Atlas Shrugged and so did I...

[amicus]

Pure's been thinking. Marvelous.

I decided not to double check the pasted information for accuracy as I usually do, ya, little exceptions; a word changed here and there, a sentence or even a paragraph left out for reason.

Should you read Ms. Rand's various non fiction titles, you will find Von Mises and Hazlitt, Hayek and Friedman and many more listed as reference materialiwith due credit given; Ms. Rand also provided the titles and publishing dates and availability and even began a book service making those titles available to a wider public.

One may as well purport that there were no original thoughts in philosophy after Aristotle, none in Astronomy after Kepler, nothing in physics after Einstein, if you buy that Rand offered no original input to the field of economics.

The, 'new' thing that I think Ms. Rand did, was to tie the disciplines together in conversant yet precise and accurate manner so that the philosophical and psychological aspects of economic endeavor could be presented as an intertwined whole, each concept concerning individual freedom related to a buttressed by the adjacent discipline.

Further, in Atlas Shrugged, Rand, 'romanticized' free market capitalism that surpassed the glorification of socialism by writers from Dickens through Wilde and more, ever did.

Pure, you are much more readable when you cut and paste and just leave a few snippy petulant questions hanging.

Amicus...

 

[gauchecritic]

The, 'new' thing that I think Ms. Rand did, was to tie the disciplines together in conversant yet precise and accurate manner so that the philosophical and psychological aspects of economic endeavor could be presented as an intertwined whole, each concept concerning individual freedom related to a buttressed by the adjacent discipline.

So who exactly have you been reading if you think Rand (b.1905) was the first philosopher that held an opinion about economics? (the psychology part I'll take as a given for most if not all philosophers)

 

[Pure]

rand summed.

ami said The, 'new' thing that I think Ms. Rand did, was to tie the disciplines together in conversant yet precise and accurate manner so that the philosophical and psychological aspects of economic endeavor could be presented as an intertwined whole, each concept concerning individual freedom related to a buttressed by the adjacent discipline.

i think this is in the right ballpark, something i do not usually say about ami's proposals.

rand's anarcho capitalism is not new; "individualism" and some of the supporting psychology is not new. claiming one's politics and ethics are "rational" and conform to 'true human nature' is not new.

however to meld or squish them all together is quasi-new; while hayek thought capitalism and freedom had a connection, rand tried for an even stronger case, tying idealized capitalism together with individualism with 'romantic' overtones which show tinges of Nietzsche among others. [Note: I'm indebted to Berger for this concise formulation, see the url earlier posted.]

1) a)capitalism makes possible the flourishing of the True Individual (or of all of them worth anything), and b)the later only happens nowadays, except for the rare cases, under capitalism. 2) pure reason and VERY basic psychology, can tell the requirements for flourishing (=flourishing of The Individual), including ethics, and make the necessary and unbreakable link to idealized capitalism.

those two claims are quasi new, though 1) is found is less dramatic terms in Smith, von Mises, Hayek. unfortunately 1)a) is certainly open to question. if one looks at philosophers celebrating the Individual, esp. since capitalism, many of them are rather distrustful if not hostile to capitalism, esp. as its developed 'mass culture' and 'mass communication.'.

often the direction of individualist thinkers is anarchistic, as apparently in Stirner, e.g. Emma Goldman. other times, esp. the philosophers who celebrate The Artist, e.g. Nietzsche, are most friendly to old style aristocratic oligarchies, as in Aristotle's time, the Renaiassance, ec. still other Individuals just ignore the "state" and "mass society" as much as possible, though that indifference is in practice not far from conservatism.

indeed, it could be argued--as did Nietzsche-- that the most spectacular "individual" will arise in the most adverse circumstances, taking for instance a Dostoevski or a Solshenitsyn. leaving aside for the moment, the "captains of industry," (rockefellers, carnegies, mellons), who are the greatest Individuals born since, let's say, 1800? i think of Mandela, and lately, Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma.

1b), if meant to exclude other contexts in which individuals arise, seems false.

