Atlas Shrugged

bnt · 04-06-2010 7:52pm

I started it, and finished Part I before university study hijacked my head. I mean to read at least Part II this summer, preferably the whole thing. It's such a famous book that I already know what happens in outline, but I am interested in the details. From reading other Rand material over the years, I generally see where she's coming from, though I'm hardly a "Randroid".

I do see a lot of criticism based on an incomplete understanding of what Rand was trying to say. The classic example is her advocacy of "enlightened selfishness", where critics tend to focus on the "selfishness" and ignore the "enlightened" bit. Blind self-centred "me first" selfishness is not a good idea, since it's often in your best interests to help other people or consider their wishes. Rand was against "duty" and pure "altruism", against having your time or resources forcibly taken from you by others, but she was not against making an enlightened choice to help others, of your own free will. Choosing to take out insurance is one thing; being forced to take out insurance is something else.

If you see a critic getting this bit wrong, you may as well ignore the rest. And "selfishness without enlightenment" sounds like a good description of what happened in the global economy. Alan Greenspan really should have known better, considering how close to Rand he was at one time.

recedite · 04-06-2010 8:24pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Survival of the fittest; yes, but survival of the gene not the individual. The selfish gene can survive best when it exists in a tribe of cooperating social individuals. Archaeologists have several times discovered bones of neolithic people which showed evidence of crippling handicap brought on by disease or injury. These people lived on for many years with their handicap, apparently relying on some sort of charity or, if you like, a primitive welfare system.
One of the interesting differences between the social system of higher animals ie wolves or humans as compared to social insects eg bees or ants, is in the flexibility and variety of roles. The insects have fixed roles.
Humans can have a range of strategies being pursued by different individuals simultaneously, so if one fails another might work.
Thus we have loners, who are often the ones who strike out into new territories and can start off whole new tribes. Other times these risk takers die, such as the Otsi the Iceman who tried to cross the Alps over 5000 years ago. He was apparently resourceful and well equipped, not an idiot but a "fittest" person in evolutionary terms. No doubt his tribe produced other individuals who left the comfort zone of the tribe and later succeeded in the quest.
In regard to rapists, this can unfortunately be seen as a valid strategy by the selfish gene. To produce lots of offspring without helping to look after them may work just as well as producing a few well cared for offspring. It could explain why, as a social species, we have not eliminated the psychopaths by natural selection.

iUseVi · 04-06-2010 8:36pm

Woow_Aqualung wrote: »

You posted that as I was typing. I'm not too fast with the keyboard. I do apologise, I should have Previewed my post before hand.

No I posted all of it at the same time.

Woow_Aqualung · 04-06-2010 8:50pm

iUseVi wrote: »

No I posted all of it at the same time.

You made the first post (The one I disagree with) at 17:35. At, let say, 17:50, I began my post arguing with your (Right, Mad Hatter?) post. As I was typing, you posted your post ammending your previous post. I then posted at 18:22. That means I spent 32 minutes typing my post, like I said I'm not fast at typing. And I still disagree with your preposition that the goverment should raise taxes. Its the premise of an arguement that I don't agree with your ideals or beliefs. Don't take it personaly.

iUseVi · 04-06-2010 9:12pm

Woow_Aqualung wrote: »

You made the first post (The one I disagree with) at 17:35. At, let say, 17:50, I began my post arguing with your (Right, Mad Hatter?) post. As I was typing, you posted your post ammending your previous post. I then posted at 18:22. That means I spent 32 minutes typing my post, like I said I'm not fast at typing. And I still disagree with your preposition that the goverment should raise taxes. Its the premise of an arguement that I don't agree with your ideals or beliefs. Don't take it personaly.

But you quoted from an unedited post I made! About the content of that unedited post.

Tbh I don't give a **** I only made a thing of it because you are squirming out of things. Anyway I didn't take it personally, but I have now made use of the ignore feature. Thanks.

Woow_Aqualung · 04-06-2010 9:22pm

There's no need for langugue. I'm only expressing my opinion on the matter.

Permabear · 04-06-2010 11:15pm

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater · 04-06-2010 11:52pm

robindch wrote: »

The book is hugely popular in the USA, and apart from the bible, I gather it's the only book which all the members of the US Congress have claimed to have read (or tried to). Thankfully, the book and Rand are relatively unknown in Europe.

I can understand your dislike of objectivism, but I don't think that's any reason to be glad people are not aware of it. One of the core aims of atheism, from what I can see, is to expose ignorance and to challenge preconceptions; in other words, to promote being better informed. I don't see how this view is compatible with one that applauds a situation where people are ignorant of certain ideologies that you don't personally agree with.

Or maybe I've misunderstood.

donegalfella wrote: »

If I have a fault with Atlas Shrugged as a novel, it's that it is far too repetitive—there is endless reiteration of the same set of themes.

I'm glad you feel that way; that you're willing to separate the literature from the politics. I personally didn't like The Fountainhead because I found it repetitive, though I obviously agree with Ms Rand's message.

I had a dream one night in which it occurred to me that the novel can be read metaphorically: Peter Keating's architecture looks good on the face of it, but is completely impractical, like socialism, while Howard Roark's architecture is perfectly useful, but held back by its mere appearance, like capitalism. The latter part ties in with bnt's post above: as an advocate of the free market one is constantly doing battle with distorted images of what it really is and what it really represents.

I don't know if this a viable reading of the novel, but it is notable if only because it's the sole time I've engaged in literary criticism while asleep!

Black Swan · 05-06-2010 1:29am

robindch wrote: »

The book is hugely popular in the USA

I crossed the pond over 4 years ago and have been in California at university, and have not found that many persons (students or otherwise) familiar with her books.

After reading this thread, I was curious to see if Atlas Shrugged was recommended reading in their high schools over here as a prep for college, and did not find any of her works on this list of 42 books: http://www.sms.org/books_co.htm

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, have anybody read this book and found it worthwhile?

I am a faculty brat, and my Da's study has a large, quite diverse library, including a copy of the Atlas Shrugged novel. I had heard her name mentioned during informal faculty debate over coffee about the pros and cons of capitalism, was curious, and read it one summer while in Galway. I would have tossed it into the Corrib, but the water was already not fit to drink, and I did not want to contribute to the pollution.

I must admit that summer occurred when I was mid-teen a few years in the past, and I would be at a loss to remember particular details from the plot or character development. Given this disclaimer, her novel appeared to promote a form of Spencerian Social Darwinism in isolation; i.e., a fictionally segregated part of Colorado where only capitalistic entrepreneurs were allowed to dwell, surrounded by the remaining states that where in various stages of so-called socialistic decline? This capitalistic Brave New World was in all ways said to be Good, while that which was beyond its borders was Bad and on its deserving way to hell?

I seem to remember there was a mystical surrogate god in the novel that struck shock and awe in his capitalistic followers as symbolized by the line, "Who is John Galt?" For some reason at the time I expected something Catholic to follow this question like "Et cum spiritu tuo" from his followers, in repetitious affirmation of what is All Good.

Wasn't there a love triangle in Atlas Shrugged that epitomized her philosophy? I am struggling to remember, but I seem to recall a capitalistic-bred entrepreneurial heroine that was at first attracted to one entrepreneur-alpha-male, only to dump him later in the novel for someone superior in entrepreneurship? To this extent, I remember her concept of romance as starkly objective and mechanically impersonal as that attributed to salmon going up river, jumping obstacles, with the survivor of the (entrepreneur) gauntlet qualified to mate with her; i.e., to ensure the survival of the capitalistic species?

I recall the novel to be elitist and socially inept, and reactionary to her Soviet experience, with a coldly objective, Weberian means-ends rationality of what constitutes value and meaning in human relationships. While substituting the biblical good-and-evil dichotomy for a contrasting capitalism (Good) vs. socialism (Bad), her over-simplistic perspective of our complex world was a two-dimensional distortion of realty that would make for grand parody if we knew that the author (and her followers) were not serious.

Zillah · 05-06-2010 4:29am

Woow_Aqualung wrote: »

And Americans are covered for dental treatment, such as braces.

