How I learned to stop worrying and pick up Atlas Shrugged

[Godwynn]

I have read most of Ayn Rand's books. Atlas Shrugged is still my favorite and I am currently reading The Fountainhead since I am an Architect in training.

 

[Melendwyr]

I read Anthem and Atlas Shrugged in high school. Anthem was an interesting though exaggerated description of collectivism, and by contrast a defense of existentialism. Atlas Shrugged provided the same easy answers in ten times the words and generally failed to make any argument that didn't fall apart when confronted with the idea of a fixed morality. I suppose it would function well as a sort of bible for the young neo-cons though, assuming they never took any contrary philosophical writings seriously. It provides 'rational' justification for any amount of greed and selfishness one wishes to engage in and is therefore quite comforting to those who worship the dollar as a god-king.

I take it you're not familiar with Game Theory, then.

(If you didn't get that Rand is advocating an absolute morality, you didn't understand the book well enough to criticize it.)

 

[newfangle]

As I've grown and learned more about the underlying philosophy, I find it quite annoying when people dismiss AS as a political book. Far from it. It's a book about the role of reason in man's life (regardless of what conclusions are drawn).

In any case, I've become a cynic as far as politics. I really don't care what happens. BUT, as I pursue more epistemic problems (mostly relating to math and physics) I've come to realize that Rand's approach to concept formation is perhaps the most unique and well-developed theory of epistemology to date.

Anyways, for those that wish to read it, please read it! Don't let the nay-sayers push you away because this is how it works: those who like it LOVE it, and those who dislike it HATE it.

 

[newfangle]

Oh and Eyrei, given the searing criticism of neo-conservatism by modern Objectivist scholars, I find your commends rather puzzling.

 

[Fifty]

In my experience it isn't so much young neo-cons who like it, but rather loser girl atheists that everybody hates and who think that holding a minority view makes them all intellectual and edgy.

edit: I agree with newfangle though that Rand's stance on the process of reason is her chief quality.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@luceafarul
Come on, Dagny can cook

 

[Richard Cribb]

@luceafarul
Come on, Dagny can cook

Additionally she is quite hot, but who can compete with John Galt anyway?
Perhaps it is due to the fact that my background seems to be a bit different than most people's here, and additionally that I am old enough to be the father of most of you, but I regard that book, which no intellectual contortion can explain away is a political tract, as being a dangerous one. Mind you, I am still for intellectual promiscuity and I don't want to have it prohibited, but I wouldn't mind it having a label of warning attached stating that it might be detrimental to your moral and intellectual sanity...
One of the most worrying things I see in society is the contempt the young academical middle class feels towards so called "common people", those who in my opinion really moves the world performing all the necessary tasks we consider ourselves to fine and elevated to do ourselves. As far as I am concerned, those "entrepreneurs" wouldn't have had a potty to pee in, without the labour of the masses which they so despise.
And this volume, with its almost hysterical hatred towards everybody who is not one of the chosen few, cardboard characters and shrill rhetorics fuels this sort of opinions, partly legimating greed and exploitation, partly giving certain individuals a delusion of being better than others. That's some of the geek quality about it.
Also, as somebody with a degree in philosophy , I get a little wexed by hearing about the supposedly splendour of this epistemology, not rarely coming from people who did not study this field in general.
However, on the risk of sounding condescending(not my intention really, but sometimes we graybeards can add something as well), this is what people usually find out for themselves in the process of maturing. Even if, if the Norwegian translator of Atlas Shrugged is to be trusted, Ayn Rand is a favourite ofPutin's ...

 

[eyrei]

Oh and Eyrei, given the searing criticism of neo-conservatism by modern Objectivist scholars, I find your commends rather puzzling.

Why? That is exactly the angle I criticized it from... Unless greed and selfishness are objective 'goods'...

 

[eyrei]

I take it you're not familiar with Game Theory, then.

(If you didn't get that Rand is advocating an absolute morality, you didn't understand the book well enough to criticize it.)

From my understanding Game Theory has absolutely nothing to do with morality, because winning (or making the most rational decision) is not always moral. And the morality of greed, self-promotion and selfishness is hardly absolute, being necessarily subjective.

 

[Melendwyr]

From my understanding Game Theory has absolutely nothing to do with morality, because winning (or making the most rational decision) is not always moral. And the morality of greed, self-promotion and selfishness is hardly absolute, being necessarily subjective.

Why am I not surprised?

I suggest you go do some Wikipedia searching on "The Prisoner's Dilemma", "Tit for Tat", the evolution of ethics, and vampire bats. Perhaps that would give you a better understanding of ethical behavior in general and the significance of Rand's emphasis on enlightened self-interest.

