1/19/98 : diff. topic
MlleRenoir
Q: Would Ayn Rand's "Utopia" have survived supposing it were in existence at
that time?
QII: Would it survive today?
*just curious*
~Helena~
"Quotes are for the unconfident"~Helena ;-)
"I'm not confused..just well mixed" ~Robert Frost
Jose L. Marquez
MlleRenoir wrote:
> Q: Would Ayn Rand's "Utopia" have survived supposing it were in existence at
> that time?
> QII: Would it survive today?
>
QI: not sure what "time" you mean.
QII: Absolutely. But remember, baby steps.
Jose
Jim Klein
In <19980119162...@ladder02.news.aol.com> MlleRenoir
<mller...@aol.com> writes:
>Q: Would Ayn Rand's "Utopia" have survived supposing it were in
>existence at that time?
>QII: Would it survive today?
In some important ways, it did and it does. Without seeking to be
trite...We've never been anything, but people living as people.
There's been an awful lot of happiness, production and peaceful
coexistence going on over these millenia. All that's left now is to
squish the few bugs.
Or at least keep them away from the home!
jk
Tom Scheeler
Jose L. Marquez wrote in message <34C392ED...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
...
>
>QII: Absolutely. But remember, baby steps.
Baby steps don't work when you're trying to run away from a charging
rhirocesers...rhineocerros..rinocerrourcous.......BEAR!
Tom
Dismuke
MlleRenoir wrote:
> Q: Would Ayn Rand's "Utopia" have survived supposing it were in
> existence at
> that time?
> QII: Would it survive today?
>
> *just curious*
In all of my reading of Rand, I have never come across anything that
would indicate that she believed in the potential existence of a
"utopia" - if utopia means a society of absolute harmony without
societal ills. People have volition. Even if Objectivism were to
become the dominant philosophy world wide, there would still be plenty
of irrationality to contend with. The difference is that, in a rational
society, the irrational will be less able to victimize the rational .
Nor will they be as likely to have rational people helping them escape
the consequences of their irrationality.
Now, Rand *did* name the chapter in _Atlas Shrugged_ about Galt's Gulch
"The Utopia of Greed." But _Atlas Shrugged_ is a **storybook.** It is
not reality. To use Rand's words, it is a "selective recreation of
reality." Therefore, I question the validity of the assumptions
underlying your question.
I think that all too many people - for whatever reason - tend to treat
_Atlas Shrugged_ differently than they would any other work of
fiction. Sometimes, _Atlas_ is criticized for not being "realistic
enough" - as was the case recently on this group when someone objected
to the fact that it did not give enough attention to the more unsavory
aspects of the 19th century development of the transcontinental railroad
network. Others attempt to somehow to duplicate the *concrete
situations* and *characters* in Rand's fiction - like the man Peikoff
once mentioned who dyed his hair orange so he could be like Howard
Roark.
The characters and events in _Atlas_ are *essentialized* in order to
further the point of the story. In the case of _Atlas Shrugged_, Rand
wanted to make a point about the crucial role of man's mind in his
survival. She also wanted to make a point about what she called "the
sanction of the victim." To do so, she came up with a scenario that
would illustrate what would happen if all intellectual innovators were
to remove themselves from society. Towards that end, she had the
characters go on strike and move to Galt's Gulch. In Galt's Gulch, Rand
projected what sort of rules rational people would establish in a social
context.
Could such a scenario *literally* occur in real life? No, of course
not. There are any number of obstacles that would get in the way of
it. It would be impossible for a real life Galt to *identify* all the
innovators in the world, let alone persuade them to go on strike. Nor
are all innovators fully rational in all aspects of their lives. Some
would oppose the strike. A real life Galt's Gulch would not stay hidden
for long if it had a population of any size. Sooner or later, someone
in the group would betray the cause. Again, people have volition. Just
because someone enters a "Galt's Gulch" a decent and rational person is
not a guarantee that they would remain so. Would an isolated group of
people - even if they numbered as high as several thousand - be able to
remain fully self-sufficient? Sure but, over the long term, they would
not be able to maintain the degree of technological advancement that
they knew when community was founded. Take just one area - medicine.