Lisa needs braces.

iUseVi · 05-06-2010 7:17am

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm glad you feel that way; that you're willing to separate the literature from the politics. I personally didn't like The Fountainhead because I found it repetitive, though I obviously agree with Ms Rand's message.

I had a dream one night in which it occurred to me that the novel can be read metaphorically: Peter Keating's architecture looks good on the face of it, but is completely impractical, like socialism, while Howard Roark's architecture is perfectly useful, but held back by its mere appearance, like capitalism. The latter part ties in with bnt's post above: as an advocate of the free market one is constantly doing battle with distorted images of what it really is and what it really represents.

I don't know if this a viable reading of the novel, but it is notable if only because it's the sole time I've engaged in literary criticism while asleep!

How is socialism impractical whilst capitalism is "perfectly useful"? I realise it was only a dream, but bit of a simplistic take isn't it? I wouldn't exactly say the Chinese socialistic economy is perfect, but impractical? Not really.

iUseVi · 05-06-2010 7:18am

Zillah wrote: »

Lisa needs braces.

Dental plan.

pH · 05-06-2010 9:35am

My slight problem with the above posts (from the pro-objectivism side) is either "so what?" or "I may have to shoot you" depending on how far you want to take it, let me explain.

We live in a democracy, if you're advocating that someone should start a political party and campaign with "A total cut in the state OAP" (as opposed to the proposal of a slight cut which caused a backlash recently) then fine, go ahead, I can live with that.

However, while no one has stated this explicitly, there seems to be an underlying tone that wealthy people have a right not to pay taxes to support single mothers on welfare, and they'd support a state based on objectivism come what may.

So let me ask a simple question, to those who seem to believe absolutely that Objectivism would be a better way to run the country, do you also accept that there is no chance that a democratically elected government would implement it in the next 20 years in Ireland? If so are you passionate enough about your philosophy to believe it trumps democracy, and we'd be better of living with a dictatorship under Objectivism rather than our current democratically elected government.

So to use a timely analogy, it's like arguing how great Ireland would do in teh World Cup if Messi played for Ireland, either it's a irrelevant fantasy ("so what?" or someones planning a kidnapping ("let me get my gun!").

Eliot Rosewater · 05-06-2010 10:14am

iUseVi wrote: »

How is socialism impractical whilst capitalism is "perfectly useful"?

Well firstly that's my take on Ms Rand's book, so the opinions of socialism are hers. The interpretation is more to do with the way social policy appears to us. Giving lots of money to single mothers looks good and helpful, like Keating's work, but the substance is poor: one could argue that giving money to single parents partly encourages what it's designed to remedy. And so one. Equally, it's very hard to advocate for the free market because you get a storm of indignation like "no to greed", "people before profit", "tax the rich" etc etc. Many people use these slogans to "debunk" capitalism, as it were, in the same way commentators debunked Roark's architecture because it didn't look nice; in both cases they fail to have a deeper look into what they're criticizing.

iUseVi wrote: »

I wouldn't exactly say the Chinese socialistic economy is perfect, but impractical?

In so far as human rights go, yes. There's more to life than markets! No doubt back in the 60's the Chinese were promised a utopia by the communists but that obviously went down the drain. It probably looked good on the face of it, though.

pH wrote: »

So let me ask a simple question, to those who seem to believe absolutely that Objectivism would be a better way to run the country, do you also accept that there is no chance that a democratically elected government would implement it in the next 20 years in Ireland?

Yes. In a gombeen country where people vote on who can give them the most freebies, who their grandfather voted for and who fixed the pothole outside their house, does that bother me in the slightest? No.

In any case, "extreme" ideologies will never get populate support. Over on the politics forum I've said that I'd prefer a broad alliance of liberals to run for office, than a few libertarians.

pH wrote: »

If so are you passionate enough about your philosophy to believe it trumps democracy

Who said that now?

Permabear · 05-06-2010 10:44am

This post has been deleted.

pH · 05-06-2010 11:28am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree, I'm absolutely convinced in my own head that I'm smarter that everyone else in this country, they're all idiots when it comes to religion and politics, and if everyone did things the way I think they should Ireland would be a utopia! In fact I'm certain I'd make a wonderfully benign dictator.

