'm just trying to figure out what you mean when you say "Objectivism doesn't mean a damn thing without subjective human input"
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I first have to finish Bioshock 2 before I can get time to read that book
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Its a good book and a good philosophy. I would also recommend from her The Fountainhead.
Shh, don't let anything petty like facts get in the way of his small-mindedness and self-righteous indignation Enoch.
It's shit, son.
(haven't read it)
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
So, is this different from dystopian/utopian fiction from the communist perspective?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It is possible that communism would also require breaking the laws of physics. Star Trek seems to have free energy and cheap energy-to-matter conversion, and the first is probably impossible, the latter could simply be very difficult/expensive. I have had very little exposure to communist-written communist utopias.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
I'm not discussing the central theme of the book, I'm discussing a point about the philosophy, which the book endorses, that is often glossed over.
I bet they are also influenced by the guy who ensures that their toilet flushes and empties into a functional sewer system after they've taken a poop, yet don't discuss or consider him a productive member of society.
I could give it a better read now that I'm older, however I'd be doing so with the express intent of noting how it goes off the rails in regards to supporting a functional philosophy and outline for living ones life. Have you ever considered that you think its good because your personal philosophy is in line with the one its espousing, and therefore you are more able to accept its flaws than someone whose beliefs are in opposition? For instance, there are plenty of people who think Twilight is a great book, who are able to accept its immense flaws, because their personal opinion of what romance should be like is in line with the romance depicted in the novels...
Last edited by Illusions; 12-04-2011 at 06:41 PM.
. . .
And I'm suggesting that you are mistaken about what that philosophy actually says about the subject.
Also, if you'd like to merge this with Nessus' thread I would have no objection.
If the others involved in this conversation are okay with it, I'll move it over, unless Rand does it first (PM me to say so).
. . .
Done.
Can you not see the hypocrisy here?
I'm beginning to think you haven't actually read the book, as it wasn't solely about titans of industry, (though those were certainly the main characters). There were subplots with people who were minor characters, yet clearly productive members of society working retail, as a short order cook, executive assistants, and ironically enough, a hobo.
Atlas Shrugged doesn't say anything about the character of these individuals based off of their chosen profession or current work status, but everything about how well they performed their job. By that same token there were wealthy and powerful people in the novel that clearly were not productive members of society.
There were quite a lot of unproductive wealthy and powerful people actually. That is why it is so ridiculous to read the criticism of Rand on this forum. I doubt any of the critics have actually read any of her books and just respond to the caricatures.
I have actually read it myself and formed my own opinions - quite a while ago, long before I even came up with the name RandBlade (for which Rand = Rand al'Thor and not Ayn Rand).
How many here have read Das Kapital? I haven't.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Me neither. I haven't spoken about the value of it either.
I'll take your word for it as I have no choice, but nonetheless I think you've made it clear what you think of communism and socialism in practice. So is it so outlandish to condemn objectivism without having read the source material? I fully admit I make fun of the breaking the laws of physics thing as a nod to critiques and summaries I've read rather than the actual work.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Just so we're clear, we are talking about a literary work of dystopian fiction which Rand uses as a vehicle for her philosophy, yes? Not a philosophical treatise or an essay on history but a work of fiction that, by all accounts, seems to be a pretty good story. The appropriate parallels would probably be Brave New World or 1984, rather than Das Kapital.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote