Atlas Shrugged and so did I...

[gauchecritic]

That it brings forth the objections from a wide variety of critics, a generation after its introduction, is proof beyond doubt of the continuing importance of Rands efforts to clarify and popularize and investigation into objective, rational reasoning as applied to ethics and morals.

Proof rather that its popularity is ill-conceived and counter to the forward movement of mankind as a species.

But I suppose if everyone at the AH bar MiAmico is wrong then an un-accomplished populist novelist must speak truth whilst the rest of philosophy has been wrong since its inception.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's the fallacy of the underdog.

 

[amicus]

Keyword search: Ayn Rand's continuing influence (1-10 of 97,400 entries)

http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/09/the_continuing_influence_of_ay_1.html

http://www.wethelivingmovie.com/aboutayn.php

http://www.indefenceofliberty.org/story.asp?storyId=675

http://www.mises.org/story/1738

~~~

For some undetermined reason my new Vista OS on MS Works will only let me paste llinks, not even a sentence of text. And I had some juicy selected excerpts about Ayn Rand's continuing world wide influence at all levels here in 2007.

Amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

NOt such great picks, AMi. The first link pans the book; The piece also notes how controversial the book was on its publication almost 50 years ago, getting generally lousy reviews, and drawing criticism for glorifying greed.
The second wants us to buy something;

History
Synopsis
Cast & Crew
Photo Gallery
Reviews
About Ayn Rand
Own the Video
See the Movie

The third is a bookstore site-- selling books is more important than anything;
50th Anniversary celebrations are scheduled to take place around the world.

The Institute is named to honor the life and work of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973). In six decades of teaching and writing, he reconstructed economic theory and method on a sound basis of individual human action and showed that government intervention is always destructive, whether through welfare, inflation, taxation, regulation, or war. His vision of the free and prosperous commonwealth is carried forward in all the work of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.It comes as no surprise that an institution with these aims is friendly to Rand. Kind of a 'duh', really-- weren't we talking about how many CEOs take comfort in reading Rand?

 

[Pure]

amicus flailings,

i didn't expect amicus could handle detailed critique, but i posted a bit for others.

it's pretty clear from the analyses by Huemer and others that Rand's ethics never did get nailed down properly.

not only that but looking the possibilities, things don't look good, when the possibilities are canvassed, as Huemer does.

on the one hand Rand seems to say, "act only for yourself; in general, do not take account of the other at all." there is an exception for one's spouse and kids, but it's pretty stark.

this seems to fall pretty quickly. perhaps it's a recipe for 'all against all', but it's not an ethic, sicne it cannot adjudicate any conflict situations, even the simplest.

nor, to use Hume's example, it cannot deal with the madman who will blow up the whole world to avoid a pin prick to his little finger (i.e., the slightest person inconvenience).

Rand *thought* a simple patch would work, based on rationality:"act only for yourself, but rationally, and for yourself as a rational being."

this *sounds* feasible, but has LOTS of problems. in a word, what's ruled out? any harm to others? any disadvantage to others?

why exactly is it "irrational" to harm others, e.g. live a Tony Soprano-style life. 'cause you need lots of bodyguards? well so does GWB and the Pope. even the redoubtable Mr. Huckabee will need them, should amicus wet dreams be fulfilled.

we remark off the bat, that this seems to dilute egoism a helluva lot; every egoist now has to say, "will it harm my neighbor A?"
"will it harm neighbor B?" and so on. heck that's as much 'work' as a conventional moralist, non egoist, has to go through. and it's VERY odd to be doing this, just after being told as what roxy tells us, "Live for yourself only. For your own happiness, only."

and here's the kicker. suppose we agree, ftsoa that it's irrational to harm others, how about disadvantaging them? IOW, one appreciates that Rand's goal is the 'trader' who operates without force or fraud. does he act "only for himself"; the answer seems to be 'no', that would not be rational (it seems irrational, in a way, to fuck over those you trade with, assuming they might have otherwise given you return business.)

so, accepting that Rand wants to rule out the dishonest trader, has she left room for the honest but aggressive one, who, say, is going to put the nearest competitor out of business, due to his superior trading. and let's say that means the competitor, instead of operating a restaurant, will become a staff person at mcdonalds, with that low pay, much to the detriment of his family.

so why is hitting the other fellow on the head and grabbing his goods immoral, but putting him out of business and into a crappy job, moral?