In _Atlas,_ a brilliant doctor was one of the inhabitants of the
Gulch. Let's say that there were two dozen more like him. Is it
possible for the entirety of today's medical knowledge to rest with two
dozen doctors - even brilliant ones? How will they pass the
knowledge their knowledge on to the next generation? Between taking
care of the sick inhabitants of the Gulch and perhaps their research,
will they have time to also run a medical school? The same questions
would apply to all other areas of human endeavor that would impact the
inhabitants ability to maintain an advanced standard of living in an
isolated setting. An enormous division of labor is necessary to
maintain a technological society - and that would require far more
people than could exist in a "Galt's Gulch."
All of this is besides the point, however. _Atlas_ is a work of
fiction. Therefore, the fact that Galt's Gulch can not be duplicated in
concrete reality is unimportant. What's important is that the story of
the strike demonstrates the role of the mind in our lives and
illustrates the issue of the sanction of the victim - which has enormous
implications in how we should conduct our lives in concrete reality. It
also gives us the pleasure of experiencing an essentialized projection
of a rational society. But such essentializations are not possible to
concretely duplicate because, in reality, one must contend with a myriad
of non-essentials as well.
Now, if you were to ask whether a rational culture and a laissez-faire
society were possible to maintain, the answer is: "absolutely." But
first, it must be achieved; and we are still a long way from that.
Look at the furor that was raised over something as mundane as cutting
the rate of growth in the school lunch program or eliminating subsidies
to public television. There are a lot of people who talk about the need
to reduce the government but, when push comes to shove, reveal that they
have no interest in laissez faire.
Dismuke
Jason Lockwood
>Now, if you were to ask whether a rational culture and a laissez-faire
>society were possible to maintain, the answer is: "absolutely." But
>first, it must be achieved; and we are still a long way from that.
>Look at the furor that was raised over something as mundane as cutting
>the rate of growth in the school lunch program or eliminating subsidies
>to public television. There are a lot of people who talk about the need
>to reduce the government but, when push comes to shove, reveal that they
>have no interest in laissez faire.
Brilliantly said, Dismuke.
Jason Lockwood
Tym Parsons
On 19 Jan 1998, Dismuke wrote:
<Galt's Gulch>
> Could such a scenario *literally* occur in real life? No, of course
> not.
I have to disagree with this. Rand was a Romantic Realist, meaning she
attempted to portray life as it _could_ (and should) be. I see nothing
that is particularly implausible here, save perhaps the sci-fi elements of
Galt's motor and camoflauge screen. And these latter are fairly minor
considerations which illustrate her point that technological innovations
can only be discovered by men of the mind, and seem like "magic" to
epistemological savages.
> There are any number of obstacles that would get in the way of
> it. It would be impossible for a real life Galt to *identify* all the
> innovators in the world, let alone persuade them to go on strike.
He wouldn't have to. He'd just need to identify the most rational,
productive ones that would make a difference.
> Nor
> are all innovators fully rational in all aspects of their lives. Some
> would oppose the strike.
The most rational productive people would be the ones most likely to be
receptive to Galt's message. Like I said, he wouldn't have to reach
everybody in order to cause the world to collapse. When you consider a
world of full of "people's states" you realise it wouldn't take much to
find the linch-pin and pull it. Think of how easy it would have been to
cause the Soviet Union to collapse had the West taken a principled course
of action some eighty-odd years ago.
> A real life Galt's Gulch would not stay hidden
> for long if it had a population of any size. Sooner or later, someone
> in the group would betray the cause. Again, people have volition. Just
> because someone enters a "Galt's Gulch" a decent and rational person is
> not a guarantee that they would remain so.
And for the same reason, just because people have volition doesn't mean
that someone in the group _must_ betray the cause. Of course there's no
guarantee of success, else there's no dramatic tension and no
verisimilitude. But the possibility of success is still there. That's
what the benevolent universe principle is all about.