2) is false. it is obviously false since Reason led Ayn Rand to OK early Abortion, yet it leads Ami and the the Pope to condemn it.

attempts to use Reason to generate ethics, most famously in Kant, have not worked: Reason led Kant and the Pope to condemn suicide, but, iirc, Ayn Rand was not so dogmatic in all cases.

===

Note to Ami: As a matter of fact, *many* commentators have noted the paucity of references in Rand to her [intellectual] predecessors and colleagues. she really wanted to appear to spring, like Athena, from the brown of Zeus, un mentored, un instructed, and un influenced.

 

[Oblimo]

One may as well purport that there were no original thoughts in philosophy after Aristotle, none in Astronomy after Kepler, nothing in physics after Einstein, if you buy that Rand offered no original input to the field of economics.

hahaha oh wow, etc.

I'd love to see any economic theorems or equations credited directly to Rand, as opposed to those who attended the Institute when they were young.

Her shutting down of the Institute marginalized her own writings until after her death,IIRC, and pretty much ended her direct influence of the Neo-Cons of that generation. There's a reason we've got Friedman economics instead of Rand economics.

 

[Handprints]

1) a)capitalism makes possible the flourishing of the True Individual (or of all of them worth anything), and b)the later only happens nowadays, except for the rare cases, under capitalism. 2) pure reason and VERY basic psychology, can tell the requirements for flourishing and make the necessary and unbreakable link to idealized capitalism.

those two claims are quasi new, though 1) is found is less dramatic terms in Smith, von Mises, Hayek. unfortunately 1) is at best a half truth, esp part b). 2) is false.

Worth adding the bit that really wasn't new and, for me at least, disqualified Rand from being someone worth listening to: the closed-end, deterministic nature of her approach - no obvious room for anything other than a binary result to any question, no possibility for uncertainty or insoluble questions.

Oddly enough, that's usually the main criterion I use to distinguish a religion from a cult...

On re-reading that, I've just realised it was the linear empiricism of Rand's worldview that dated Atlas for me as much as the dialogue or the two-dimensionality (emotionally impoverished or overcome-beyond-word) of the characters.

Best,
H

 

[amicus]

One further thing, once mentioned, you will be compelled to acknowledge albeit I know grudgingly.

A little mild anticipation here, (I so enjoy doing that), postulating that few, outside the college classroom and usually as assignments ever struggle through the original works of the classical Philosophers from Thales forward to Rand and all in between, or indeed the 'dry science' of economics, I doubt few here by choice ever read or heard of Von Mises or Hayek before, an only a passing relationship with the founding fathers succeeding Freud and company.

I suggest the the vigor and vitality of Ayn Rand, her novels, films and plays and her Newsletters and Essays and the controversy her pronouncements generated at all intellectual levels, pro and con, have done more to 'popularize' and disseminate at least exposure to classical thought in all those aforementioned disciplines, than any other single source of inspiration anywhere at any time, taking into consideration modern media as opposed to the past.


I also suggest to be a true critic and peer level combatant at her level of thought that no one here, myself included, is qualified or sufficiently competent to pass judgment on her contribution to the disciplines.

A perhaps, like it or not, as Handprints commemorates the 50th Anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged, perhaps, time will be the final arbiter.

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

HP Worth adding the bit that really wasn't new and, for me at least, disqualified Rand from being someone worth listening to: the closed-end, deterministic nature of her approach - no obvious room for anything other than a binary result to any question, no possibility for uncertainty or insoluble questions.

Oddly enough, that's usually the main criterion I use to distinguish a religion from a cult...

On re-reading that, I've just realised it was the linear empiricism of Rand's worldview that dated Atlas for me as much as the dialogue or the two-dimensionality (emotionally impoverished or overcome-beyond-word) of the characters.

Good points. I think perhaps i should add to 2), a 2b) And Reason can readily solve all outstanding issues in philosophy, including metaphysics--e.g. 'realism'-- epistemology, philos of mind, ethics and metaethics.

This gives Rand somewhat the flavor of Aquinas, the other rational aristotlelian-- a complete rational system. dogmatic proofs on all basics questions beginning with the existence of God.

