My First Read of Atlas Shrugged
oxymor...@my-dejanews.com
Objectivism philosophy tracts, I had never read Atlas Shrugged or The
Fountainhead previously. I must say that my predisposition was not to like
the book because I have strong disagreements with Rand's philosophy. I knew,
however, the book had merit and was worth reading. Upon reading, my feelings
are that Atlas Shrugged is a great book. One worth reading for its
presentation of a coherent perspective that is dramatically illustrated.
However, I can't believe how flat and unrealistic the characters are. Human
beings are not as singular as those demonstrated in Atlas Shrugged. I have
heard an argument that these characters represent ideas. This is fine, but I
think it illustrates the point of how different real, flesh and blood humans
are from ideas. As in her philosophy, I feel that Rand's literature lacks a
real human emotional element. Atlas Shrugged is an outstanding work of art,
but it represents only certain aspects of the human condition. Any all-
encompassing claims for the world of Atlas Shrugged should be watched with
care.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Taganov
>beings are not as singular as those demonstrated in Atlas Shrugged.
Her purpose was to illustrate how men "might and ought to be," not to report
journalistically on the world as it is today. Also: most of the laws (short
of directive 10-289) have already been passed in the US. Much of the dialogue
of the villains was taken directly from things said by various world leaders.
Her goal was to essentialize their nature so that one could see how their ideas
led to their destruction. Much of the psychological and emotive
characterization is performed with the heroes, especially Dagny and Rearden,
although there is a lot of dramatic characterization with Galt, Francisco, and
the other strikers, but it is very subtle.
Dagnytgrt
beings are not as singular as those demonstrated in Atlas Shrugged. >>
Guess u haven't met my ex - Roark personified. (I know - that was the other
book.) I was amazed to find a living human being as *&^%*%*& consistent as he.
He did buck the "system" and became wealthy and retired at age 45 (okay, that
wasn't all that *randian* of my ex.) But, he still is amazingly like Ayn's idea
of her "ideal." Then again, he is my ex. <G>
BTW - I do know several people who embody many of the characteristics of
Rand's characters - and they're people I find quite admirable and interesting
and not-at-all flat or singular.
So there.
Sally Milo
XNFP
further?
At any rate, I agree with you that we shouldn't try to *be* John Galt (or any
of the other characters, except perhaps Rearden). I"m not interested in being
one of the characters in ATLAS SHRUGGED. I'm interested in being *me* and in
using what I learned from Rand's work, as well as from anything else, to help
me to reach my potential as a human being.
Steph
Steph Silberstein (xn...@aol.com)
Co-moderator, self-esteem-self-help, the best self-help group on the 'Net!
"Working with what exists today to create a better tomorrow."
Andrew Taranto
to be of this nature (when they're not simply disparaging). However, my
point really is to ask for clarity and not to "retaliate."
When you say, "Atlas Shrugged...represents only certain aspects of the human
condition," Can you define the "human condition?" Further, can you discuss
what art's role is in treating the human condition; or rather, given your
definition of the "human condition" (which I submit is little more than
jargon of MLA caliber), what did Rand miss?
If I'm correct in understanding what you mean by "real human emotional
element," I can only speak for myself in saying that _Atlas_Shrugged_ evoked
more and more intense emotions in me than most other esthetic experiences
I've had. This does not constitute a refutation, I realize; but it leads me
to ask: what was the nature of your response to the book? Judging by the
rest of your reply, I would have to think that certainly it was emotional,
and quite so.
(This is where requests for clarity stop and the assumptions begin...)
You should consider Rand's stated purpose in writing Atlas Shrugged: "the
role of man's mind in society" (or some such). Since she placed an emphasis
on *society's* dependence on the "men of the mind," her characterizations
are secondary in importance to her plot, as opposed to _The_Fountainhead_
(though I think that her characterizations and plots in both books are very
good and quite prominent; one simply has emphasis over the other in each
case).
If you mean to say that you can't believe that men can be "that good" or
"that evil," I would say that (to paraphrase Rand) so much of what goes on
in the world is so evil (much less of it is so good, or so it seems) that no
novelist could pass it off with believability. If this is what you are
saying, I would suspect your definitions of good and evil. Given that evil
is the hatred of the good *for being good* (Rand's definition), then the
usual talk about good and evil (e.g., good is that which is opposed to evil
(and vice-versa); good depends on evil for its existence (and vice-versa);
good and evil are really just yin and yang (and vice-versa)) gets pretty
incoherent. In these terms, one of Rand's goals was to show how much the
evil depends on the good; and as a corollary, how much of a vice it is on
the part of the good to think that it depends on the evil to any degree or
in any manner. I don't think this would have been possible with "pretty
good" heroes and "not so good" villains. The degree of her success in
achieving this goal is, I think, a large measure of _Atlas_Shrugged's_
esthetic value.
Andrew Taranto
oxymor...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<747f3m$25v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Although I read Anthem in high school and have tried to read some of the
>Objectivism philosophy tracts, I had never read Atlas Shrugged or The
>Fountainhead previously. I must say that my predisposition was not to like
>the book because I have strong disagreements with Rand's philosophy. I
knew,
>however, the book had merit and was worth reading. Upon reading, my
feelings
>are that Atlas Shrugged is a great book. One worth reading for its
>presentation of a coherent perspective that is dramatically illustrated.
>However, I can't believe how flat and unrealistic the characters are.
Human
GRADinc
If I may jump in.
>When you say, "Atlas Shrugged...represents only certain aspects of the human
>condition," Can you define the "human condition?"
Look around you at humans. That is the human condition.
>Further, can you discuss
>what art's role is in treating the human condition; or rather, given your
>definition of the "human condition" (which I submit is little more than
>jargon of MLA caliber), what did Rand miss?
Arts role in treating the human condition is to depict it in such a way as
to provide insights into human action and thought. This may entail some
exageration and emphasis.
Rand missed the factors that motivate the whole cast of villians in Atlas
Shrugged.
She had them running society into the ground on purpose. Politicians etc
run society into the ground out of good intentions as in "The road to hell is
paved with good intentions."
>If I'm correct in understanding what you mean by "real human emotional
>element," I can only speak for myself in saying that _Atlas_Shrugged_ evoked
>more and more intense emotions in me than most other esthetic experiences
>I've had.
One set of emotions. There are other emotions.
>This does not constitute a refutation, I realize; but it leads me
>to ask: what was the nature of your response to the book?
It was a page turner, like a good sci-fi novel, or detective yarn.
I kept bumping up against the technical anachronisms, and the
overdone emotionality like the suicide of Cheryl.
>If you mean to say that you can't believe that men can be "that good" or
>"that evil," I would say that (to paraphrase Rand) so much of what goes on
>in the world is so evil (much less of it is so good, or so it seems) that no
>novelist could pass it off with believability.
No. I don't think the world is so black and white as Rand portrayed it.
> If this is what you are
>saying, I would suspect your definitions of good and evil.
You are an objectivist right? Objectivism holds no absolutes beyond what
men know through induction. There has never been a man as brilliant as
Galt. There have never been politicians as stupid as those in Atlas.
Hence the standard you are proposing for good and evil is not objective.
>Given that evil
>is the hatred of the good *for being good* (Rand's definition),
Yes, Atlas Shrugged, if you read it from Rand's point of view using her
definitions is a self contained and consistent whole. But I, and the poster
to whom you are responding, read it as outsiders using ordinary English,
common sense definitions of terms like evil.
> then the
>usual talk about good and evil (e.g., good is that which is opposed to evil
>(and vice-versa); good depends on evil for its existence (and vice-versa);
>good and evil are really just yin and yang (and vice-versa)) gets pretty
>incoherent.
But I am not in the world of Rand's definitions. I have not yet been
convinced, even by reading Atlas Shrugged, that these are the proper
definitions to use.
>In these terms, one of Rand's goals was to show how much the
>evil depends on the good; and as a corollary, how much of a vice it is on
>the part of the good to think that it depends on the evil to any degree or
>in any manner.
Yes. I know that was her goal. I was n ot convinced.
> I don't think this would have been possible with "pretty
>good" heroes and "not so good" villains.
I think it would have been more effective in convincing the outsider.
If the hero had been more like men you actually know, if the villians had
been working from good intentions, then a non-objectivist working from
his own experience of the world might have been better convinced of
Rand's arguments.
By setting up the situation with supermen and supervillians she is
"loading the dice" so that Atlas Shrugged turns out the way she wants.
I remain unconvinced that the real world, with real not-so superlative people
works like this.
> The degree of her success in
>achieving this goal is, I think, a large measure of _Atlas_Shrugged's_
>esthetic value.
How many people have read Atlas Shrugged? How many of those have
been sold on the dependence of evil on good?
Tom Clarke
Andrew Taranto
GRADinc wrote in message <19981216223245...@ng57.aol.com>...
>Andrew Taranto
>
>If I may jump in.
>
>>When you say, "Atlas Shrugged...represents only certain aspects of the
human
>>condition," Can you define the "human condition?"
>
>Look around you at humans. That is the human condition.
>
That does not constitute a definition. I suspect that what you mean is some
variant on the doctrine of original sin, such as "nobody's perfect." Am I
correct?
>>Further, can you discuss
>>what art's role is in treating the human condition; or rather, given your
>>definition of the "human condition" (which I submit is little more than
>>jargon of MLA caliber), what did Rand miss?
>
>Arts role in treating the human condition is to depict it in such a way as
>to provide insights into human action and thought. This may entail some
>exageration and emphasis.
>
>Rand missed the factors that motivate the whole cast of villians in Atlas
>Shrugged.
>She had them running society into the ground on purpose. Politicians etc
>run society into the ground out of good intentions as in "The road to hell
is
>paved with good intentions."
I think you are a little over-generous with the James Taggarts and the Mr.