 

[FredLC]

I have not read any of her books (nor am I particularly interested in them, but may very well read them just to know what the fuzz is all about). Nevertheless, one of the most commonly raised criticism to this author is that her philosophy is not very consistent, in a key aspect:

Simply, as she advocates an "enlightened self-interest", she fails to detemine why should one person gives up immoral extremes in the pursuit of self interest. What is the factor that makes "exploration by capital" cool, but "murder" un-cool - in short, if killing, raping, and any moral no-nos of the kind gives the perpetrator the sacro-saint "profit", why is it less moral than other things that also do it, through this superficial criteria?

Granted, I don't know for sure if she indeed falls in this silly trap. However, the few I've read from her defenders say that at a certain point she advocates an absolute moral that excludes that sort of act, what is, if that is the case, no more than an arbitrary philosophy, in which some acts are chosen as moral or immoral by merely author's picking, without criteria (witch could be, for example, harming people).

Please, you Ayn Rand's experts, enlighten me on the matter.

Last but not least, I think that the main issue here (wheter my assessment of Ayn is correct or incorrect) is that capitalism is, in essence, ammoral (not immoral). Therefore, building a moral approach to life based on it's inner functionings seens to be a rather un-enlightened idea.

Regards .

 

[Melendwyr]

Simply, as she advocates an "enlightened self-interest", she fails to detemine why should one person gives up immoral extremes in the pursuit of self interest. What is the factor that makes "exploration by capital" cool, but "murder" un-cool - in short, if killing, raping, and any moral no-nos of the kind gives the perpetrator the sacro-saint "profit", why is it less moral than other things that also do it, through this superficial criteria?

The same reason people in Rand's society don't attempt to forge the currency - it's not in anyone's best interest.

Why is no one on Firefly interested in the idea of Jayne being the leader except Jayne? Given that Jayne never does anything other than serve his immediate self-interest, why is Malcolm the captain and Randian hero?

And was Mal's throwing the henchman into Firefly's engines an example of "immoral extremes", or not?

 

[IglooDame]

The same reason people in Rand's society don't attempt to forge the currency - it's not in anyone's best interest.

Why is no one on Firefly interested in the idea of Jayne being the leader except Jayne? Given that Jayne never does anything other than serve his immediate self-interest, why is Malcolm the captain and Randian hero?

Because Jayne is as dumb as a rock and Malcolm is pretty clever on the whole? One wonders if that were reversed, how it would work out.

And was Mal's throwing the henchman into Firefly's engines an example of "immoral extremes", or not?

Well, it certainly made the second henchman ready to talk.

 

[jameson]

I suggest you go do some Wikipedia searching on "The Prisoner's Dilemma", "Tit for Tat", the evolution of ethics, and vampire bats. Perhaps that would give you a better understanding of ethical behavior in general and the significance of Rand's emphasis on enlightened self-interest.

Game theory is a descriptive science, Rand's philosophy is, as I understand it, normative. Clearly there's quite a difference.

I dropped Atlas Shrugged after 50 pages or so.

 

[Melendwyr]

Because Jayne is as dumb as a rock and Malcolm is pretty clever on the whole? One wonders if that were reversed, how it would work out.

No way. Jayne doesn't bother thinking all that often, because he's so good at getting along without thinking, and he's definitely not the introspective type. But he sure isn't dumb. Cunning, well-versed in the things he feels are worth knowing, and extremely capable.

 

[Melendwyr]

Game theory is a descriptive science, Rand's philosophy is, as I understand it, normative. Clearly there's quite a difference.

Wrong. Thank you for playing.

 

[Melendwyr]

I presume most of you are familiar with the animated movie, The Incredibles? It's based off of Rand's ideology, and there are subtle allusions to her books all over the movie. If you liked it, you might not like Rand's writing approached as a group of novels, but you'll probably like her ideas.

One of the most worrying things I see in society is the contempt the young academical middle class feels towards so called "common people", those who in my opinion really moves the world performing all the necessary tasks we consider ourselves to fine and elevated to do ourselves. As far as I am concerned, those "entrepreneurs" wouldn't have had a potty to pee in, without the labour of the masses which they so despise.
And this volume, with its almost hysterical hatred towards everybody who is not one of the chosen few,

Did we even read the same books?

First, the books are allegories. The individuals in it aren't people, they're representations of ideas. Would you suggest that the fox in Aesop's fable didn't behave realistically when it tried to grab the grapes?

Secondly, Rand makes clear many, many times that society's judgements about what's valueable and what isn't are wrong. It doesn't matter whether you have a job society says is glamorous or not. What matters is whether you do it well and whether you acknowledge jobs well done. Not only is this point made implicitly through events within the story, but is stated explicitly. Several times. Menial work, if done well, is more worthy of respect than power and authority wielded by incompetents.

Much of Atlas Shrugged is an extremely harsh criticism of people who had money and power but had done nothing to deserve it. Industrialists who couldn't actually manage industry, politicians who can do nothing but survive off of the efforts of other people, and so on. There's nothing against the "common man" in the books, only people who don't respect and acknowledge reality and are unwilling or unable to survive usefully within it. Of course, those traits are fairly "common".