> Would an isolated group of
> people - even if they numbered as high as several thousand - be able to
> remain fully self-sufficient?
This implies an intrinsicist notion of self-sufficiency. Altho in
principle people couldn't live in the Valley off of money tainted by the
outside world, I seem to recall people bringing stuff in all the time, as
dictated by necessity.
<observations about the necessity of large-scale division of labor to
maintain a technological society and high standard of living>
You'll notice that the standard of living in the Valley was one of extreme
simplicity to begin with e.g. rough-hewn beams for houses etc. But in the
long run a society made up of men of the mind is going to have a better
shot at survival than one made up of epistemological savages. That was
Rand's whole point!
> All of this is besides the point, however. _Atlas_ is a work of
> fiction. Therefore, the fact that Galt's Gulch can not be duplicated in
> concrete reality is unimportant.
Then it's not a successful example of Romantic _Realism_ (but I'm arguing
that it is). The concretes are just as important as the abstractions,
even as they are for philosophy in general.
Tym Parsons
Dismuke
> On 19 Jan 1998, Dismuke wrote:
>
> <Galt's Gulch>
>
> > Could such a scenario *literally* occur in real life? No, of course
>
> > not.
>
Tym Parsons responded
> I have to disagree with this. Rand was a Romantic Realist, meaning
> she
> attempted to portray life as it _could_ (and should) be. I see
> nothing
> that is particularly implausible here, save perhaps the sci-fi
> elements of
> Galt's motor and camoflauge screen. And these latter are fairly minor
>
> considerations which illustrate her point that technological
> innovations
> can only be discovered by men of the mind, and seem like "magic" to
> epistemological savages.
>
I don't think what I said is in any way inconsistent with the fact that
Rand was a Romantic Realist. Here is how she described the school:
"I am a Romantic Realist - distinguished from the Romantic tradition in
that the values I deal with pertain to this earth and to the basic
problems of this era." (from Foreward to _We The Living_)
This says nothing about "plausibility." Also, what I said is entirely
consistent with the way that she described Romanticism:
" The Romantic school of writing . . . deals . . . with the essential
and the universal in human actions, not with the statistical and the
accidental." (also from Foreward to _We The Living_)
Rand also wrote:
"An artist does not fake reality - he *stylizes* it. He selects those
aspects of existence which he regards as metaphysically significant -
and by isolating and stressing them, by omitting the insignificant and
accidental, he presents *his* view of existence. His concepts are not
divorced from the facts of reality - they are concepts which integrate
the facts *and* his metaphysical evaluation of the facts." (from "Art
and Sense of Life" in _The Romantic Manifesto_) ( all emphasis Rand's)
Therefore, I tend to doubt that Rand would have argued that it was
necessary for the *specific characters and situations* in _Atlas
Shrugged_ to "true to life" Isn't such a view more along the lines of
Naturalism?
The reason that the events and characters in _Atlas Shrugged_ are not
"true to life" is because they are *essentializations* Yes it is true
that Romanticism presents things as they "might be and ought to be."
Here is what I think is the root of our differences: I hold that
_Atlas Shrugged_ presents an essentialization *of* what "might be and
ought to be." You seem to hold that the essentialization *itself* is
what "what might be and ought to be." But if reality is the standard,
the latter is impossible. It is not possible for real life to be
totally devoid of the insignificant and the accidental as it is in
fiction. An essentialization is a mental entity; it can never literally
*be.* When was the last time that you saw an essentialization walking
around?
For example - have you ever noticed that Rand's heroes were virtually
always successful whenever they set out to accomplish something? The
only time they experienced failure was due to the irrationality of
others. Now, in real life that is not possible - especially if you
agree with Rand's view that there is no such thing as innate talent.
(What famous person said that if you have never experienced failure, you
have never tried to accomplish anything?) In real life, a Howard Roark,
a John Galt or a Dagny Taggart would experience many disappointments,
frustrations, setbacks and failures that have nothing to do with others'
irrationality. They would have been due to the fact that human beings
are not omniscient, that they start out in life ignorant of many things
and that human stature - especially on such a high level - requires
struggle.