Thompsons. Their intentions in fact were "good," but I use sneer quotes
because in fact they held to no meaningful definition of the good. "The
good," as they often professed, amounted to, e.g., "what's good for
society," something that James T "didn't stand to benefit from; [that he]
didn't do for profit." Similarly, President Clinton has claimed a platform
of "good intentions" since his first campaign: I submit that (a) his claims
to well-meaning are insincere at best; and (b) even if he has been sincere,
a century of increasingly statist American history gives him no reason to
think that, say, attempting to nationalize the medical industry would be
nothing short of a disaster. Either he is [impossibly] naive, or he is as
black as Mr. Thompson, if not more so (note the the qualifier "as"). Show me
a president who sincerely "meant well" in the last hundred years (with the
possible exception of Jimmy Carter), and I would concede your point, except
that you would have about 90 years worth of other presidents to explain
(i.e., dirty policies as well as intentions).
>
>>If I'm correct in understanding what you mean by "real human emotional
>>element," I can only speak for myself in saying that _Atlas_Shrugged_
evoked
>>more and more intense emotions in me than most other esthetic experiences
>>I've had.
>
>One set of emotions. There are other emotions.
>
What do you mean? Are you attempting to discredit my emotional reaction? Or
else somehow refute it? I took oxymoron to be speaking of a lack of an
emotional element, not to be critiquing the nature of whatever element was
present. What exactly are you doing?
>>This does not constitute a refutation, I realize; but it leads me
>>to ask: what was the nature of your response to the book?
>
>It was a page turner, like a good sci-fi novel, or detective yarn.
>I kept bumping up against the technical anachronisms, and the
>overdone emotionality like the suicide of Cheryl.
>
I am curious to know what you mean by "overdone emotionality," but that
would be a subject for an entire thread, I'm sure. I found Cheryl's suicide
melodramatic, but not distastefully so (I think it's a marginal point). I
was put off by the idea of Galt's motor; but this says nothing substantive
about Rand's philosophy nor about AS's esthetics. Anyway, both science and
science fiction have come a long way since the 50s.
>>If you mean to say that you can't believe that men can be "that good" or
>>"that evil," I would say that (to paraphrase Rand) so much of what goes on
>>in the world is so evil (much less of it is so good, or so it seems) that
no
>>novelist could pass it off with believability.
>
>No. I don't think the world is so black and white as Rand portrayed it.
>
I did not address the problem of the sharpness of good and evil in AS
(though it's not as sharp as I'm gathering you think, judging by your use of
"black and white"; part of the theme of the novel is that "good guys" are in
great need of addressing their glaring moral flaws). I supplied a meaning
that I thought was implicit in oxymoron's statement of the characters'
"flatness" and "singularity." Whether I was mistaken or not, you are not
addressing what I said. Anyway, as evidence that Rand *was* being charitable
with the world at large, either visit DC or go to work in the morning.
>> If this is what you are
>>saying, I would suspect your definitions of good and evil.
>
>You are an objectivist right? Objectivism holds no absolutes beyond what
>men know through induction. There has never been a man as brilliant as
>Galt. There have never been politicians as stupid as those in Atlas.
>Hence the standard you are proposing for good and evil is not objective.
>
Your first premise is incoherent (not to mention false). What men know
through induction is of a different order of things from absolutes as such.
Men might know things that are absolute (like Rand's pet "A is A"); however,
not knowing this proposition does not rob it of absoluteness (would it be
better to say that ignorance of an axiom does not falsify the axiom?).
Hence, your conclusion is incoherent. Anyway, your second premise is
doubtful; the third is utterly false (see above about this century's
presidents, or read a book on on of the world wars).
>>Given that evil
>>is the hatred of the good *for being good* (Rand's definition),
>
>Yes, Atlas Shrugged, if you read it from Rand's point of view using her
>definitions is a self contained and consistent whole. But I, and the
poster
>to whom you are responding, read it as outsiders using ordinary English,
>common sense definitions of terms like evil.
>
[You will need to supply a "common sense" definition of evil (in fact, I've
already done so; see the following, especially "usual talk").]
>> then the
>>usual talk about good and evil (e.g., good is that which is opposed to
evil
>>(and vice-versa); good depends on evil for its existence (and vice-versa);
>>good and evil are really just yin and yang (and vice-versa)) gets pretty
>>incoherent.
>
>But I am not in the world of Rand's definitions. I have not yet been
>convinced, even by reading Atlas Shrugged, that these are the proper
>definitions to use.
Evidently, you misread me here. She took issue with these definitions; so do
I.
>
>>In these terms, one of Rand's goals was to show how much the
>>evil depends on the good; and as a corollary, how much of a vice it is on
>>the part of the good to think that it depends on the evil to any degree or
>>in any manner.
>
>Yes. I know that was her goal. I was n ot convinced.
>
>> I don't think this would have been possible with "pretty
>>good" heroes and "not so good" villains.
>
>I think it would have been more effective in convincing the outsider.
>If the hero had been more like men you actually know, if the villians had
>been working from good intentions, then a non-objectivist working from
>his own experience of the world might have been better convinced of
>Rand's arguments.
>
>By setting up the situation with supermen and supervillians she is
>"loading the dice" so that Atlas Shrugged turns out the way she wants.
>I remain unconvinced that the real world, with real not-so superlative
people
>works like this.
[The "real world" works in exactly the same way (i.e., events follow
logically and explicably from prior events; see below); but the outcome is
different given the "real world's" greater complexity (as well as that of
each entity present).]
>
>> The degree of her success in
>>achieving this goal is, I think, a large measure of _Atlas_Shrugged's_
>>esthetic value.
>
>How many people have read Atlas Shrugged? How many of those have
>been sold on the dependence of evil on good?
>
>Tom Clarke
It was not part of Rand's goal to prostelytize, preach, convince, or
enlighten via her novels. She hoped for enlightenment of her readers as a
secondary effect; but her primary goal was to create "a world that she would
want to experience and characters that she would want to meet" (paraphrasing
her).
Of course AS is going to turn out the way she wants. "Loading the dice" is a
dicy term to employ here; you imply that she should have added some
"randomness," given that the book's events (i.e., the actions of the "super"
characters and the consequences of those actions) in fact followed logically
from the fisrt page (as she intended); given that they didn't, as I think
you mean to say (i.e., her logic was consistent but unrealistic, perhaps?),
how did she fail? Outside of this question, the discussion is outside the
realm of literature-as-art and enters that of literature-as-political tract.
Is that where you are going? If so you are disagreeing with oxymoron who
called AS "an outstanding work of art."
As to your final sentence, a person can read AS and think, "I don't know
how to explain it, but I liked [or disliked] it." This is an entirely valid
response (just not as well-formulated as it could be); it does not discount
the possibility that AS's esthetic value is as I claimed. After all, how
many people hate AS because it illustrates good and evil as something other
than equals-but-opposites?
Andrew Taranto
GRADinc
>Can you define the "human condition?"
>>Look around you at humans. That is the human condition.
>That does not constitute a definition.
And I thought ostensive definition was a common objectivist
technique, that is, definition by pointing at the thing being defined.
> I suspect that what you mean is some
>variant on the doctrine of original sin, such as "nobody's perfect." Am I
>correct?
No. You are wrong. First this is not a definition, original sin is
an interpretation of the human condition. If you want my
interpretation I can only give a preliminary one as it will
continue to change until I die as I learn new things about the
world.
I would say that man is the animal that has attained a form of
self consciousness unique (as far as we know) in the universe.
But man still remains an animal with many "instinctual" responses
shaped by evolution. These responses are both a problem and
an opportunity. [Rand largely ignores them]
If the term "original sin" has any meaning, it is as a metaphor
for man's attaining a consciousness beyond that of any other
animal.
>> Politicians etc
>>run society into the ground out of good intentions as in "The road to hell
>is
>>paved with good intentions."
>I think you are a little over-generous with the James Taggarts and the Mr.
>Thompsons. Their intentions in fact were "good," but I use sneer quotes
>because in fact they held to no meaningful definition of the good.
Yes. that is Rand's interpretation, the point she tried to sell.
But I was unconvinced.
>"The
>good," as they often professed, amounted to, e.g., "what's good for
>society," something that James T "didn't stand to benefit from; [that he]
>didn't do for profit."
Yes, Rand made the businessmen into altruists.
I can only think of a couple who might be like that in the
world - e.g. Ted Turner. But there are certainly not
enough "altruist" businessmen to run society into the ground.
I was raised in Miami. When Castro took over, the Cuban
businessmen did not become altruists, they left and came to
Miami.
>Similarly, President Clinton has claimed a platform
>of "good intentions" since his first campaign: I submit that (a) his claims
>to well-meaning are insincere at best;
You don't believe anything a politician says, do you?
>and (b) even if he has been sincere,
>a century of increasingly statist American history gives him no reason to
>think that, say, attempting to nationalize the medical industry would be
>nothing short of a disaster.
The last decade of increasing HMO hegemony is not encouraging
either.
>Either he is [impossibly] naive, or he is as
>black as Mr. Thompson, if not more so (note the the qualifier "as").
The truth is somewhere in the middle. He is a cynical politician
with probably too much faith in the power of the government to
solve problems. Does the "as" cover this?
>Show me
>a president who sincerely "meant well" in the last hundred years (with the
>possible exception of Jimmy Carter),
Jimmy Carter may have been the worst president in the past 100 years.
I'm not sure where this leads, but meaning well is not suffcient,
realism and cynicism and political smarts are needed as well.
>and I would concede your point, except
>that you would have about 90 years worth of other presidents to explain
>(i.e., dirty policies as well as intentions).
Why did Bush stop Desert Storm? He thought it best.
Why did Reagan defy congress and do the Iran Contra deals,
because he thought that was the best course of action.
Why did Ford pardon Nixon? He thought it best for the country.
Why did Nixon do the Watergate thing? Because he thought
he would be the _best_ President and wanted to insure his reelection.
Why did Johnson escalate the Vietnam war? He thought it best.
Why did Kennedy order the Bay of Pigs? He thought it best.
Why did Eisenhower hold back von Braun so Russia got t he
first satellite? He thought it best since it would energize
American scientific effort.
Why did Truman A-bomb Japan? He thought it best.
Etc. etc.
>>> I can only speak for myself in saying that _Atlas_Shrugged_
>evoked
>>>more and more intense emotions in me than most other esthetic experiences
>>>I've had.
>>One set of emotions. There are other emotions.
>What do you mean? Are you attempting to discredit my emotional reaction?