You can criticise Rand's writing skills as much as you like - she has many failings. You're even entitled to call her names. But if you're going to reject her ideas, you should have made sure you understood them first.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Simply, as she advocates an "enlightened self-interest", she fails to detemine why should one person gives up immoral extremes in the pursuit of self interest. What is the factor that makes "exploration by capital" cool, but "murder" un-cool - in short, if killing, raping, and any moral no-nos of the kind gives the perpetrator the sacro-saint "profit", why is it less moral than other things that also do it, through this superficial criteria?

It's more the question of why should one give up self-interest in the pursuit of altruism; how and why would sacrifice be morally acceptable and refusal to do so not. The burden of proof lies somewherelse. Analogous to the difference between (weak and strong) Atheism and Theism, but Rand's being closer to strong Atheism.

Granted, I don't know for sure if she indeed falls in this silly trap. However, the few I've read from her defenders say that at a certain point she advocates an absolute moral that excludes that sort of act, what is, if that is the case, no more than an arbitrary philosophy, in which some acts are chosen as moral or immoral by merely author's picking, without criteria (witch could be, for example, harming people).

All systems rely on axioms, from one level or another. What she tries to find is a minimum of viable ones. Not sure if she succeeds.

Last but not least, I think that the main issue here (wheter my assessment of Ayn is correct or incorrect) is that capitalism is, in essence, ammoral (not immoral). Therefore, building a moral approach to life based on it's inner functionings seens to be a rather un-enlightened idea.

Ok, if your purpose is the wellfare of the individual and you undertand the underlying laws of Economics and if you deem injury to other humans as bad, then Capitalism is your moral conclusion.


I accept Rand's proposition that the laws of reason are immutable, but not to the reasoning from identity/being/consciousness to what the purpose of a man's life would be (in this case -- production).

 

[jameson]

Wrong. Thank you for playing.

First of all, thank you for making me look at this, I ended up reading the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy's entry on this, and it was very illuminating (link for others who might be interested). And indeed, I was quite wrong.

As I understand it, game theory's significance here is related to how norms emerge (which is besides the point for what norms should be considered moral, even if you can make an ethical argument for them) what norms we should follow (only those that have Pareto-efficient outcomes) and why we should follow them (because they end up working for everybody else, which is the evolutionary approach). Which is not to say that we ought to unquestionably accept its contribution; game theory still suffers inevitably from the assumption of the individual utility-maximizing homo economicus and there's no room for individual psychology. Fortunately economics is at last realizing that full rationality isn't always a tenable assumption. More to the point, it just seems somehow inhuman - or a-human, if you prefer.

It's obviously hard to back up a point like that rationally, and I won't try to ( for one thing, I don't have the time). But it's why I maintain that game theory (and objectivism ) shouldn't be used to make moral judgments.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Did we even read the same books?

Obviously not.

First, the books are allegories. The individuals in it aren't people, they're representations of ideas. Would you suggest that the fox in Aesop's fable didn't behave realistically when it tried to grab the grapes?
Secondly, Rand makes clear many, many times that society's judgements about what's valueable and what isn't are wrong. It doesn't matter whether you have a job society says is glamorous or not. What matters is whether you do it well and whether you acknowledge jobs well done. Not only is this point made implicitly through events within the story, but is stated explicitly. Several times. Menial work, if done well, is more worthy of respect than power and authority wielded by incompetents.

Much of Atlas Shrugged is an extremely harsh criticism of people who had money and power but had done nothing to deserve it. Industrialists who couldn't actually manage industry, politicians who can do nothing but survive off of the efforts of other people, and so on. There's nothing against the "common man" in the books, only people who don't respect and acknowledge reality and are unwilling or unable to survive usefully within it. Of course, those traits are fairly "common".
You can criticise Rand's writing skills as much as you like - she has many failings. You're even entitled to call her names. But if you're going to reject her ideas, you should have made sure you understood them first.

Nice try, some of the intellectual contortion I referred to.Allegory or not, I still prefer political tract.
I read said book about 15 years ago. I am not going to read it again, and indeed some of the best passages seems to be about persistence, hard work anddoing something well instead of just doing it, but the fact remains that it is basically about Brave Capitalists struggling against the whining mediocrities of statism, collectivism and altruism. Now you can go on about how "allegoric" this is, but it is not accidental what we use in our allegories, and when I compare it with ms. Rand's political credo, I realize that you have to do better to convince me, I am afraid.
And I also notice that I don't have to feel like the condescending one. If I haven't understood the subleties of for instance the virtues of selfishness, this can be due to the facts that pseudo-philosophy is frequently more difficult to understand than real philosophy, and for those of us who deal with the real thing it can be a bit too time consuming once in a while.
By the way, where did I call her any names? I did indeed critise her writing style, for that I don't need your permission, and I did describe her novel in an unfavourable way. But that is surely something different.
I prefer now to discontinue this discussion, but I can't help for feeling that I may not be the one who suffers from misunderstandings here.