Naturalists criticize Rand for exactly this - that the omission of these
facts makes Rand's characters implausible. I disagree.
If Rand had detailed the frustrations and failures that Galt and Dagny
would have experienced in the process of rising to their level of
stature, not only would _Atlas_ be boring - but the whole meaning of the
characters and the story would have been lost. Therefore, Rand
completely omitted them. While such things might be important in a
novel with a different theme, they are non-essential as far as Galt and
Dagny are concerned. What is essential is their intelligence - not the
ignorance that they started out with; their successes, not their
failures.
The key to whether or not Galt and Dagny are examples of realism is NOT
whether it will ever be possible to see people *exactly like them in
every respect* walking down the street. What is important is whether
the specific attributes that Rand isolated and stressed as
metaphysically significant have a basis in reality. I think that,
philosophically, you and I would agree that they do. Therefore, on that
basis, they are realistic. On the other hand, if an author endows his
hero with ESP, that would not be an example of realism.
Now it is possible to potentially find in real life someone who shares
all of John Galt's essential characteristics - but unlike the fictional
John Galt, his personality and his life will be comprised of many
examples of the accidental and the non-essential. This is the
difference between fiction and reality - but it doesn't make the fiction
non-realistic.
> > All of this is besides the point, however. _Atlas_ is a work of
> > fiction. Therefore, the fact that Galt's Gulch can not be duplicated
>
> >in concrete reality is unimportant.
>
> Then it's not a successful example of Romantic _Realism_ (but I'marguing
> that it is). The concretes are just as important as the abstractions,
> even as they are for philosophy in general.
>
But the characters and events in _Atlas Shrugged_ are not concretes.
They are concretized abstractions. There is a difference.
> > There are any number of obstacles that would get in the way of
> > it. It would be impossible for a real life Galt to *identify* all
> the
> > innovators in the world, let alone persuade them to go on strike.
>
> He wouldn't have to. He'd just need to identify the most rational,
> productive ones that would make a difference.
Well, my basic point is that there is little value in analyzing too
deeply the *logistics* of Galt's campaign to persuade innovators to go
on strike and the feasibility of establishing a real life Gulch. What
is important is to grasp is the abstractions that the strike dramatize -
the role of man's mind in human life and the sanction of the victim.
While it is quite obvious that Rand spent a lot of time thinking about
some of the logistical issues, I suspect the standard that she used when
doing so was to work it out just enough to make the strike and the Gulch
believable to the reader. I seriously doubt that, once she had what she
needed to write a convincing story, she spent much time figuring out
how to overcome all of the many other obstacles that would need to be
taken into consideration if, in real life, one undertook to establish
such a community. Why would she? Such things are ommitable
non-essentials.
>
>
> > Nor
> > are all innovators fully rational in all aspects of their lives.
> Some
> > would oppose the strike.
>
> The most rational productive people would be the ones most likely to
> be
> receptive to Galt's message.
Perhaps - if they would be willing to grant him the time it would take
to philosophically educate them. Why would they do so if they did not
know him? Ever try to set an appointment with someone who is
*extremely* important? Consider yourself lucky if you even get through
to the secretary. Even if they did grant him the time, how long would
it take to convince them? Would it be in one or two conversations or
many conversations over the course of months or even years?
These are just starters for some of the logistical issues one would have
to face to do this in real life. Of course, not being a Naturalist, I do
not think it is necessary for Rand to have even asked these questions.
They are ommitable non-essentials.
> Like I said, he wouldn't have to reach
> everybody in order to cause the world to collapse. When you consider
> a
> world of full of "people's states" you realise it wouldn't take much
> to
> find the linch-pin and pull it. Think of how easy it would have been
> to
> cause the Soviet Union to collapse had the West taken a principled
> course
> of action some eighty-odd years ago.
That's an interesting point.
>
>
> > A real life Galt's Gulch would not stay hidden
> > for long if it had a population of any size. Sooner or later,
> someone
> > in the group would betray the cause. Again, people have volition.