No. But I really doubt if one novel could have evoked the full
range of human emotion in you.
>What exactly are you doing?
Did Atlas Shrugged evoke empathy in you? I would think it
anti-empathetic if anything (what is anti-empathy? disgust?)
>>It was a page turner, like a good sci-fi novel, or detective yarn.
>>I kept bumping up against the technical anachronisms, and the
>>overdone emotionality like the suicide of Cheryl.
>I am curious to know what you mean by "overdone emotionality,"
I was getting bored with the scene before it finished.
>I found Cheryl's suicide melodramatic, but not distastefully so
Too long.
> I
>was put off by the idea of Galt's motor; but this says nothing substantive
>about Rand's philosophy nor about AS's esthetics.
To me, the use of an impossible (or highly improbable) physical device
to show how thinking objectively leads to great human achievement,
was the wrong tactic. You can't prove a possible with an impossible.
I had the same problem with _Anthem_.
>Anyway, both science and
>science fiction have come a long way since the 50s.
It was even a bit strange for the 50's. The 50's had TV - hardly
mentioned in AS -, atomic energy (was that the cosmic ray stuff
they kept mentioning?) - so it all seemed rather anachronistic to me.
I think it would have been better to set the AS story in a slightly
different alternate time with Galt et al more realistic characters.
>>No. I don't think the world is so black and white as Rand portrayed it.
>I did not address the problem of the sharpness of good and evil in AS
>(though it's not as sharp as I'm gathering you think, judging by your use of
>"black and white"; part of the theme of the novel is that "good guys" are in
>great need of addressing their glaring moral flaws).
A black and white world was the impression I got upon reading.
>I supplied a meaning
>that I thought was implicit in oxymoron's statement of the characters'
>"flatness" and "singularity."
Black and white is the chromatic version of the geometric adjectives
"flatness" and "singularity". So I think I am addressing your points.
>Anyway, as evidence that Rand *was* being charitable
>with the world at large, either visit DC or go to work in the morning.
I have, I do. Atlas Shrugged IS an exaggeration.
>>You are an objectivist right? Objectivism holds no absolutes beyond what
>>men know through induction. There has never been a man as brilliant as
>>Galt. There have never been politicians as stupid as those in Atlas.
>>Hence the standard you are proposing for good and evil is not objective.
>Your first premise is incoherent (not to mention false). What men know
>through induction is of a different order of things from absolutes as such.
Perhaps I misunderstand objectivism. But then does anyone
living understand objectivism?
>Men might know things that are absolute (like Rand's pet "A is A")
[But there are no analytic truths in objectivism! But that is another
thread]
> however,
>not knowing this proposition does not rob it of absoluteness (would it be
>better to say that ignorance of an axiom does not falsify the axiom?).
>Hence, your conclusion is incoherent.
Huh? I was speaking of archetypes of human beings, not
of logical axioms. Galt is a character in a fictional book.
I can't find a similar figure in history. Hence it seems to
me that according to objectivism it is arbitrary to assert that
a man could be better than any man has ever been, that is as
good as Galt.
> Anyway, your second premise is doubtful;
Arguable.
> the third is utterly false (see above about this century's
>presidents, or read a book on on of the world wars).
I have. The politicians in Atlas Shrugged are unrecognizable as
real human beings. Maybe this is a flaw in Rand's art, at least
as far as my reading style is concerned. I find the evil, venal
politicians in Clancy's novels much more believable.
>[You will need to supply a "common sense" definition of evil (in fact, I've
>already done so; see the following, especially "usual talk").]
I looked in the dictionary and the closest short definition to what
I know evil to be (I know it when I see it) is "morally corrupt".
"Morally" brings in the idea of acting in a non-good fashion.
"Corrupt" brings in the idea of willful or neglectful action.
A proper definition is the subject of a course, but suffice it to
say that I think objectivism uses the word wrongly.
>[The "real world" works in exactly the same way (i.e., events follow
>logically and explicably from prior events; see below); but the outcome is
>different given the "real world's" greater complexity (as well as that of
>each entity present).]
I can't disagree with that.
>It was not part of Rand's goal to prostelytize, preach, convince, or
>enlighten via her novels.
Then why the Objectivist and Objectivism and all the other
trappings of a movement?
> She hoped for enlightenment of her readers as a
>secondary effect; but her primary goal was to create "a world that she would
>want to experience and characters that she would want to meet" (paraphrasing
>her).
I think she might have been suprised - unpleasantly - if Galt had
stepped off the pages of her novel and become a real person.
A man more wooden than Al Gore, more self righteous than
Pat Robertson, what a combination.
>Of course AS is going to turn out the way she wants. "Loading the dice" is a
>dicy term to employ here; you imply that she should have added some
>"randomness,"
Not randomness. Just more conformance to reality.
> given that the book's events (i.e., the actions of the "super"
>characters and the consequences of those actions) in fact followed logically
>from the fisrt page (as she intended);
I said it was a logically consistent world. I said it was a page turner.
I just don't think it is a very useful paradigm for how the world works.
> given that they didn't, as I think
>you mean to say (i.e., her logic was consistent but unrealistic, perhaps?),
Yes and no. The actions foloowed logically, but they were
consistent but unrealistic.
>how did she fail?
Her premises regarding human nature are flawed.
>Outside of this question, the discussion is outside the
>realm of literature-as-art and enters that of literature-as-political tract.
In painting t here is a continuum from realism to surrealism(Dali) to
abstraction. [maybe it branches, but there are a lot of styles]
Atlas Shrugged is a bit over toward the surrealistic side.
Sort of round about Magritte, but not as far as Dali.
Final sentence:
>>How many of those have
>>been sold on the dependence of evil on good?
>As to your final sentence, a person can read AS and think, "I don't know
>how to explain it, but I liked [or disliked] it." This is an entirely valid
>response (just not as well-formulated as it could be); it does not discount
>the possibility that AS's esthetic value is as I claimed.
Yes you liked it more than I. You are right we should
seperate the issue of AS as political tract from its value as a work
or art.
> After all, how
>many people hate AS because it illustrates good and evil as something other
>than equals-but-opposites?
Unknown.
Tom Clarke
Matt Durand
>
> Andrew Taranto
>
> If I may jump in.
>
> >When you say, "Atlas Shrugged...represents only certain aspects of the human
>
> Look around you at humans. That is the human condition.
>
> >what art's role is in treating the human condition; or rather, given your
> >definition of the "human condition" (which I submit is little more than
> >jargon of MLA caliber), what did Rand miss?
>
> Arts role in treating the human condition is to depict it in such a way as
> to provide insights into human action and thought. This may entail some
> exageration and emphasis.
>
> Rand missed the factors that motivate the whole cast of villians in Atlas
> Shrugged.
> run society into the ground out of good intentions as in "The road to hell is
> paved with good intentions."
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what Rand was going for. The whole James
Taggart, Orren Boyle clique were wholely motivated by what they
constantly professed as good intentions. I really don't see how you
missed this. The antogonists are constantly rationalizing their acts on
the basis of "the public good" throughout the book.
>
> >If I'm correct in understanding what you mean by "real human emotional
> >element," I can only speak for myself in saying that _Atlas_Shrugged_ evoked
> >more and more intense emotions in me than most other esthetic experiences
> >I've had.
>
> One set of emotions. There are other emotions.
>
> >This does not constitute a refutation, I realize; but it leads me
> >to ask: what was the nature of your response to the book?
>
> It was a page turner, like a good sci-fi novel, or detective yarn.
> I kept bumping up against the technical anachronisms, and the
> overdone emotionality like the suicide of Cheryl.
>
True. Remember though that she was a Hollywood screenwriter. At least
her over-dramatizations operated on solid motivations though.
> >If you mean to say that you can't believe that men can be "that good" or
> >"that evil," I would say that (to paraphrase Rand) so much of what goes on
> >in the world is so evil (much less of it is so good, or so it seems) that no
> >novelist could pass it off with believability.
>
> No. I don't think the world is so black and white as Rand portrayed it.
>
And it was expressly for the purpose of demonstration that Rand depicted
these fictitious demonstrations of good & evil. In her non-fiction, she
states quite clearly how well she knows those she considers evil's
ability to twist words and so to appear "more gray".
> > If this is what you are
> >saying, I would suspect your definitions of good and evil.
>
> You are an objectivist right? Objectivism holds no absolutes beyond what
> men know through induction. There has never been a man as brilliant as
> Galt. There have never been politicians as stupid as those in Atlas.
> Hence the standard you are proposing for good and evil is not objective.
>
Unfortunatly, there probably hasn't been any men quite as smart and
complete as Galt. However, Rand created Galt's character as a surpassing
ideal. One could be totally Galt-like in spirit except perhaps in his
marvellous technical abilities. This was more the point. However, I must
disagree that there haven't been any politicians as stupid as those in
Atlas Shrugged. Perhaps it's just because socialist thinking and
"reasoning" isn't as prevelant in the US. Believe me the amount of
utterly idiotic things that are done by politicians in Canada daily is
retarded. Of course these destructive policies are all done in the name
of "public good". Remember, Rand was raised during the times of the
Bolshevik revolution and witnessed horrible butchery and terror all in
the name of "public good" but which arose from the idiocy described in
Atlas. Thank goodness we haven't observed it *here*!
> >Given that evil
> >is the hatred of the good *for being good* (Rand's definition),
>
> Yes, Atlas Shrugged, if you read it from Rand's point of view using her
> definitions is a self contained and consistent whole. But I, and the poster
> to whom you are responding, read it as outsiders using ordinary English,
> common sense definitions of terms like evil.
>
But here definition is based on common-sense. When people think "evil"
most think of thieves, looters and killers. These evil people are only
the concrete manefestations of Rand's description of *the concept* of
evil.
> > then the
> >usual talk about good and evil (e.g., good is that which is opposed to evil
> >(and vice-versa); good depends on evil for its existence (and vice-versa);
> >good and evil are really just yin and yang (and vice-versa)) gets pretty
> >incoherent.
>
> But I am not in the world of Rand's definitions. I have not yet been
> convinced, even by reading Atlas Shrugged, that these are the proper
> definitions to use.