As to 'linear empiricism', i have a vague idea what you mean, but in my terms i find Rand UN historical and UNempirical (=UN scientific). if you look to her discussions of mind, brain, and perception they are amost entirely 'armchair', like the 18th century thinkers. FEW references to scientific findings on any issue. Indeed, i can't prove this, but if you look at the sprinkling of professors and intellectuals who follow Rand or acknowledge her influence, scientists are nearly absent.

the most stunning example is that Rand really has no interest in capitalism, middle and late, ie. 20th century; she quotes no facts or data you can't find in a city newspaper. she is no Hayek. it is only the ideal form, in a romanticized early era, the Rhodes and Rockefellers, that interests her very slightly.

this is perhaps linked with the cult like quality of official objectiivism. (not that ALL scientists are immune to cults).

 

[Pure]

question worth a separate posting: greatest individual.

leaving aside for the moment, the "captains of industry," (rockefellers, carnegies, mellons), who are the greatest Individuals born since, let's say, 1800?

what do i mean by greatest? most representative of human excellence, preferably on a broad basis. this means, more than one subject or specialisation area (say, microbiology, portrait painting), and more than one area of human personality, i.e. besides intellect: spirit, feeling and will. although i've arbitrarily excluded the 'captains of industry' (if they remain just that , or [[REVISED mainly give money to their own church or university or existing charities]], i by no means wish to exclude great leaders, provided they show a minimum of 'rounding' (e.g. intellect, culture, humaneness).

the greatest, too, TEND--but not always-- to have achieved some recognition in their own time, though in some cases an undeserved minimum (e.g. JS Bach). some make the cover of Time, though they share that honor with certain Pop Stars.

NOTE: I said the greatest INDIVIDUALS. this connotes that a blind follower of convention, party line, or of the masses--e.g. the politicians politician--does not qualify, and suggests the opposite; maybe like Sade--in an earlier time-- they are widely condemned and persecuted. Mandela comes to mind [as widely condemned, but later lauded] [Note: It is not my intention to nominate anyone at this time; maybe later]. a Pope may qualify, provided he's not merely consolidating orthodoxy, and preaching age old official "stands."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Lefties always hate individuals who improve the quality of life for the masses. John D. Rockefeller pretty much eradicated hookworm disease in the South. He did it with his own money. He built a black college in the South, using his own money to do it. He was responsible for the price of lamp oil falling from 95 cents a gallon to 5 cents a gallon. Rockefeller's innovations eliminated ecological destruction across Pennsylvania and Ohio. He killed the American whaling industry and barrel-making.

Henry Ford cleansed America's streets and streams of horseshit. People forget that horses crap, and the manure gets washed into the water supply.

 

[amicus]

Chuckles...peas in a pod, methinks, who be ur daddy?

grins...




the always amicable amicus...(don't I have a really neat SN?)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Forty years ago I was a good liberal. But the oppressed masses educated me to their real nature.

There truly are disadvantaged people and genuine victims, but 95% of the 'victims' I encountered are self-inflicted victims. They know the path out of their circumstances and refuse to leave. Mostly because we provide them with an income and free turkeys for holidays. We invited them to ride on the tailgate of the socialist wagon, and they have.

Socialists are great for recognizing tasks that need doing, but they always vanish when it comes time to toil or pass the hat for a donation.

 

[colddiesel]

leaving aside for the moment, the "captains of industry," (rockefellers, carnegies, mellons), who are the greatest Individuals born since, let's say, 1800?

. Mandela comes to mind. ."

Charles Darwin
Albert Einstein
Dr. Sun Yat Sen
Mahatma Gandhi
Don Bradman

Of those I think Darwins scientific contribution will eventually be seen to exceed Einstein's.

Gandhi will I think be credited not only with ending British imperialism in India but with destroying the idea of imperialism as a viable idea. The greatest politician and probably the greatest 20th century man.

Mandela doesn't figure outside of South Africa and his terrorist associations are undeniable

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Imperialism is alive and well because democracies always fail. People are incapable of self-discipline and require the lash.