However, with regret I accept that pretty much everyone else feels the same way, and that as someone once pointed out, "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

Permabear · 05-06-2010 11:34am

This post has been deleted.

iUseVi · 05-06-2010 1:10pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh I'm sorry it's at least as bad as the detractors say. I agree that this shouldn't effect the ideas, but it's bloody awful and there's no running from that.

robindch · 05-06-2010 2:15pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't be so silly

In every conceivable measure of society, things are better now. Far, far better -- ask anybody old what it was like back in the 50's and before. There was open poverty everywhere. My own dad was one of the few kids to have shoes going to primary school in Killarney (my granddad ran a shoe shop in the town). In the fancy secondary boarding school he went to later on, there was no hot water at the taps for washing in the morning. Back in the period up to the 1920's and 30's, child prostitution was rife in central Dublin, in the area from O'Connell Street towards Amiens Street known as the Monto, and I gather the rate was sixpence a blowjob. Over 1,500 prostitutes were believed to work there -- it was widely known as one of the largest red-light areas in Europe -- until the area was cleaned up by the Legion of Mary who arrived with militant religion.

The only reason that people think that things were better back then is the simple reason that they have no idea of what life was like, nor how appallingly squalid and brutish it was for the majority of the population who lived at the bottom of the heap.

5uspect · 05-06-2010 3:12pm

robindch wrote: »

The only reason that people think that things were better back then is the simple reason that they have no idea of what life was like, nor how appallingly squalid and brutish it was for the majority of the population who lived at the bottom of the heap.

But they were happy. :pac:

Permabear · 05-06-2010 4:38pm

This post has been deleted.

Your Airbag · 05-06-2010 4:47pm

Have it, read it, hated it. Its huge too, took over two months. I dont even find Objectivism that revolutinary, a big deal over nothing.

iUseVi · 05-06-2010 5:03pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So your argument is essentially that everything good is thanks to capitalism, everything bad is due to social welfare. Well. That's a new one. (sarcasm intended)

Ok enough joking around sorry.

But cars, TVs, computers are thanks to genius of humans. You'll find similar geniuses in communist regimes and all over the world. (Think soviet space program, not all the technology was stolen from the US by spies) The kind of person you describe who doesn't work and takes all the benefits they can is not the kind of person who helps create a better world in any case. Take those benefits away and I seriously doubt that they would contribute much more. Now, of course I am against paying for benefits for lazy do-nothings that sit at home/and or spend my tax money on going to the pub. But this is not a fundamental flaw in socialism, this is specific to our rubbish benefits system. I don't think when Marx said "to each according to his need" he was thinking about giving money to lazy moochers. In fact I know he wasn't.

If we want to discuss the failings of the benefits system, then you and I will agree to a great extent, I expect. But your vapid linking of crime to social welfare payments is unfounded.

Permabear · 05-06-2010 5:17pm

This post has been deleted.

pH · 05-06-2010 5:44pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's an interesting statement, link to these figure please.

Are you saying that you believe there is causation here, giving poor people (and their children) access to education, medical care, housing and a basic income *causes* more murder, rape and assaults? or merely stating that *something* has caused an increase in these, and spending money on social welfare hasn't alleviated it?

Statistical crime data is manipulated to produce any results. I'd be extremely skeptical of say statistics showing an increase in sexual assault, unless it could be shown you'd an extremely good way of taking into account how little it used to be *reported* in the past compared to now.

We *know* that urban environments generate more crime than rural ones, we know that modern Irish homicide stats are skewed by adding in "death by dangerous driving" which adds a 50% to 100%+ bump in homicide figures when you include them, and so on.

Anyway, can we have a rough period from you for "things going downhill" and some crime stats that support your case?

5uspect · 05-06-2010 6:39pm

^Not forgetting that marital rape wasn't a crime until very recently.