>
Perhaps if it were made clearer. Rand's definition of the good was men
who were self-sufficient. Remeber Galt's one axiom: to not sacrifice
himself to others and to not sacrifice others to himself. To live by
your own steam. The evil would be those who lived *by using other men*
as means to *their* ends. Those who live by consuming the lives of
others (looters, thieves, killers) and don't care how they survive, so
long as they get the goods. Whether they loot from the good (producers)
or fellow looters doesn't matter. The point is they are disconnected
from reality. In the absence of the knowledge of how to care for
themselves, they steal what they need from those who *do* know. This is
alot of words to describe a simple thing, I know, but the purpose of
Atlas Shrugged was partially in broadening the scope of that which we
know to be true in concretes and developing the concept of evil to apply
to all human relationships.
> >In these terms, one of Rand's goals was to show how much the
> >evil depends on the good; and as a corollary, how much of a vice it is on
> >the part of the good to think that it depends on the evil to any degree or
> >in any manner.
>
> Yes. I know that was her goal. I was n ot convinced.
You are not convinced that a thief could survive in a world where
*everyone* was a thief?
>
> > I don't think this would have been possible with "pretty
> >good" heroes and "not so good" villains.
>
> I think it would have been more effective in convincing the outsider.
> If the hero had been more like men you actually know, if the villians had
> been working from good intentions, then a non-objectivist working from
> his own experience of the world might have been better convinced of
> Rand's arguments.
I will reiterate that the villains *did* operate from good intentions.
Their evil lied in the fact that they were in willful ignorance to what
"the good" actually was. And that is the most damning pronunciation of
guilt to an objectivist: denial of truth, contradiction. The "villains"
in Atlas were full of both. However, this seems more of critique in the
stylistics of character development, which is a valid criticism.
>
> By setting up the situation with supermen and supervillians she is
> "loading the dice" so that Atlas Shrugged turns out the way she wants.
> I remain unconvinced that the real world, with real not-so superlative people
> works like this.
>
Supervillains? The "villains" in Atlas were only evil because of their
stupidity, as I said. However, they still *win*, in the end. Another
point of Atlas Shrugged was in demonstrating the disgusting
effectiveness of mob rule.
> > The degree of her success in
> >achieving this goal is, I think, a large measure of _Atlas_Shrugged's_
> >esthetic value.
>
> How many people have read Atlas Shrugged? How many of those have
> been sold on the dependence of evil on good?
Did Thomas Edison kill kittens? Hell no! -- The standard is: no human or
kitten sacrifices! Remember this includes not just the sacrifice of the
lives directly, but the products and the contents of those lives also.
GRADinc
>> Rand ... had [the villians] running society into the ground on
>>purpose. Politicians etc run society into the ground out of good
>>intentions as in "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
>I'm pretty sure this is exactly what Rand was going for. The whole James
>Taggart, Orren Boyle clique were wholely motivated by what they
>constantly professed as good intentions.
Yes, thinking back, I can see you are right.
But the clique did such a bad job of it, that I found them not
believable. Which is my point about them being the black to
Galt's white or being too flat or however it should be phrased,
the lack of true to life characterization detracted from the novel.
>>... the overdone emotionality like the suicide of Cheryl.
>True. Remember though that she was a Hollywood screenwriter.
From the silent era, wasn't it? At least partially? They really had
to emote without sound.
> At least
>her over-dramatizations operated on solid motivations though.
That's another question. I never did quite figure out why Cheryl
suicided. Maybe she felt trapped - possible in the 50's when
getting a divorce was difficult etc., but not so much today.
>> I don't think the world is so black and white as Rand portrayed it.
>And it was expressly for the purpose of demonstration that Rand depicted
>these fictitious demonstrations of good & evil. In her non-fiction, she
>states quite clearly how well she knows those she considers evil's
>ability to twist words and so to appear "more gray".
Well she won't ever convince us evil gray dwellers to embrace
black and white with black and white fiction.
>Unfortunatly, there probably hasn't been any men quite as smart and
>complete as Galt.
We agree.
>One could be totally Galt-like in spirit except perhaps in his
>marvellous technical abilities.
Maybe. I'd have liked to have seen a portrait of such a man,
rather than a wooden ideal.
> I must
>disagree that there haven't been any politicians as stupid as those in
>Atlas Shrugged.
You site Canadian politicians.
There are dumb politicians about, sure. But for some reason the
protrayals of the politicians in AS left me cold. I found them
unrealistic.
>Remember, Rand was raised during the times of the
>Bolshevik revolution and witnessed horrible butchery and terror all in
>the name of "public good" but which arose from the idiocy described in
>Atlas.
Yes. That was her motivation. I think she might have done better
in the long run in advancing an anti Bolshevik agenda with a less
extreme and more realistic protrayal of characters.
>But I, and the poster
>> to whom you are responding, read it as outsiders using ordinary English,
>> common sense definitions of terms like evil.
>But here definition is based on common-sense. When people think "evil"
>most think of thieves, looters and killers. These evil people are only
>the concrete manefestations of Rand's description of *the concept* of
>evil.
"only"? There is a great deal of philosophy between altruism as the
root of all evil and common thievery. Philosophy that the reader coming
to Atlas probably doesn't understand or accept. After reading Atlas
the philosophy will be better understood, but acceptance is not inevitable.
>> But I am not in the world of Rand's definitions. I have not yet been
>> convinced, even by reading Atlas Shrugged, that these are the proper
>> definitions to use.
>Perhaps if it were made clearer. Rand's definition of the good was men
>who were self-sufficient. Remeber Galt's one axiom: to not sacrifice
>himself to others and to not sacrifice others to himself.
Galt's axiom taken at face value seems to make most businessmen
who make money from the labor of others evil. I am sure that is not
what is intended, so the axiom must be reinterpreted away from a
literal meaning.
> To live by your own steam
Which only the hermit in the forest does.
Otherwise we live in a society, interdependent upon each other.
> The evil would be those who lived *by using other men*
>as means to *their* ends.
Those words have to be defined very carefully if everyone who
employs another is not to be by definition evil.
>Those who live by consuming the lives of
>others (looters, thieves, killers) and don't care how they survive, so
>long as they get the goods.
"don't care"? That's altuist talk isn't it? <grin>
>the purpose of
>Atlas Shrugged was partially in broadening the scope of that which we
>know to be true in concretes
"concretes"? Atlas Shrugged is a not very realistic novel to my
reading. Rand would have done better if she wanted to establish
concretes by making it more realistic.
>and developing the concept of evil to apply
>to all human relationships.
Ditto for selling her conception of evil.
>> Yes. I know that was her goal. I was n ot convinced.
>You are not convinced that a thief could survive in a world where
>*everyone* was a thief?
Black and white again. If everyone were a thief and only a thief
then obviously no one would survive. But people are more complex
or grayer. Consider gypsies. They don't steal from the tribe, the
group but everyone else is fair game. The roots of such behavior
go far back in man's evolution.
>> I think it would have been more effective in convincing the outsider.
>> If the hero had been more like men you actually know, if the villians had
>> been working from good intentions, then a non-objectivist working from
>> his own experience of the world might have been better convinced of
>> Rand's arguments.
>I will reiterate that the villains *did* operate from good intentions.
>Their evil lied in the fact that they were in willful ignorance to what
>"the good" actually was.
"willful"? How do we know this from the novel? Why did James Taggart
turn out to be a "looter" and Dagny a "producer". There is a hint
that jealousy of Franscisco may be involved, but it is not developed
very far. This is something that other novelists do much better.
>And that is the most damning pronunciation of
>guilt to an objectivist: denial of truth, contradiction. The "villains"
>in Atlas were full of both.
So that damn't them to an objectivist but not to a non-objectivist reader.
>However, this seems more of critique in the
>stylistics of character development, which is a valid criticism.
Yes. Actually objectivism in general seems to lack any idea for
why one indvidual should turn out objectivist and another evil.
>> By setting up the situation with supermen and supervillians she is
>> "loading the dice" so that Atlas Shrugged turns out the way she wants.
>Supervillains? The "villains" in Atlas were only evil because of their
>stupidity, as I said.
They were beyond understanding to me. They were too stupid to
my way of thinking as I said, that makes them super(lative) villians.
>However, they still *win*, in the end.
How so? The society falls apart.
>Another
>point of Atlas Shrugged was in demonstrating the disgusting
>effectiveness of mob rule.
Should I quote Churchill about how democracy is the worst form
of government, but all the rest are worse?
>> How many people have read Atlas Shrugged? How many of those have
>> been sold on the dependence of evil on good?
>Did Thomas Edison kill kittens? Hell no! -- The standard is: no human or
>kitten sacrifices! Remember this includes not just the sacrifice of the
>lives directly, but the products and the contents of those lives also.
Huh? TAE? Kittens?
I don't get it.
Tom Clarke
Matt Durand
>
> Matt Durand
>
> >> Rand ... had [the villians] running society into the ground on
> >>purpose. Politicians etc run society into the ground out of good
> >>intentions as in "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
>
> >I'm pretty sure this is exactly what Rand was going for. The whole James
> >Taggart, Orren Boyle clique were wholely motivated by what they
> >constantly professed as good intentions.
>
> Yes, thinking back, I can see you are right.
> But the clique did such a bad job of it, that I found them not
> believable. Which is my point about them being the black to
> Galt's white or being too flat or however it should be phrased,
> the lack of true to life characterization detracted from the novel.
>
Oh yes, they were quite stupid.
> >>... the overdone emotionality like the suicide of Cheryl.
>
> >True. Remember though that she was a Hollywood screenwriter.
>
> From the silent era, wasn't it? At least partially? They really had
> to emote without sound.
>
She worked on a variety of projects, some in the silent era. It was no
doubt a growth period for her, her first steps in "the Big City".
> > At least
> >her over-dramatizations operated on solid motivations though.
>
> That's another question. I never did quite figure out why Cheryl
> suicided. Maybe she felt trapped - possible in the 50's when
> getting a divorce was difficult etc., but not so much today.
>
I believe the major motivation for her suicide was that she had believed
Jim Taggart to be such a hero, because of his portrayals in the paper.