 

[Pure]

hote to jbj, re John D. Rockefeller.

i think you overlooked my note, re captains of industry "who remained just that, or philanthropists"

i note the rockefeller bio at wiki says,

Rockefeller gave $80 million to the University of Chicago under William Rainey Harper, turning a small Baptist college into a world-class institution by 1900. He later called it "the best investment I ever made."[8] His General Education Board, founded in 1902, was established to promote education at all levels everywhere in the country. It was especially active in supporting black schools in the South. Its most dramatic impact came by funding the recommendations of the Flexner Report of 1910, which had been funded by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; it revolutionized the study of medicine in the United States. Rockefeller also provided financial support to Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Bryn Mawr, Wellesley and Vassar.

Despite his personal preference for homeopathy, Rockefeller, on Gates's advice, became one of the first great benefactors of medical science. In 1901, he founded the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in New York. It changed its name to Rockefeller University in 1965, after expanding its mission to include graduate education.


--
This clearly goes beyond simple philanthropy; it's innovative and furthering science. I have amended my formulation of criteria, above, to the effect that simply giving money to one's church or university or existing charities is not enough.

Further, please note that i said "for the moment... leaving aside"; that was not intended as dismissal, but rather to frame the present discussion and allow consideration of the "captains" in a class of their own, as possibly outstanding individuals.


I have no problem with your nominating him, JDR.

As to Ford clearing streets of manure. No dice. If his name is to go forward you need a better case than causing obsolescence of an everyday practice (driving horses through the streets).

 

[trysail]

JBJ - Author and title? I'd like to read that if I can get it out here. That's one of those key dates in European history, so we don't get taught as much about US events at that time...

Thanks,
H

There's C.S. Forester's (yes, that C.S. Forester, creator of Horatio Hornblower, the original "Jack Aubrey") The Age of Fighting Sail, an engaging naval history of the War of 1812. The book was published in 1956.

ETA: My avatar is an image of a modern replica of a Baltimore Clipper, ships that played a crucial role in the War of 1812. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Clipper ). In the absence of a navy that could reasonably be expected to challenge the Royal Navy, the U.S. granted letters of marque to privateers (yes, privatization of the military function is not a recent phenomena!) who were extremely successful in disrupting British shipping during the period. Baltimore was a hotbed of privateering and that was a primary reason for the British attack on the city which, collaterally, led to the writing of Francis Scott Key's poem, "The Star Spangled Banner." Baltimore Clippers were a favored design of the privateers. Built with a sole purpose in mind- to sail fast, the privateers wreaked havoc upon British shipping, resulting in skyrocketing insurance premiums at Lloyds. Their Chesapeake Bay heritage showed in their shallow draft and raked masts. The most celebrated ship was Thomas Boyle's Chasseur; during an 1814 cruise around the British Isles, Boyle boastfully (and wishfully) declared a blockade of England. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_of_Baltimore ). Ultimately, these ships proved to be the progenitors of the extreme clipper ships of the mid-nineteenth century (e.g., Cutty Sark and Flying Cloud).

So who exactly have you been reading if you think Rand (b.1905) was the first philosopher that held an opinion about economics? (the psychology part I'll take as a given for most if not all philosophers)

Man Versus The Man, a Correspondence between Rives La Monte, Socialist, and H.L. Mencken, Individualist. New York, Holt, 1910.

The book is composed of six letters written by La Monte and six replies by Mencken. As Mencken described it, "In 1909 certain articles I had written attacted the attention of Robert Rives Lamonte [sic], a Socialist intellectual then employed on the Baltimore News. Lamonte was one of the editors of the International Socialist Review... We fell into a correspondence and the result was a formidable series of letters. Finally Lamonte suggested that we polish them a bit and try to publish them as a book. I gave him full charge of the affair and the first publisher he approached, Henry Holt, accepted the book... It was a complete failure commercially and was soon remaindered... That book seems somewhat archaic today but it at least shows one thing clearly, that my politics were firmly formulated so early as 1909. I'd change the essential doctrine very little if I had it to rewrite today."