Valmont · 05-06-2010 7:55pm

Well back to the book- I really enjoyed it because it illuminated another way of thinking about society, the individual, and the government. Something that is notably absent in the media; it was an eye opener of sorts for me. The main reason I loved Atlas Shrugged was that I was really rooting for the characters to solve their various problems. I know people say it's too long but I felt that their protracted struggles added to the suspense in the final book and made the denouement all the more juicy.

robindch · 05-06-2010 8:46pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well -- as others have asked -- could you produce these statistics, please?

I'm asking because all research that I'm aware of shows that the lowest recorded rates of crime in human history are correlated with the highest rates of social welfare, as Stephen Pinker has pointed out:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Permabear · 05-06-2010 11:47pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 05-06-2010 11:49pm

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan · 06-06-2010 12:49am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This observation may suffer from those limitations attributed to making broad sweeping generalisations, often contributing to the stereotyping of entire populations as if they were ideologically homogeneous?

The Chronicle of Higher Education reported a survey of incoming freshmen in the nation's higher education institutions, and these results suggest that most students cluster towards the mean of the distribution, rather than being skewed to the far left or far right ideologically? Results:

2009
Far left 2.8%
Liberal 29.0%
Middle of the road 44.4%
Conservative 21.8%
Far right 2.0%

Another interesting statistic from The Chronicle of Higher Education is that the highest declared major (i.e., course of study) in the USA 2009 survey for incoming freshmen was "business" at 14.4%, which would be more concerned with profits than some social agenda? Further, would it be safe to assume that some majors tend to be less ideological in their curriculum focus, such as professional fields (tied with business at 14.4%), biological sciences (9.7%), engineering (9.7%), physical sciences (3.7%), and technical fields (1.1%) for 53.0 percent of incoming declared majors?

If there was an ideological skewedness towards the left in a population of students (including their reading preferences), would you think that to be more likely in declared disciplines such as arts & humanities (13.3%), and social sciences (11.7%) for a total of 25.0% of declared majors?

The essential point being that to broadly paint the ideological orientations of students of higher education in the USA (or the millions of California college students) is problematic at best, stereotypically biased at worst?

donegalfella wrote: »

A huge percentage of college and university faculty in the USA are firmly on the political left.

Once again this claim may suffer from making generic, broad sweeping generalisations about "college and university faculty in the USA" as if they were homogeneous in their ideological perspectives, as well as ignoring the diverse perspectives of their disciplines, which may or may not be laden with an ideological focus? Further, such broad sweeping generalisations become more confounded when we make cross-cultural comparisons; e.g., faculties in Ireland or other EU nations, or Scandinavian, Asian, or Middle Eastern countries?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Party registration may not clearly label ideological orientation, and may be confounded by controlling for region of the country in your analysis; e.g., the Deep South often produces conservative Democrats that rival conservative Republicans making party registration problematic, and sometimes meaningless? In addition to regional differences, there are county differences within many populous states; e.g., compare Orange County with San Francisco County in California, and you may find marked differences between Democrats in one and Democrats in another (as well as with Republicans). The complexity seems to increase when you consider faculty at public tax supported institutions with private and religious colleges and universities?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The same could be said of right-wing academics, although I would guess that if we were to sample the population of faculty found in the hundreds of higher education institutions in the USA, we would probably find most to cluster towards the middle of the distribution rather than to evidence a skewedness towards left or right?

Although I have been going along with this bipolar left-right distinction for discussion purposes in this thread, I really wonder to what extent this dichotomy suffers from being an over simplistic generalisation of a person's ideological perspective in a Derridean sense; e.g., it too suffers from a stereotyping, labeling bias that misses the diversity, complexity, and sometimes uncertainty of one's perspectives of the natural world?

Permabear · 06-06-2010 10:24am

This post has been deleted.

robindch · 06-06-2010 10:45am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Probably no more than the chances of some university's biology department offering tenure to a creationist

Permabear · 06-06-2010 1:08pm

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 06-06-2010 6:50pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm slightly confused. Does a prospective lecturer have to state their political affiliations or leanings as part of the selection process?

Permabear · 06-06-2010 7:18pm

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 06-06-2010 8:46pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

From what I remember of my sociology course, I find it somewhat of an oxymoron to speak of a "classically liberal" sociologist!