However, upon discovering his true nature, his profound mediocrity, her
vision was shattered and thus the suicide. Rand did a pretty good job of
showing the process whereby Cheryl deluded herself into thinking JT was
a superior catch, more than she thought she deserved, I think. Needless
to say she was disappointed!
> >> I don't think the world is so black and white as Rand portrayed it.
>
> >And it was expressly for the purpose of demonstration that Rand depicted
> >these fictitious demonstrations of good & evil. In her non-fiction, she
> >states quite clearly how well she knows those she considers evil's
> >ability to twist words and so to appear "more gray".
>
> Well she won't ever convince us evil gray dwellers to embrace
> black and white with black and white fiction.
>
> >Unfortunatly, there probably hasn't been any men quite as smart and
> >complete as Galt.
>
> We agree.
>
> >One could be totally Galt-like in spirit except perhaps in his
> >marvellous technical abilities.
>
> Maybe. I'd have liked to have seen a portrait of such a man,
> rather than a wooden ideal.
I think I know one reason at least for thinking this. Her characters had
very sparing senses of humour on all sides. I think this may well be an
indication of Rand's limitations in portraying believable characters.
The humour is usually replaced with these sort of cutting witticisms
that send shivers down your spine (though they do feel quite good). I
definatly see where you're coming from here.
>
> > I must
> >disagree that there haven't been any politicians as stupid as those in
> >Atlas Shrugged.
>
> You site Canadian politicians.
>
> There are dumb politicians about, sure. But for some reason the
> protrayals of the politicians in AS left me cold. I found them
> unrealistic.
>
As I've indicated, this is quite agreable. However, although perhaps not
in actions, but in motivations and fundamentally the characters do
correspond to reality. What I mean is they are not straw men, but
charicatures, with their features exaggerated in order to be clearly
seen. However, you are right in that such people do not exist in a
constant state of representing their philosophy. I must say, though,
that I have noted numerous correspondences of these same motivations
with many politicians, as it is difficult to be one without having your
philosophy leaking out at some point. Unfortunatly, if it has to leak
out it's a bad sign.
> >Remember, Rand was raised during the times of the
> >Bolshevik revolution and witnessed horrible butchery and terror all in
> >the name of "public good" but which arose from the idiocy described in
> >Atlas.
>
> Yes. That was her motivation. I think she might have done better
> in the long run in advancing an anti Bolshevik agenda with a less
> extreme and more realistic protrayal of characters.
>
This is only true to an extant. She has done an excellent job laying out
her ideas concretely and in thorough detail through her characters. Even
the characters were well defined in their history and differentiation.
It is their behaviours and words, which I will agree, often seemed
over-trumpetted. Which would be acceptable in moments such as Galt's
speech where it fit the context but perhaps not over lunch with Eddie
Willers or some other casual situation.
> >But I, and the poster
> >> to whom you are responding, read it as outsiders using ordinary English,
> >> common sense definitions of terms like evil.
>
> >But here definition is based on common-sense. When people think "evil"
> >most think of thieves, looters and killers. These evil people are only
> >the concrete manefestations of Rand's description of *the concept* of
> >evil.
>
> "only"? There is a great deal of philosophy between altruism as the
> root of all evil and common thievery. Philosophy that the reader coming
> to Atlas probably doesn't understand or accept. After reading Atlas
> the philosophy will be better understood, but acceptance is not inevitable.
>
It sure isn't. But you are right it is not a simple leap of induction.
However, my point was that people may already have a root of the
understanding Rand attempts to convey through AS based solely on their
personal observations.
> >> But I am not in the world of Rand's definitions. I have not yet been
> >> convinced, even by reading Atlas Shrugged, that these are the proper
> >> definitions to use.
>
> >Perhaps if it were made clearer. Rand's definition of the good was men
> >who were self-sufficient. Remeber Galt's one axiom: to not sacrifice
> >himself to others and to not sacrifice others to himself.
>
> Galt's axiom taken at face value seems to make most businessmen
> who make money from the labor of others evil. I am sure that is not
> what is intended, so the axiom must be reinterpreted away from a
> literal meaning.
>
I don't believe so. Under ordinary circumstances the labourers are not
compelled to work but do so because it is their choice. Now they may
think their boss is a bastard or what have you, but they do not
sacrifice their time, they get paid for it -- and are free to leave
whenever they like. What of engineers and such though, like Galt? No
doubt Galt thought his job at 20th Century motors was a tremendous
opportunity for realizing his vision, but when the deal soured, he was
outta there. The underlying principle is simply voluntary exchange.
> > To live by your own steam
>
> Which only the hermit in the forest does.
> Otherwise we live in a society, interdependent upon each other.
>
Oh, of course. To live by your own effort is simply meant not to expect
to be OWED the effort of others. I was not insinuating that we be
*totally* self-sufficient, but that when we do deal with others it is
with our merits and not our fists or sticks or guns or government.
> > The evil would be those who lived *by using other men*
> >as means to *their* ends.
>
> Those words have to be defined very carefully if everyone who
> employs another is not to be by definition evil.
>
Yes, it is as I said, volition of all participants is necessary. If when
"using other men" they were being compensated with resources, and agreed
to this situation, noone is being maligned. Of course the ends must
always be considered as well, if they were all working voluntarily with
each other to pillage a village this would be contradictory.
> >Those who live by consuming the lives of
> >others (looters, thieves, killers) and don't care how they survive, so
> >long as they get the goods.
>
> "don't care"? That's altuist talk isn't it? <grin>
Well, I wasn't talking about me!
>
> >the purpose of
> >Atlas Shrugged was partially in broadening the scope of that which we
> >know to be true in concretes
>
> "concretes"? Atlas Shrugged is a not very realistic novel to my
> reading. Rand would have done better if she wanted to establish
> concretes by making it more realistic.
> >and developing the concept of evil to apply
> >to all human relationships.
>
> Ditto for selling her conception of evil.
>
> >> Yes. I know that was her goal. I was n ot convinced.
>
> >You are not convinced that a thief could survive in a world where
> >*everyone* was a thief?
>
> Black and white again. If everyone were a thief and only a thief
> then obviously no one would survive. But people are more complex
> or grayer. Consider gypsies. They don't steal from the tribe, the
> group but everyone else is fair game. The roots of such behavior
> go far back in man's evolution.
>
Ahah, but that would require the denial of the rights they value to
other men to exclusion. Which would require the application of some
sticky double standards. The main thing here is that the value comes in
producing the wealth (tradespeople, craftsmen and entrepeneurs in
general) and not in removing it from its source, which would be a
negative value. Or in essence to desire the unearned is to take life for
granted.
> >> I think it would have been more effective in convincing the outsider.
> >> If the hero had been more like men you actually know, if the villians had
> >> been working from good intentions, then a non-objectivist working from
> >> his own experience of the world might have been better convinced of
> >> Rand's arguments.
>
> >I will reiterate that the villains *did* operate from good intentions.
> >Their evil lied in the fact that they were in willful ignorance to what
> >"the good" actually was.
>
> "willful"? How do we know this from the novel? Why did James Taggart
> turn out to be a "looter" and Dagny a "producer". There is a hint
> that jealousy of Franscisco may be involved, but it is not developed
> very far. This is something that other novelists do much better.
>
This is true. Although it is somewhat touched upon, it may be that Rand
didn't wish to be seen as rationalizing their behaviour, which may have
mistakenly be taken for her excusing them. This is speculative of course
but this issue is more a psychological than a philosophical one and Rand
may have been out of her league in examining the origins of the naughty
behaviour. Oh and on willful ignorance -- I myself have observed many
people cling to ideals which can be objectively shown to be false. The
problem is many of these ideals were reached early on and are
foundational and it is never an easy thing for people to admit to being
wrong about anything, for most anyway, and so cling to wrongness. I have
been guilty of this myself, even the denial aspect. I like to think that
I've grown some though, and wouldn't be afraid to confront my faults if
witness to them and to not avoid the witnessing.
> >And that is the most damning pronunciation of
> >guilt to an objectivist: denial of truth, contradiction. The "villains"
> >in Atlas were full of both.
>
> So that damn't them to an objectivist but not to a non-objectivist reader.
>
I was just meaning that reason is supposed to be so important to
objectivists, you know. But no, anyone could believe the same.
> >However, this seems more of critique in the
> >stylistics of character development, which is a valid criticism.
>
> Yes. Actually objectivism in general seems to lack any idea for
> why one indvidual should turn out objectivist and another evil.
>
Actually, there was one non-fiction book by Rand... I can't remember the
title of the essay but it may have appeared in _The New Intellectual_.
It was basically (if I remember properly) that evil is bread through
appeasement, not for its virtues, but for its lack, in a nutshell. So
the whiny manipulative kid grows up into a more cunning "Tooheylike"
character. Which reminds me, there was something along these lines in
_The Fountainhead_, when describing the Tooster's childhood and early
growth. Pretty interesting stuff, but more than I'd like to go into now
without my books on hand!
> >> By setting up the situation with supermen and supervillians she is
> >> "loading the dice" so that Atlas Shrugged turns out the way she wants.
>
> >Supervillains? The "villains" in Atlas were only evil because of their
> >stupidity, as I said.
>
> They were beyond understanding to me. They were too stupid to
> my way of thinking as I said, that makes them super(lative) villians.
>
That was really the main thing that made them villains really, was their
stupidity. Which allowed them to harbour and implement dangerous
thoughts. Another theme of AS was the supremecy of reason and so its
antogonists were perhaps more than needed -- a person embodying the
antithesis to reason would be barely functional, but she argued that
even a "little bit of the mystic" could screw things up big time.
> >However, they still *win*, in the end.
>
> How so? The society falls apart.
>
Exactly.
> >Another
> >point of Atlas Shrugged was in demonstrating the disgusting
> >effectiveness of mob rule.
>
> Should I quote Churchill about how democracy is the worst form
> of government, but all the rest are worse?
>
Nope, I remember. However, that doesn't mean there can be no limitations
placed on "the mob", usually referred to as a constitution. How this
document is penned is obviously quite an undertaking and no ink should
be spared in its drafting. The US constitution is a good example of
this. It's only mistake was in thinking that its many implicit
statements were not made explicit. The main principle to implement
though would be man's protection from other men, the individual. That
the mob can't vote away a certain category of peoples' rights.