why is the former 'rational' and the later 'irrational.'

what Rand is here stumbling over is something joe blow on the street--even if a Repug, has solved long ago. he judges both acts by their social impact. if he's a repugnican, he says, "hey society is better off, with the elimination of 'inefficient' traders. by contrast it's NOT better off is some traders just get assassinated in the night."

let's be absolutely clear: this obvious approach, the 'social welfare' is simply NOT available to the Randian.

any other capitalist can make the argument that the sum total of happinesses is maximized, that the greatest good for everyone is schieved, etc. Rand cannot, for obvious reasons. broadly speaking 'social welfare' approaches are variants of utilitarianism, and Rand, in her infinite wisdom, chose to DISconnect "objectivist ethics" and her arguments for capitalism from utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest number).

IN HER MIND (though) not in reality, utilitarianism implies sacrifice to the collective. it's untrue, at least in the sense of "undue sacrifice", but one can see that for an American right winger, the equation has some plausibility.

==
in conclusion, Rand has no way to use 'rationality' --or any other move she likes-- to rule IN good capitalist behavior and rule out BAD capitalist behavior.

what are we left with, then. on the one hand, this structure of so called "pursuit of rational self interest" and on the other hand Rand's makeshift list of what "in" and what's out.

"looting" is out, but
aggressive pricing is in.

"fraud" is out, but
non disclosure and 'caveat emptor' is in. etc.

these moves have no discernable relation to either egoism or rationality.

she may as well have said, "i recommend 'trader ethics' as embodied in the commercial laws of England in 1810." that would be frank and clear.

 

[Oblimo]

That's why Galt has his Engine. The society he wants to build is post-capitalist, where the individual does not need to be concerned with the longevity of the system, because with an entropy-violating enegry source, the system will survive. The Engine is not a narartive device, it's an underpinning of Rand's assumptions of what the world needs to be like in order for her True Men to arise.

I guess that's why I should not be surprised when Amicus denies that resources are scarce and conservationism is self-defeating. For Atlas to shrug, he first needs to actually possess the infinite strength of a Titan.

 

[Pure]

footnote

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/events/advsem01/mhuemerAS2001.pdf

Huemer: Is Benevolent Egoism Coherent?

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/events/advsem01/mhuemerAS2001.pdf

[Rand holds that}

P1: I should never sacrifice myself for the benefit of others.
P2: I should never sacrifice others for the benefit of myself.3

[

[[Summary by pure: She tries, however to argue that egoism or 'rational egoism' can be a foundation for 1) and 2).

Huemer: //Ethical egoism, again, asserts:

EE: The only reason I can ever have for doing anything is that it would serve my own
interests.//



This is mistaken.]]

However [continues Huemer], if “egoism” is interpreted in the manner suggested in section 4, a coherent doctrine can be constructed. In this interpretation, the ‘egoist’ (better named an ‘individualist’) believes that each individual life is intrinsically valuable in an absolute sense. This, in turn, coheres with the moral principle that no individual life should be sacrificed for the sake of another individual or group—thus leading us to both P1 and P2, where EE was only able to give us P1. The individualist of this stripe remains free to accept the intuitively plausible principles (2) that a thing is good only if it benefits someone and (3) that a thing is valued only if there is someone who values it, even while he rejects the idea (1) that all value facts are agent-relative.


===
This is Huemer's bold attempt to make a coherent trader or capitalist "Individualist" ethic. Of course it jettisons at least 50 if not 80 percent of Rand's stated ethical positions and arguments.

 

[amicus]

Here we are, 21 pages into this thread, started by Handprints as a tongue in cheek commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged, a novel by the late author, Ayn Rand, also founder of a new and controversial philosophy, Objectivism, whom the critics just love to pick at.

For the past century, and more, depending when you date the death of God, Charles Darwin, or the rise of Capitalism via the Industrial Revolution, the parasitic intellectuals, first living off the Church, then the Kings, when left to their own devices to sell their goods in an open market, have remained aghast at the prospectives.

The minor point I am emphasizing of recent has simply been to supply information, links and documentations, via the internet, that Ayn Rand and her Philosophy, Objectivism, has had a major impact on the world at large.

The parasitic intellectuals don't even have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that clearly observable fact.

21 pages have not yet been sufficient to explore even the surface of the influence the writings of Ayn Rand have had on Literature, Art, Music, Architecture, via Howard Roark via Frank Lloyd Wright and a handful of dozens of other more esoteric areas of her influence.