Eliot Rosewater · 06-06-2010 11:14pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I haven't read much about Derida beyond a few encyclopedic consults, but I still laughed when, in the introduction to Europe: A History, Norman Davies says, "It is all very well to deride the authority of all and sundry; but it only leads in the end to the deriding of Derida. It is only a matter of time before the deconstructionists are deconstructed by their own techniques. We have survived the 'Death of God' and the 'Death of Man'. We will surely survive the 'Death of History', and the death of post modernism."

robindch · 07-06-2010 1:09am

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It is only a matter of time before the deconstructionists are deconstructed by their own techniques.

Given that the deconstructionalists disbelieve everything except themselves, it seems only fair that everybody except themselves disbelieve them

Black Swan · 07-06-2010 1:31am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Once again a broad sweeping generalization is made that places all those opposed to Rand’s Objectivism into an over simplified and homogeneous category, conveniently ignoring fundamental and complex differences, be they in philosophy or method? Nice dichotomy: Rand’s Objectivism = Good; anything opposed = Bad (or the cliché and pejorative catchall label “Left”)?

A superficial reading of Jacques Derrida, or only paying attention to his critics, may allow for such convenient labeling? I find him a very complex, diverse, and profound read, although he never formally constructed his theory of deconstruction per se. Rather, deconstruction was more method than a formalized theory or philosophy for Derrida, essentially looking for inconsistencies in the philosophies or theories of others; a process that can make him quite unpopular with those he deconstructs (or with their followers).

The spirit and intent of Derrida’s deconstruction was not new, and was given more credit than was due? Popper’s principle of knowledge that informs the scientific method contends we proceed by falsification, not by verification. We test the null hypothesis, not the research hypothesis. Deconstruction can serve as a method of falsification by discovering inconsistencies in thought. Even when not falsified, we still treat research findings with caution, rather than to act as unquestioning true believers of some dogmatic faith as expected by the followers of Rand.

Noting inconsistencies can at times be troubling? For example, was there some reason why you completely ignored the problem of cross-cultural comparisons of faculty when using the “Left” label to categorize American faculty (noted in my earlier post)? Are such labels context-specific in terms of being different for different disciplines (e.g., Humanities vs. Business), or by state, or region, or country? Would someone you have labeled “Left” in America be considered equally “Left” in Ireland, France, Germany, Sweden, Russia, Iran, or China?

Reiterating the earlier posted point, using the Left and Right label is not particularly useful when taking into account cross-cultural perspectives and contexts; further, to label someone Left or Right is a gross oversimplification of the complexities of their positions, as well as their self-admitted uncertainties (e.g., Robert Merton’s justification for only having theories of the middle range, Hayek’s fatal conceit, or Hume’s ignorance awareness), and a distortion of reality attributable to the limitations of dichotomies as noted by Derrida in Points.

Rand in Atlas Shrugged does not seem to suffer from too many uncertainties when advocating her Brave New World, or its surrogate God in the mysterious John Galt. This Galt exemplifies a Social-Darwinian uberman that is All Good and All Knowing, with a cold, objective means-ends rationality and strength of selfishness that would make Nietzsche blush. In like manner, this cold objectivism permeates the bedroom of character development in her lead female and male characters, with a shallow and superficial depth of feeling between partners.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Unfortunately, Rand’s use is more a spurious tautology than an analytical truth, completely ignoring the reformulation of Aristotle by Hume in terms of how ethics should be treated. In Atlas Shrugged Rand conveniently ignores (or unwittingly combines) a fundamental distinction between things value-rational and things instrumental-rational (see Max Weber) by parroting Aristotle’s laws, while at the same time confounding them with subjective values in her version of means-ends capitalism.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Right is right.
Bad is bad.

Valmont · 07-06-2010 8:34am

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Rand in Atlas Shrugged does not seem to suffer from too many uncertainties when advocating her Brave New World, or its surrogate God in the mysterious John Galt. This Galt exemplifies a Social-Darwinian uberman that is All Good and All Knowing, with a cold, objective means-ends rationality and strength of selfishness that would make Nietzsche blush. In like manner, this cold objectivism permeates the bedroom of character development in her lead female and male characters, with a shallow and superficial depth of feeling between partners.