> >> How many people have read Atlas Shrugged? How many of those have
> >> been sold on the dependence of evil on good?
>
> >Did Thomas Edison kill kittens? Hell no! -- The standard is: no human or
> >kitten sacrifices! Remember this includes not just the sacrifice of the
> >lives directly, but the products and the contents of those lives also.
>
> Huh? TAE? Kittens?
> I don't get it.
>
Sorry! I was just using TE as an example of the good in this scenario
and of course as evidence of this he didn't skin kitties! Yeah, I guess
it's a bit wierd. The thing is, he lived by his mind and we all
benefitted, even though he didn't necessarily do it for free or
anything, at least not that I'm aware of. However, this is exactly what
the evil would expect him to do -- sacrifice his ideas for their benefit
but not his own.
GRADinc
couple of points from what has become a rather lengthy post:
>> Consider gypsies. They don't steal from the tribe, the
>> group but everyone else is fair game. The roots of such behavior
>> go far back in man's evolution.
>Ahah, but that would require the denial of the rights they value to
>other men to exclusion
Sure.
>Which would require the application of some sticky double standards.
Of course. People have brains that can handle such double
standards as the result of evolution in conflicting tribal groups.
Even hyenas can tell members of their pack from members of another
pack.
> The main thing here is that the value comes in
>producing the wealth (tradespeople, craftsmen and entrepeneurs in
>general) and not in removing it from its source, which would be a
>negative value. Or in essence to desire the unearned is to take life for
>granted.
Sure. But the examples of the gypsies show that people are
capable of more complex lives. The don't have to be just all
productive, or all moochers. People can live according to sticky
double standards full of gray and nuance.
>> Should I quote Churchill about how democracy is the worst form
>> of government, but all the rest are worse?
>Nope, I remember. However, that doesn't mean there can be no limitations
>placed on "the mob", usually referred to as a constitution.
Wasn't there a constitution - ignored - in Atlas?
The other essential element of democracy is an educated populace as
well.
Hey, I can tie these two thoughts together. America, I'm sure Rands
closest to ideal society, was settled by crooks and wacko religionists
etc. It was settled by people way out there in the gray area.
I don't think black or white is all that stable a condition.
Melting pot is good.
Re Thomas Edison.
>he lived by his mind and we all benefitted,
TE was the model for Rearden I would think. TE invented the
industrial research laboratory - that may be his most lasting contribution
rather than any particular invention.
Rearden was an over-the-top form of Edison. Even Edision couldn't
go from invention all the way to industrialization. His electric and
manufacturing company was eventually swallowed by a conglomeration
of business types (as opposed to inventor-businessmen) and became
General Electric - squeezing Edison out in the process.
In the real world Orren Boyle squeezes out Rearden and gets access to
Metal that way.
Tom Clarke
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> GRADinc wrote:
> >
> > Rand missed the factors that motivate the whole cast of villians in Atlas
> > Shrugged.
> > She had them running society into the ground on purpose. Politicians etc
> > run society into the ground out of good intentions as in "The road to h
> > ell is
> > paved with good intentions."
>
> I'm pretty sure this is exactly what Rand was going for. The whole James
> Taggart, Orren Boyle clique were wholely motivated by what they
> constantly professed as good intentions.
Sure, that's what they claim. But as Rand makes crystal clear, what they
are *really* motivated by is self-hatred and a desire for death. That's
why James Taggart goes catatonic at the end -- Galt forces him to
recognize his own nihilism. Now, while there may indeed be depraved
individuals in the world motivated by a secret desire to destroy
*everything*, including themselves, I'm pretty sure that's not an
accurate psychological portrait of the vast majority of
non-Objectivists.
> The antogonists are constantly rationalizing their acts on
> the basis of "the public good" throughout the book.
Yes, but deep down they *know* that they are rationalizing, and that
Galt is right. This again does not strike me as a realistic
psychological portrait -- it reminds me of the Christian belief that
even atheists "know in their hearts" that Jesus is Lord.
-- M. Ruff
GRADinc
>That's
>why James Taggart goes catatonic at the end -- Galt forces him to
>recognize his own nihilism.
Come to think of it, that was another thing I didn't get,
Taggart's catatonia. I can appreciate the attempt at
philosophical-romantic-art involved, but it just didn't ring true for
me.
>I'm pretty sure that's not an
>accurate psychological portrait of the vast majority of
>non-Objectivists.
I agree.
Regarding the "villians" in Atlas, I kept thinking what would
have happened in the real world with a really evil character like
Stalin. Stalin would have just ignored the strikers - hell he
killed the equivalent of strikers in his purges. Stalin apparently
didn't need no steenking men of the mind to carry on his
reign of terror.
Tom Clarke
R Lawrence
> Now, while there may indeed be depraved
>individuals in the world motivated by a secret desire to destroy
>*everything*, including themselves, I'm pretty sure that's not an
>accurate psychological portrait of the vast majority of
>non-Objectivists.
And do you think Rand thought it was?
============================================================================
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com>
Matt Durand
>
> >Which would require the application of some sticky double standards.
>
> standards as the result of evolution in conflicting tribal groups.
> Even hyenas can tell members of their pack from members of another
> pack.
>
True, and this is fine so long is its not out of control. The Nazis had
the same sort of thing going -- but please don't take this as me saying
all gypsie-like tribes will do so.
> > The main thing here is that the value comes in
> >producing the wealth (tradespeople, craftsmen and entrepeneurs in
> >general) and not in removing it from its source, which would be a
> >negative value. Or in essence to desire the unearned is to take life for
> >granted.
>
> Sure. But the examples of the gypsies show that people are
> capable of more complex lives. The don't have to be just all
> productive, or all moochers. People can live according to sticky
> double standards full of gray and nuance.
>
They can, yes. As to whether they should ultimatly rests in their
judgement.
> >> Should I quote Churchill about how democracy is the worst form
> >> of government, but all the rest are worse?
>
> >Nope, I remember. However, that doesn't mean there can be no limitations
> >placed on "the mob", usually referred to as a constitution.
>
> Wasn't there a constitution - ignored - in Atlas?
> The other essential element of democracy is an educated populace as
> well.
>
> Hey, I can tie these two thoughts together. America, I'm sure Rands
> closest to ideal society, was settled by crooks and wacko religionists
> etc. It was settled by people way out there in the gray area.
> I don't think black or white is all that stable a condition.
> Melting pot is good.
>
Agreed. Really this whole black-white thing is only good as a
demonstration of values as such. People should be free to live within
the limits of what the constituttion allows, which is a large margin.
Really these values are best implemented as a standard for the
implementation of government -- to ensure that it is not there on any
one groups behalf, but there to protect individuals regardless of their
beliefs.
> Re Thomas Edison.
> >he lived by his mind and we all benefitted,
>
> TE was the model for Rearden I would think. TE invented the
> industrial research laboratory - that may be his most lasting contribution
> rather than any particular invention.
> Rearden was an over-the-top form of Edison. Even Edision couldn't
> go from invention all the way to industrialization. His electric and
> manufacturing company was eventually swallowed by a conglomeration
> of business types (as opposed to inventor-businessmen) and became
> General Electric - squeezing Edison out in the process.
> In the real world Orren Boyle squeezes out Rearden and gets access to
> Metal that way.
>
You know it!
Matt
Matt Durand
>
> Matt Durand wrote:
> >
> > GRADinc wrote:
> > >
> > > Shrugged.
> > > She had them running society into the ground on purpose. Politicians etc
> > > run society into the ground out of good intentions as in "The road to h
> > > ell is
> > > paved with good intentions."
> >
> > I'm pretty sure this is exactly what Rand was going for. The whole James
> > Taggart, Orren Boyle clique were wholely motivated by what they
> > constantly professed as good intentions.
>
> why James Taggart goes catatonic at the end -- Galt forces him to
> individuals in the world motivated by a secret desire to destroy
> *everything*, including themselves, I'm pretty sure that's not an
> accurate psychological portrait of the vast majority of
> non-Objectivists.
Oh, yikes no! However, in AS these folks are focused on specifically to
demonstrate what *statists* do, most people aren't really involved in
the whole scene altogether. The really strange thing was that there was
absolutely no political opposition to the statists in AS, which is also
rather unlikely, especially in the US. It really is just a rather
extreme "what if?" scenario. These nihilistic Taggart types *do* exist
though, but he is not a representative of non-objectivists (exclusive)
but of a specific type (inclusive).
>
> > The antogonists are constantly rationalizing their acts on
> > the basis of "the public good" throughout the book.
>
> Yes, but deep down they *know* that they are rationalizing, and that
> Galt is right. This again does not strike me as a realistic
> psychological portrait -- it reminds me of the Christian belief that
> even atheists "know in their hearts" that Jesus is Lord.
>
Talk to any die-hard communists, who are still around and you *will*
find this same rationalizing behaviour. Also, switch your example
around, christians tend to rationalize their faith too, considering
their lack of real evidence for a Lord, some pretty fancy mental
footwork is needed to keep that idea alive. There was just an inordinate
number of unreasonable people in power in AS.
Even though I gave the example of christians rationalizing their faith
-- in real life they are usually normal reasonable people in every other
respect. There are people out there who, when confused, grab the first
explanation they hear without careful analysis, in anything and as I
stated in a previous post most people have a real hard time admitting
they're wrong, especially on fundamental issues like philosophy. Another
theme of AS might be said to be that others should not have to suffer
because someone with clout needs to cling to his false impressions of
life -- hence, again, the constitution, to prevent such a situation from
occuring (we hope).
I'm getting your main point though, thankfully most people IRL aren't
nearly as irrational as those in AS, or it is limited to a certain
aspect of thought. Progress is still there to be had, though. I'm trying
to pick up my end anyway.
Andrew Taranto
>> She hoped for enlightenment of her readers as a
>>secondary effect; but her primary goal was to create "a world that she
would
>>want to experience and characters that she would want to meet"
(paraphrasing
>>her).
>
>I think she might have been suprised - unpleasantly - if Galt had
>stepped off the pages of her novel and become a real person.