> Just
> > because someone enters a "Galt's Gulch" a decent and rational person
> is
> > not a guarantee that they would remain so.
>
> And for the same reason, just because people have volition doesn't
> mean
> that someone in the group _must_ betray the cause.
True, but the larger the society is, the greater the likelihood exists.
How many people have you known that you once considered extremely
rational and moral but who subsequently behaved irrationally and
immorally? If the group consisted of a few dozen, perhaps the chances
of betrayal would be small as you could select only those you knew
*very* well. But if the population were to reach several thousand
people?
Again, I consider such questions to be ommitable non-essentials as far
as the novel is concerned. Which brings me back to my main point of my
earlier posting. There are people who criticize Rand precisely because
she did not answer such questions - because you never see her heroes
stumble - because Atlas does not cover in sufficient detail the
corruption that existed during the railroad building days of Nat
Taggart. Such criticisms miss the point - it is a *story*. It is
fiction. Likewise, there are others who take the opposite side of the
same error. I have met a few individuals who actually believe that
Objectivism requires that they be *just like* Rand's heroes - and if
they do not achieve what they set out to do with the ease of Francisco
D'Anconia, well there must be something wrong. Well, there is: they
have forgotten the difference between life and fiction, between actual
possibilities and essetialized possibilities.
Dismuke
Tym Parsons
On 21 Jan 1998, the worthy Dismuke wrote:
> I don't think what I said is in any way inconsistent with the fact that
> Rand was a Romantic Realist. Here is how she described the school:
>
> "I am a Romantic Realist - distinguished from the Romantic tradition in
> that the values I deal with pertain to this earth and to the basic
> problems of this era." (from Foreward to _We The Living_)
>
> This says nothing about "plausibility."
Huh?? Romantic Realism needn't be credible?
> Also, what I said is entirely
> consistent with the way that she described Romanticism:
>
> " The Romantic school of writing . . . deals . . . with the essential
> and the universal in human actions, not with the statistical and the
> accidental." (also from Foreward to _We The Living_)
True. So what? It's a false alternative to assume that artistic
credibility requires portrayal of the incidental and accidental. That's
Naturalism.
<snip noncontroversial quote>
> Therefore, I tend to doubt that Rand would have argued that it was
> necessary for the *specific characters and situations* in _Atlas
> Shrugged_ to "true to life" Isn't such a view more along the lines of
> Naturalism?
Nope, for the reason I mention above.
> The reason that the events and characters in _Atlas Shrugged_ are not
> "true to life" is because they are *essentializations* Yes it is true
> that Romanticism presents things as they "might be and ought to be."
> Here is what I think is the root of our differences: I hold that
> _Atlas Shrugged_ presents an essentialization *of* what "might be and
> ought to be." You seem to hold that the essentialization *itself* is
> what "what might be and ought to be." But if reality is the standard,
> the latter is impossible. It is not possible for real life to be
> totally devoid of the insignificant and the accidental as it is in
> fiction. An essentialization is a mental entity; it can never literally
> *be.* When was the last time that you saw an essentialization walking
> around?
We're talking about art, not real life. Good art is "more real than real"
precisely because it IS plausible. Just because it's an essentialisation
of what could and should be doesn't mean that it's not believable.
> For example - have you ever noticed that Rand's heroes were virtually
> always successful whenever they set out to accomplish something? The
> only time they experienced failure was due to the irrationality of
> others. Now, in real life that is not possible - especially if you
> agree with Rand's view that there is no such thing as innate talent.
Rand never stipulated that her characters never made mistakes. She just
considered minor mistakes nonessential to the portrayal. So what?
<snip>
> Naturalists criticize Rand for exactly this - that the omission of these
> facts makes Rand's characters implausible. I disagree.
So do I.
> The key to whether or not Galt and Dagny are examples of realism is NOT
> whether it will ever be possible to see people *exactly like them in
> every respect* walking down the street. What is important is whether
> the specific attributes that Rand isolated and stressed as
> metaphysically significant have a basis in reality. I think that,
> philosophically, you and I would agree that they do. Therefore, on that
> basis, they are realistic. On the other hand, if an author endows his
> hero with ESP, that would not be an example of realism.