I know it would make your critique easier if John Galt was portrayed as a God in the book but he isn't so please stick to what the book has actually said. Yes, he is portrayed as one of the books heroes but switching that to the pejorative "God" to make your point is just dishonest.

Next thing you will be telling us that Humbert Humbert had a fetish for mature women.

iUseVi · 07-06-2010 9:13am

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Noting inconsistencies can at times be troubling? For example, was there some reason why you completely ignored the problem of cross-cultural comparisons of faculty when using the “Left” label to categorize American faculty (noted in my earlier post)? Are such labels context-specific in terms of being different for different disciplines (e.g., Humanities vs. Business), or by state, or region, or country? Would someone you have labeled “Left” in America be considered equally “Left” in Ireland, France, Germany, Sweden, Russia, Iran, or China?

Yes, thank you, if only I could thank your post twice. I wish people would stop using left and right so blithely, people cannot be pidgeon-holed so easily.

iUseVi · 07-06-2010 9:21am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Honestly now, the rules of logic do not apply so easily to ethics. Does one baby equal one homeless person? Should you torture someone to save a whole city? Anyone who thinks "A is A" can be applied to such matters is either entirely without emotion or hasn't actually thought about ethics for more than 10 seconds. Rand's theories just don't work in the real world! The first sign of any complication and they fall to pieces.

I'm not arguing that A is not A, but sometimes A is B, or A is not quite A, and sometimes no one has a clue what A is! Or A is several things at once. Human behaviour cannot be described by any simple mathematical equations, however appealing it would be to think so.

Permabear · 07-06-2010 10:45am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 07-06-2010 10:56am

This post has been deleted.

recedite · 07-06-2010 11:18am

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Would someone you have labeled “Left” in America be considered equally “Left” in Ireland, France, Germany, Sweden, Russia, Iran, or China?

.

No, but at least the meaning of "left" is clear in an Irish context.The policies of a Classical Liberal would nowadays be closest to a Conservative in the UK or a Republican in the US. As opposed to a Liberal or a Democrat. A Republican here of course, is simply a more extreme version of a Nationalist. The laissez-faire policy during the famine was a classic classically liberal policy....(see how confusing it gets)

robindch wrote: »

Probably no more than the chances of some university's biology department offering tenure to a creationist

Assuming we all agree that creationism is the less rational and less scientific theory compared to evolution, and given that there is a known tendency for people to swing towards the right in their voting habits as they get older and more rational, why is creationism inextricably linked with the Republican side in US politics?
You would think that after 200 years, the ideas of Charles Darwin would no longer to be considered radical. Logically, evolution with its "survival of the fittest" mantra should be associated with the right.
Creationism with its more emotional "sharing is caring" dogma should be associated with the left wing. Is it simply that organised religion has never trusted left wing intellectuals with their fancy new ideas?

recedite · 07-06-2010 11:27am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your literary tastes are certainly diverse;)

Permabear · 07-06-2010 11:49am

This post has been deleted.

Glenster · 07-06-2010 1:58pm

It's suspiciously similar in tone to Crime and Punishment.

I'm not sure I agree that it's badly written, it's just dense and circumlocutory. Not everything is a beachside read.

Black Swan · 07-06-2010 5:26pm

Valmont wrote: »

I know it would make your critique easier if John Galt was portrayed as a God in the book but he isn't so please stick to what the book has actually said. Yes, he is portrayed as one of the books heroes but switching that to the pejorative "God" to make your point is just dishonest.

Atlas Shrugged is not real. It is fiction. You wish to restrict this discussion marching in lock-step fashion to a literal interpretation of a fictional, creative work? How can you insist upon this, when in fact it is a fictional novel subject to interpretation, that also uses metaphor as a device to communicate meaning? John Galt is a fictional character, not a real person, which has been proposed as the All Good, All Powerful exemplification of the Rand alpha entrepreneur and leader. Rand uses metaphor, but her reviewers cannot?

Atlas Shrugged

Comments