>A man more wooden than Al Gore, more self righteous than
>Pat Robertson, what a combination.
>
An example of our different approaches to moral evaluation, very much a
subject for another thread.
>>Of course AS is going to turn out the way she wants. "Loading the dice" is
a
>>dicy term to employ here; you imply that she should have added some
>>"randomness,"
>
>Not randomness. Just more conformance to reality.
>
You're talking about characterization?
>> given that the book's events (i.e., the actions of the "super"
>>characters and the consequences of those actions) in fact followed
logically
>>from the fisrt page (as she intended);
>
>I said it was a logically consistent world. I said it was a page turner.
>I just don't think it is a very useful paradigm for how the world works.
>
We agree on points 1 and 2. As to 3, whether or not it is a "useful
paradigm" is a marginal issue when discussing AS as art; even so, I think
you are saying this because you don't think that "real people" are "that
way."
Then we disagree (see below).
>> given that they didn't, as I think
>>you mean to say (i.e., her logic was consistent but unrealistic,
perhaps?),
>
>Yes and no. The actions foloowed logically, but they were
>consistent but unrealistic.
>
Again, I think you're talking primarily about characterization...
>>how did she fail?
>Her premises regarding human nature are flawed.
>
[snip]
Here we go...
I submit that consistency is the prmiary ingredient for realism in art,
particularly literature. We agree that AS is internally consistent. Is it
safe to say that we disagree on whether it is externally consistent (i.e.,
consistent with the rest of reality)? Also, is it safe to say that you think
it is externally inconsistent because of Rand's flawed (i.e., false)
premises on human nature? Can you identify these premises? That we disagree
on this matter is the essence of all of our disagreements so far.
(Whatever the case, can you site other examples of art that fail similarly
(i.e., to the way AS fails) for my reference, if not to illustrate your
point? Better, are there examples where both the successes and failures are
similar to those of AS?)
I'm curious to know what you really mean by "realism." I think we would
disagree on a definition, as you mentioned earlier an esthetic spectrum
ranging from realism to surrealism to abstraction. I would say that a better
model employs a spectrum ranging from realism through decreasing realism to
unrealism, all of which falls under the heading "abstraction." For example,
I think the "surrealness" you mention in AS is not necessarily unrealistic;
in fact, I found AS realistic (doubtless in a different sense from yours,
given that what you mean by realism is something like Rand's "journalistic
naturalism"), even though it does have a "surreal" quality. Again, I hold
consistency (not just - or even - consistent *resemblance* to "real world"
concretes) to be the essence of realism; or else realism is impossible in
Science Fiction or Fantasy.
Andrew Taranto
GRADinc
>>>Of course AS is going to turn out the way she wants. "Loading the dice" is
>a
>>>dicy term to employ here; you imply that she should have added some
>>>"randomness,"
>>Not randomness. Just more conformance to reality.
>You're talking about characterization?
Yes. About the realism of the behavior of characters. Characters should
behave somewhat as real humans would. That is their characterization should
be realistic.
>We agree on points 1 and 2. As to 3, whether or not it is a "useful
>paradigm" is a marginal issue when discussing AS as art; even so, I think
>you are saying this because you don't think that "real people" are "that
>way."
Yes. To me art, especially art that claims to be romantic realism, should
portray people realistically.
>Then we disagree (see below).
>>> given that they didn't, as I think
>>>you mean to say (i.e., her logic was consistent but unrealistic,
>perhaps?),
>>Yes and no. The actions foloowed logically, but they were
>>consistent but unrealistic.
>Again, I think you're talking primarily about characterization...
Lest I be off the deep end I looked up "characterization"
and found "the delineation of character or creation of characters"
Right there are two meanings that we may be arguing past each other
["characterize" has the same two shades of meaning]
Certainly Rand created characters, but to me she did not do an adequate
job in describing realistic character [the pattern or behavior or personality]
of those characters.
>>>how did she fail?
>>Her premises regarding human nature are flawed.
>[snip]
>Here we go...
>I submit that consistency is the prmiary ingredient for realism in art,
>particularly literature.
No. Not at all. Pollock is very consistent. Dali is very consistent.
Neither are realist. People are inconcsistent beings, consistent
portrayals are apt to be unrealistic.
>We agree that AS is internally consistent. Is it
>safe to say that we disagree on whether it is externally consistent (i.e.,
>consistent with the rest of reality)?
Yes, that is good.
> Also, is it safe to say that you think
>it is externally inconsistent because of Rand's flawed (i.e., false)
>premises on human nature?
Yes.
> Can you identify these premises?
The main one that seems to be operative in Atlas is that you can form your
emotions by sheer strength of will according to your rational principles.
An example I found odd in AS was the way Rearden just gave up when it
became clear that Dagny had fallen out of love with him. A real person
would have resisted, at least have made some attempt to win her back.
Francsico at least made an attempt.
>That we disagree
>on this matter is the essence of all of our disagreements so far.
OK.
>(Whatever the case, can you site other examples of art that fail similarly
>(i.e., to the way AS fails) for my reference, if not to illustrate your
>point? Better, are there examples where both the successes and failures are
>similar to those of AS?)
Almost all detective and action fiction (SF etc) portrays heroes who avoid
death by inches or milliseconds, who see friends and loved one's mutilated
horribly, and who then bounce back instantly to carry on the fight without
loosing a beat. This is not realistic. Such events would devastate a person
and require some time to regather one's strength and composure.
Compare Fleming's James Bond with the tortured, self doubting spies in
LeCarre's novels.
>I'm curious to know what you really mean by "realism."
Representation in conformance with reality. When the subject is human
beings, that means the behavior should be realistic.
> I think we would
>disagree on a definition, as you mentioned earlier an esthetic spectrum
>ranging from realism to surrealism to abstraction.
[I also mentioned the possibility of branching implying that this is not the
only aesthetic classification.]
>I would say that a better
>model employs a spectrum ranging from realism through decreasing realism to
>unrealism, all of which falls under the heading "abstraction."
Where does the abstraction/nonabstraction category fall. Are dogs playing
poker abstract?
> For example,
>I think the "surrealness" you mention in AS is not necessarily unrealistic;
>in fact, I found AS realistic (doubtless in a different sense from yours,
>given that what you mean by realism is something like Rand's "journalistic
>naturalism"),
Maybe. But I did not find the emotions in Atlas Shrugged realistic. Thus
while
the characters in Atlas were recognizably human, they just don't ring true to
the point that I can draw life lessons from their behavior. Journalistic
realism
is not necessary for providing life lessons.
Atlas is not "Waiting for Godot" or Japanese Kobuchi, to name literary/dramatic
forms I find even less realistic - toward the abstract end of the continuum.
Maybe surrealism is the wrong term, but I would not use the term realism.
The novel Great Apes, about an alternate world in which chimps rule and
humans are wild primates, would better fit the surrealist niche as would much
more conventional science fiction.
>even though it does have a "surreal" quality. Again, I hold
>consistency (not just - or even - consistent *resemblance* to "real world"
>concretes) to be the essence of realism; or else realism is impossible in
>Science Fiction or Fantasy.
I am focusing on characterization. Character-wise, some SF and fantasy is
realistic some not. Doc Savage is pretty unrealistic character-wise, but
Greg Bear's is more more realistic. The physical setting I am ignoring.
However, the accomplishments, the actions of the characters are relevant.
When a character exhibits superscientific and charismatic abilities beyond
any recorded in (non-religious) history, the the fiction is not realistic.
Maybe allegorical is the right term. Maybe her tradeoff between romance
and realism is just too much on the romantic side for me.
Tom Clarke
Lavos999
>Sorry! I was just using TE as an example of the good in this scenario
>and of course as evidence of this he didn't skin kitties!
Interesting you brought this up... As a matter of fact, Edison (or at least his
assistants) did kill cats and other animals via AC electrocution, to try to
prove that AC power (then being advocated by his rival George Westinghouse) was
too dangerous. Edison later invented the electric chair for the same reason.
Andrew Taranto
>You don't believe anything a politician says, do you?
[snip]
>>>> I can only speak for myself in saying that _Atlas_Shrugged_
>>evoked
>>>>more and more intense emotions in me than most other esthetic
experiences
>>>>I've had.
>
>>>One set of emotions. There are other emotions.
>
>>What do you mean? Are you attempting to discredit my emotional reaction?
>
>No. But I really doubt if one novel could have evoked the full
>range of human emotion in you.
>
You don't believe anything an objectivist says, do you?
Seriously, I understand that I can only ask you to take my word for it in
this matter. Shall we agree to leave it at that? For your reference, I
experienced slightly more and more intense emotions in _The_Fountainhead_; I
experienced a similar (probably greater) intensity seeing the Mike Stern/Bob
Berg quartet, though the range was limited; I experienced a somewhat narrow
range reading _The_Color_Purple_, though the intensity was considerable; My
response to _Forrest_Gump_ was similar in scope to TCP, but with less
intensity. With Ben Jonson and Shakespeare (compared each to each), the
intensity of my response was a little greater with the former, the scope was
considerably greater with the latter.
In your last sentence, I presume you are critiquing the book. True?
>>What exactly are you doing?
>
>Did Atlas Shrugged evoke empathy in you? I would think it
>anti-empathetic if anything (what is anti-empathy? disgust?)
>
I felt empathy for the heroes (a bit more for the Eddie Willers and the
Cheryl Taggarts, the quasi-heroes); I felt disgust at the James Taggarts and
the Robert
Stadlars. The disgust was a far more complex emotion because I often felt
about them something like "Don't they see what they are doing? Why don't
they stop?" (Very much about RS, and not so much about JT.) I could go on...
>>>It was a page turner, like a good sci-fi novel, or detective yarn.
>>>I kept bumping up against the technical anachronisms, and the
>>>overdone emotionality like the suicide of Cheryl.
>
>>I am curious to know what you mean by "overdone emotionality,"
>
>I was getting bored with the scene before it finished.
>
I didn't find it boring. Again, we'll probably have to take each other's
word for it on this matter.
>>I found Cheryl's suicide melodramatic, but not distastefully so
>
>Too long.
>
See above.