Agreed.
> Now it is possible to potentially find in real life someone who shares
> all of John Galt's essential characteristics - but unlike the fictional
> John Galt, his personality and his life will be comprised of many
> examples of the accidental and the non-essential. This is the
> difference between fiction and reality - but it doesn't make the fiction
> non-realistic.
It's also the difference between Romantic Realism and Naturalism. That's
my point. I'm not sure where (or if) we disagree.
> > > All of this is besides the point, however. _Atlas_ is a work of
> > > fiction. Therefore, the fact that Galt's Gulch can not be duplicated
> >
> > >in concrete reality is unimportant.
> >
> > Then it's not a successful example of Romantic _Realism_ (but I'marguing
> > that it is). The concretes are just as important as the abstractions,
> > even as they are for philosophy in general.
> >
> But the characters and events in _Atlas Shrugged_ are not concretes.
> They are concretized abstractions. There is a difference.
What I'm saying is such concretised abstractions _could_ exist in the real
world, warts and all, even if they're not naturalistically portrayed warts
and all.
> > > There are any number of obstacles that would get in the way of
> > > it. It would be impossible for a real life Galt to *identify* all
> > the
> > > innovators in the world, let alone persuade them to go on strike.
> >
> > He wouldn't have to. He'd just need to identify the most rational,
> > productive ones that would make a difference.
>
> Well, my basic point is that there is little value in analyzing too
> deeply the *logistics* of Galt's campaign to persuade innovators to go
> on strike and the feasibility of establishing a real life Gulch. What
> is important is to grasp is the abstractions that the strike dramatize -
> the role of man's mind in human life and the sanction of the victim.
> While it is quite obvious that Rand spent a lot of time thinking about
> some of the logistical issues, I suspect the standard that she used when
> doing so was to work it out just enough to make the strike and the Gulch
> believable to the reader. I seriously doubt that, once she had what she
> needed to write a convincing story, she spent much time figuring out
> how to overcome all of the many other obstacles that would need to be
> taken into consideration if, in real life, one undertook to establish
> such a community. Why would she? Such things are ommitable
> non-essentials.
Exactly.
> > The most rational productive people would be the ones most likely to
> > be
> > receptive to Galt's message.
>
> Perhaps - if they would be willing to grant him the time it would take
> to philosophically educate them. Why would they do so if they did not
> know him? Ever try to set an appointment with someone who is
> *extremely* important? Consider yourself lucky if you even get through
> to the secretary.
In real life the head honcho for the Church of Scientology "just
happened" to drop in on the head of the IRS one day without an
appointment, whereupon he somehow convinced the IRS to drop its efforts
resisting the cult's tax-exempt status. Amazing innit.
> Even if they did grant him the time, how long would
> it take to convince them? Would it be in one or two conversations or
> many conversations over the course of months or even years?
Depends. In the novel there was both. As far as the immediate
conversions, if the world were collapsing into dictatorship, that can make
the issues pretty stark and trucklike ;-) .
> These are just starters for some of the logistical issues one would have
> to face to do this in real life. Of course, not being a Naturalist, I do
> not think it is necessary for Rand to have even asked these questions.
> They are ommitable non-essentials.
The logistical issues are implicit tho.
> > And for the same reason, just because people have volition doesn't
> > mean
> > that someone in the group _must_ betray the cause.
>
> True, but the larger the society is, the greater the likelihood exists.
> How many people have you known that you once considered extremely
> rational and moral but who subsequently behaved irrationally and
> immorally? If the group consisted of a few dozen, perhaps the chances
> of betrayal would be small as you could select only those you knew
> *very* well. But if the population were to reach several thousand
> people?
There was only one way into the Valley. Nobody came or went without
Galt's knowing it. Most people didn't even leave the Valley.
> Again, I consider such questions to be ommitable non-essentials as far
> as the novel is concerned.
I think plausibility is pretty essential and can't be omitted ;-) .
Tym Parsons