 

[cantdog]

Worth adding the bit that really wasn't new and, for me at least, disqualified Rand from being someone worth listening to: the closed-end, deterministic nature of her approach - no obvious room for anything other than a binary result to any question, no possibility for uncertainty or insoluble questions.

Oddly enough, that's usually the main criterion I use to distinguish a religion from a cult...

On re-reading that, I've just realised it was the linear empiricism of Rand's worldview that dated Atlas for me as much as the dialogue or the two-dimensionality (emotionally impoverished or overcome-beyond-word) of the characters.

Best,
H

A binary universe. It either is or is not.

That's characteristic of a system created whole in the mind, from axioms, and then worked out in detail by reason unaided. "Cult" may be all right, I suppose; for me, though, this is the working definition of an ideology.

Followers of ideologies, whom we may call ideologues or cultists, whichever, admit nothing of the actual world into their ideas. These systems cannot be empirically corrected, since they were at no point empirically derived. They ignore imagination, eschew common sense, sneer at intuition, and have little use even for memory. Each new decision is referred to the idealized and utterly rational structure of logic from postulate. Morals exist totally outside their realm and beyond their reach.

One and all, such systems are pretty laughable. They are guaranteed to be wrong, since they never refer to the real. Ideologies or cults, either way.

 

[cantdog]

For that reason, I don't bother with Rand much. The details of an ideology are irrelevant, since we exist in a much more complex world to which they do not relate.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

You make my case that capitalists can never pass your test for goodness. Your's is a typical socialist attitude. You demand that Rockefeller and others ladle soup to the homeless and beg forgiveness simultaneously. Namely, you want an apology from people for being successful. It's as if they cheated the Fates or destiny.

 

[Pure]

comment to jbj.

sorry you're unhappy, jbj, i repeat

wiki Rockefeller gave $80 million to the University of Chicago under William Rainey Harper, turning a small Baptist college into a world-class institution by 1900. He later called it "the best investment I ever made."[8] His General Education Board, founded in 1902, was established to promote education at all levels everywhere in the country. It was especially active in supporting black schools in the South. Its most dramatic impact came by funding the recommendations of the Flexner Report of 1910, which had been funded by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; it revolutionized the study of medicine in the United States. Rockefeller also provided financial support to Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Bryn Mawr, Wellesley and Vassar.

Despite his personal preference for homeopathy, Rockefeller, on Gates's advice, became one of the first great benefactors of medical science. In 1901, he founded the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in New York. It changed its name to Rockefeller University in 1965, after expanding its mission to include graduate education.


--
Pure said //This clearly goes beyond simple philanthropy; it's innovative and furthering science.//

jbj said in response.

jbj You make my case that capitalists can never pass your test for goodness. Your's is a typical socialist attitude. You demand that Rockefeller and others ladle soup to the homeless and beg forgiveness simultaneously. Namely, you want an apology from people for being successful.

i accepted JDR, so he passed my test. hence your first statement is false.

i did not mention 'ladling soup for the homeless,' or any such act, so your third sentence is false.

i did not ask for an apology, or mea culpa from JDR, hence your last statement is false.

I did say he established or aided some universities, and set up a medical research institution, advancing human knowledge and medical science.

JDR evidently considered such aid important and something he wished to do, both for himself and the human race.

I'm sorry you disagree. But then of course, you're not JDR, you're a reader of paperbacks like Atlas Shrugged, and fancy yourself in the heroic mold, in virtue of your dreams and public posturing.

---
Oh, and yes i have a socialist attitude. i'm a social democrat and think France is quite a bit better run, and more democratic, and more conducive to "Individuals" than the US. for one thing, it allows only half as many potential "individuals" to die in infancy.

====
as a solution, perhaps you should start a thread, "capitalists i admire who were utterly indifferent as to the human race, except for 'customers'"

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I only read Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

 

[Pure]

jbj,

you old superman, you. why don't you let us in on it?

in connection with your problem seeing why Rockeller might have wanted to give something to the human race, i'm reminded of a quote from the early Rand, about her projected novel's hero, Danny Renahan (modeled after W.E. Hickman).