Andrew Taranto
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold wrote:
> >
> > Matt Durand wrote:
> > >
> > > Taggart, Orren Boyle clique were wholely motivated by what they
> > > constantly professed as good intentions.
> >
> > are *really* motivated by is self-hatred and a desire for death. That's
> > why James Taggart goes catatonic at the end -- Galt forces him to
> > recognize his own nihilism. Now, while there may indeed be depraved
> > individuals in the world motivated by a secret desire to destroy
> > *everything*, including themselves, I'm pretty sure that's not an
> > accurate psychological portrait of the vast majority of
> > non-Objectivists.
>
> Oh, yikes no! However, in AS these folks are focused on specifically to
> demonstrate what *statists* do, most people aren't really involved in
> the whole scene altogether.
I don't think it's an accurate psychological portrait of most statists,
either. I'm pretty sure even die-hard totalitarians are motivated by
something other than a death wish.
> > > The antogonists are constantly rationalizing their acts on
> > > the basis of "the public good" throughout the book.
> >
> > Yes, but deep down they *know* that they are rationalizing, and that
> > Galt is right. This again does not strike me as a realistic
> > psychological portrait -- it reminds me of the Christian belief that
> > even atheists "know in their hearts" that Jesus is Lord.
>
> Talk to any die-hard communists, who are still around and you *will*
> find this same rationalizing behaviour.
I'm sure that die-hard communists rationalize; my point, though, is that
the villains in "Atlas Shrugged" *know* they are rationalizing. It's a
deeply buried secret, for most of them, but deep in their hearts they
know that they are wrong, and that Galt is right. *That's* what I found
unrealistic.
> Also, switch your example
> around, christians tend to rationalize their faith too, considering
> their lack of real evidence for a Lord, some pretty fancy mental
> footwork is needed to keep that idea alive.
Again, I don't doubt that Christians are capable of rationalizing when
confronted with evidence that conflicts with their deeply held beliefs.
Curiously enough, though, some Christians hold a belief quite similar to
the one Rand expressed in "Atlas": they believe that everybody *knows*,
deep down, that Christianity is true -- just as the villains in "Atlas"
knew, though they tried to hide it from themselves, that Galt was right.
-- M. Ruff
Matt Durand
>
> Matt Durand wrote:
> >
> > Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold wrote:
> > >
> > > Matt Durand wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Taggart, Orren Boyle clique were wholely motivated by what they
> > > > constantly professed as good intentions.
> > >
> > > are *really* motivated by is self-hatred and a desire for death. That's
> > > why James Taggart goes catatonic at the end -- Galt forces him to
> > > recognize his own nihilism. Now, while there may indeed be depraved
> > > individuals in the world motivated by a secret desire to destroy
> > > *everything*, including themselves, I'm pretty sure that's not an
> > > accurate psychological portrait of the vast majority of
> > > non-Objectivists.
> >
> > Oh, yikes no! However, in AS these folks are focused on specifically to
> > demonstrate what *statists* do, most people aren't really involved in
> > the whole scene altogether.
>
> I don't think it's an accurate psychological portrait of most statists,
> either. I'm pretty sure even die-hard totalitarians are motivated by
> something other than a death wish.
>
> > > > the basis of "the public good" throughout the book.
> > >
> > > Galt is right. This again does not strike me as a realistic
> > > psychological portrait -- it reminds me of the Christian belief that
> > > even atheists "know in their hearts" that Jesus is Lord.
> >
> > Talk to any die-hard communists, who are still around and you *will*
> > find this same rationalizing behaviour.
>
> I'm sure that die-hard communists rationalize; my point, though, is that
> the villains in "Atlas Shrugged" *know* they are rationalizing. It's a
> deeply buried secret, for most of them, but deep in their hearts they
> know that they are wrong, and that Galt is right. *That's* what I found
> unrealistic.
People do this. People deny the truth so often its not funny. Do we see
it in our everyday lives? Not to the degree that it is shown and
examined in AS. When confronted with more pressing situations (as in
AS), peoples' deeper opinions do tend to mainifest. I'm telling you that
I've not just seen such exposures and ensuing rationalizing on
informational TV but also in my own life. People don't walk down the
street broadcasting their beliefs in a run-of-the-mill town, and indeed,
often people sometimes avoid opinions altogether. Though the this would
be a denial of truth also, that true opinions cannot exist.
In AS the question of the fundamentals to philsophical approach became
so apparant because of the situation which the lack of proper
philosophical approach had brought about. Those rationalizing communists
you've acknowledged existed were quite "realistic". The reason why AS is
plausible is because it does correspond with observed reality. -People
have and do harbour provenly harmfull and false ideas-
AS was, I think, purposefully focused on that which we *take for
granted*.
>
> > Also, switch your example
> > around, christians tend to rationalize their faith too, considering
> > their lack of real evidence for a Lord, some pretty fancy mental
> > footwork is needed to keep that idea alive.
>
> Again, I don't doubt that Christians are capable of rationalizing when
> confronted with evidence that conflicts with their deeply held beliefs.
> Curiously enough, though, some Christians hold a belief quite similar to
> the one Rand expressed in "Atlas": they believe that everybody *knows*,
> deep down, that Christianity is true -- just as the villains in "Atlas"
> knew, though they tried to hide it from themselves, that Galt was right.
>
Are you trying to say Ayn Rand justifies her concepts based on faith? If
something were true in an objectively defined manner, why should someone
be afraid to "know deep down" that it is true? (The silly question I
just tried answering in the last several posts). Or to be blunt:
Christianity is false but Objectivism, for the most part and in its
basic foundation is true. You may disagree with me. If you do though,
please feel free to tell me what specific disagreements those are.
Matt Durand
>
> Matt Durand <ntag...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Sorry! I was just using TE as an example of the good in this scenario
> >and of course as evidence of this he didn't skin kitties!
>
> st his
> assistants) did kill cats and other animals via AC electrocution, to try to
> prove that AC power (then being advocated by his rival George Westinghous
> e) was
> too dangerous. Edison later invented the electric chair for the same reason.
Whoa, interesting tidbit. You know, you'd think that it would be safe to
say something like "Thomas Edison didn't kill kittens.". Boy was I out
of line :-)
GRADinc
>You don't believe anything an objectivist says, do you?
If they are speaking about concretes so that the utterance is
manifestly so, I believe it, of course. As to philosophical statements,
the jury is still out on that.
[Re emotions generated by Atlas]
>Seriously, I understand that I can only ask you to take my word for it in
>this matter. Shall we agree to leave it at that?
Sure.
[Last sentence]
>>There are other emotions.
>In your last sentence, I presume you are critiquing the book. True?
Yes, the assertion that the range of emotions expressed/ engended in
the reader within Atlas Shrugged is limited would be a criticism.
However, I do not consider it a fatal flaw. I think no book can
touch on all human emotions. All books are so flawed.
Tom Clarke
Eric Lancaster
> Matt Durand wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure this is exactly what Rand was going for. The whole James
> > Taggart, Orren Boyle clique were wholely motivated by what they
> > constantly professed as good intentions.
> are *really* motivated by is self-hatred and a desire for death. That's
> why James Taggart goes catatonic at the end -- Galt forces him to
> recognize his own nihilism. Now, while there may indeed be depraved
> individuals in the world motivated by a secret desire to destroy
> *everything*, including themselves, I'm pretty sure that's not an
> accurate psychological portrait of the vast majority of
> non-Objectivists.
I think that the point that Rand was making with these villians
was that, whatever their motives, they were better able to support their
actions with the ethics of altruism than more rational souls were able to
oppose them based on the ethics of altruism. The underlying philosophy of
sacrifice (esp of sacrifice of the able) provided a huge weapon to the
worst sort of people, and forced anyone who didn't want to be sacrificed
to try to counter them with complex arguments about how his sacrifice
wouldn't really support the public good.
The heroic characters (Dagny especially) knew what kind of people
Orren et al were, and knew that even rational utilitarianism/altruism
would not support many of their plans - yet were fighting a loosing battle
by trying to argue for their rights on that basis.
One of the key themes of the book is the powerlessness of
essentially good people (some hardworking souls at Starnes motors, for
instance) to fight the worst types (say, the Starnes heirs) under the
ethics of altruism/collectivism.
> Yes, but deep down they *know* that they are rationalizing, and that
> Galt is right. This again does not strike me as a realistic
> psychological portrait -- it reminds me of the Christian belief that
> even atheists "know in their hearts" that Jesus is Lord.
I agree that psychologizing about ones opponents is silly, and
pointless. But, I am not sure that that was Rand's intent - I think she
was trying to show what sort of person could thrive under the ethics of
sacrifice, and how those ethics disarm the good.
I probably would not have written the parts concluding that Owen,
James Taggart, etc. were motivated by a nihilistic desire for death - what
difference does it make WHY a murderer really (deep down inside) commits
his crimes. The question is: does your politics/ethics/society arm him or
you.
Eric
Eric Lancaster
> > >and of course as evidence of this he didn't skin kitties!
> > Interesting you brought this up... As a matter of fact, Edison (or at lea
> > st his
> > assistants) did kill cats and other animals via AC electrocution, to try to
> > prove that AC power (then being advocated by his rival George Westinghous
> > e) was
> > too dangerous. Edison later invented the electric chair for the same re
> > ason.
> Whoa, interesting tidbit. You know, you'd think that it would be safe to
> say something like "Thomas Edison didn't kill kittens.". Boy was I out
> of line :-)
The process of electrocution was actually dubbed "Westinghousing"
by the DC folks in order smear the Westinghouse AC power company. And the
DC folks did push it on the government of New York State.
For a while the two standards competed - AC had the tranformer
(allowing you to easily convert the frequencies of the power, and thus
transmit it efficiently long distances), while DC had the motor.
The competition was over whem Tesla (the genius who created most
of the electrical theory power companies actually use today) invented the
AC motor, leaving DC no real advantages, and the disadvantage that it is
inefficient to propogate long distances.
It is just an unfortunate fluke that the 60 Hz standard chosen for
electricity in the home is the low point on the (frequency) vs (amount of
power needed to kill you) curve. We accidently chose virtually the most
dangerous frequency possible for home use. Ooops.
Eric