The reason for the fury of the left wing intellectuals here and elsewhere? Simple. Ms. Rand speaks of and to the individual human spirit. Our resident collectivists, speak to the masses, to the group, from which, they assert, all human value emanate.

It is as great an event in human history as was the discovery and implementation of electricity, which brought man from darkness to light.

Thus so, does Objectivism bring man from the dark ages of subjectivism in its many forms, to the light of reason and rationality and human individual values.

I can say this, I can tell you this, I can advocate this and unlike a faith such as Christianity or Socialism, you cannot believe it and follow it, for it is an individual path to enlightment, and to know it, you must learn it.

And I cannot give you that.

If you want to learn how to write Romantic Literature, of which Literotica is a minor chord, then read what Ayn Rand wrote about the subject. She did not write things for you to memorize, not formulas or rules, she just offered the objective, rational, definition of what Romance is and how one should view it and speak of it; the style and the soul of your own individual personal artistry is your concern.

So perhaps you will get an inkling of why those who have no individual existence, expressing themselves on this forum and elsewhere, so hate the philosophy of Ayn Rand. She has exposed, in no uncertain terms, that they do not exist as individuals, but are indeed parasitic symbionts of those who do live and create.

In other words, if those like Pure had no one to copy and paste and nothing to criticize, his existence would be a moot point.

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

I was inspired to buy a copy of '1984,' another book the Lefties ignore. I read it 40 years ago. It seemed preposterous back then, but seems familiar now. It wont be the military that takes over, it'll be the schools.

 

[amicus]

Hi, JamesB, how ya doin?

amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Thinking about writing a book where the schools take over America.

 

[amicus]

I have a better book in progress, how the million and a half throwaway children in America each year are gathered up by the Amicus Shelter and eventually take over the world...grins...my magnum opus...several hundred pages into it.

smiles...


amicus...

 

[gauchecritic]

AMICUS

I was inspired to buy a copy of '1984,' another book the Lefties ignore. I read it 40 years ago. It seemed preposterous back then, but seems familiar now. It wont be the military that takes over, it'll be the schools.

I don't think you'll find many 'true pinkoes' that are not entirely familiar with the work as it seems to be wholly opposed to fascism which is a trait generally assigned to the extreme right.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

G-MAN

Naaah. Any group can be fascist.

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

 

[trysail]

AMICUS

I was inspired to buy a copy of '1984,' another book the Lefties ignore. I read it 40 years ago. It seemed preposterous back then, but seems familiar now. It wont be the military that takes over, it'll be the schools.

Animal Farm isn't a bad read, either. In fact, as a parable of the false promises of utopian folly, I think it's the most readable and the best of the lot.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

TRYSAIL

I read ANIMAL FARM many years ago, too. It is a good book.

 

[Pure]

1984

i think all older lefties know animal farm, just as they know the stalin and mao problems.

it's righties who are seemingly oblivious to civil rights erosions, indeed *call for them*. a phenomenon of early fascism in germany, italy etc.

the fact that US methods resemble those in Room 101, at the climax of Winston's ordeal, is of no moment to any rightie on this board.... indeed they are applauded.

---
on the left, we see late Stalin and Mao as monsters. from the right, Hitler was 'misunderstood,' perhaps made 'errors in detail', but was generally spot on. (see amicus, in the Obama/Hillary thread, today, on black inferiority.)

 

[Oblimo]

I'm a Huxley/Bradbury fan when it comes to dystopia. Orwell is also an amazing read, but I wouldn't suggest using him as an example spokesperson for what's nowadays referred to as the right-wing (especially Animal Farm). Also, the legend goes that the title, 1984, was his editor's idea. The original manuscript was entitled 1948.

 

[gauchecritic]

Farenheit 451 is an excellent 'bread and circuses' critique. What more could the masses need?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Been gone a few days -

Wow, this thread is still going?

How interesting that a writer and a philosophy so despised and reviled in the climate of public opinion that prevails in this era stimulates so much thought and discussion. Kind of like Puritans getting all obsessed about witchcraft.

 

[amicus]

Been gone a few days -

Wow, this thread is still going?

How interesting that a writer and a philosophy so despised and reviled in the climate of public opinion that prevails in this era stimulates so much thought and discussion. Kind of like Puritans getting all obsessed about witchcraft.