Rand describing her ficitional 'hero.': "Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen -- it's inborn, absolute, it can't be changed, he has 'no organ' to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.' "

 

[Handprints]

As to 'linear empiricism', i have a vague idea what you mean, but in my terms i find Rand UN historical and UNempirical (=UN scientific). if you look to her discussions of mind, brain, and perception they are amost entirely 'armchair', like the 18th century thinkers. FEW references to scientific findings on any issue. Indeed, i can't prove this, but if you look at the sprinkling of professors and intellectuals who follow Rand or acknowledge her influence, scientists are nearly absent.

That 18th century "orrery" model of hoe the world works is exactly what I meant: that a limited number of rules (plus a few metarules that explain how the rules interact) could could give you the likely optimum outcome for any real-word outcome. Man's work, once the job of rule definition was finished, was simply the iterative engineering of an ever-better set of outcomes. Non-scientist that I am, I believed for a long time that this kind of thinking hadn't been exploded until the early 20th C but I've since learned that the late Victorian natural historians and biologists had lost all faith in it 30 years before "quantum" meant anything beyond the Latin.

the most stunning example is that Rand really has no interest in capitalism, middle and late, ie. 20th century; she quotes no facts or data you can't find in a city newspaper. she is no Hayek. it is only the ideal form, in a romanticized early era, the Rhodes and Rockefellers, that interests her very slightly.

Good point! Where are the salespeople, for instance? Do salespeople have any function beyond order-taking in Randland or do all company chiefs just barge into each others' offices and make demands that their suppliers can instantly see the wisdom of, as in Atlas? No wonder Rand stuck all of her characters in industries that had peaked out for profitability long before she picked up a pen...

Best,
H

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Rand lost me when they guys all joined the Hidden Valley Flea Market. The first 600 pages of the book are excellent.

 

[amicus]

Jesus Jumpin up Christ, JBJ, Handprints, I respect both your minds, but shit oh dear!

The 'hidden valley flea market, Galt's Gulch, was a literary device used to provide a sanctuary, it wasn't supposed to be functional, just provide an hiatus for the characters to put the rest of the world aside.

And, 'salesmen'?, damn, Handprints, you want a treatise? A step by step, no detail left undescribed in a fiction novel? Shit, I thought you wrote things yourself?

Perhaps neither of you have seriously considered writing a novel of that length and depth and simply do not understand the mechanics involved.

Ragnar the Pirate was another such device, to present another vantage point; I recall a character in Fountainhead, 'Cheryl' I think, a poor girl used and abused by a second hander, she was also a device to illustrate the true ugliness of the lack of self esteem in an individual, a second hander, parasite type schmuck.

I have a host of literary criticism I could voice about the fiction novels of Ayn Rand but they pale in comparison to what she attempted and largely succeeded at; that of emphasizing the heroic nature of the individual in the face of adversity. And in so doing, inter-relating that to the structures of politics, religion and society that one finds one's self immersed in.

I thought you peeps knew how to read novels...I guess not.

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

emphasizing the heroic nature of the individual in the face of adversity.


it's funny, but i don't even know what this means. there are some heroes. lots of non heroes, ordinary folks. and a few bad guys (and lots who go along).

looking at hitlers' germany, and also occupied countries like holland and france illustrates what i think is the point.

i'm not sure what kind of 'heroism' the millions of readers of 'atlas shrugged,' who are taken with it, aspire to. and i'm not sure of what benefits are reaped when thousands of young, 20 yr old randians, already republican, say, "you know, i'm going to act for myself; i will never sacrifice for others or for the collective."

seems to me they'll live the same narrow little lives, i.e. 'selfish' ones, but just have some nice dreams of themselves. and the 'go getters', that want to make a million selling real estate, will have a little added 'moral glitter', in their own minds, for their enterprise. "I sold a million, and have a plaque.....AND i'm an Individual, one of thousands of such who work for Re Max Realty Co."

they, are, in general, much like the readers of romance novels. they continue with the housework and kids, but dream of "The Highwayman...[who] came riding with the cluster of lace at his breast."