~~~

Welcome back Roxanne, would you mind defending the south barricade for a while as I grab a bite and some shuteye?



Ami...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Farenheit 451 is an excellent 'bread and circuses' critique. What more could the masses need?

Bradbury is a wonderful, poetic writer. For me that scene at the end of Martian Chronicles where the child wants to see the Martians, and the dad looks with him (or her) at their reflection in a pool of water saying, "There are the Martians," is for some reason one of the highly evocative moments in sci-fi.

Not taking anything away from Orwell and Bradbury, but I always felt the most timeless and profound work in this genre was Brave New World, specifically Huxley's explorations of what are the things that make human life meaningful and worth living.

 

[cantdog]

To have found the way to live this life.

That's what defines greatness in a civilization. It is one which allows for and encourages excellence.

 

[Pure]

keeping it simple: look out for yourself and yours only: and never exploit

the other guy. Rand's two pillars of "objectivist/objective morality."


et's keep it simple.

rand said 1) each is to look out for his/her own interests, roughly, that which will make him/her happy, satisfied, fulfilled, prosperous, and thinking well of him/her self. this means that the above is never sacrified to another's interest, i.e. that i say, "i will accept this reduction in my happiness as a means to increasing yours."

hence the term 'egoism' or selfishness. outside of friends and family (which the egoist attends to, for selfish reasons), the "other" or stranger or "the general welfare" (as per the US constitution) has no claim at all, on him: cannot and should not expect a nickel of money nor a minute of time.

this certainly sounds like Joe or Jo, the assertive entrepreneur who's as politically incorrect as Ms Helmesly with, i forget the words, her contempt for the lowest folks, the drones in her enterprise.

AT THE SAME TIME, Rand said:

2) You should never sacrifice others for the benefit of yourself.

and that

3) you should be rational, always, all the times, in your acts and thoughts

AND she thought these last two points, 2) and 3) were iintimately and unavoidably connected [as indeed are 1) and 3) ]. so that if you say, "I'm planneing to loot the wealth of my rich neighbor and annex his lands" she'd say, "That's not being rational."

If pressed, she'd make the argument ( following Plato, incidentally) that doing this to your neighbor makes him--or his heirs-- retaliate; at very least it gets very expensive hiring guards, and who wants to live under guard, etc. For example, you gain a million in your neighbors goods, but have to spend a quarter of a million per year paying your guards and soldiers, and doing so indefinitely or for at least a generation or two, till the neighbors heirs, kids and grandkids die off, in ruin. clearly a foolish (irrational) course of action.

Anyone see a problem here? Check the story of Mr. Alexander, of Comverse Technology, a fantastically successful enterprise:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/aug/25/news.technology1


Taking things to a social scale, a) Rand envisioned a society in which the outstanding, and virtuously selfish folks predominated, and held that, b) these were the same as the creative, the original and the inventive.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, c) the selfish folks pursuing their interests for their own reasons, NEVER say to the drones, the workers, the foot soldiers, "put aside your interests" and certainly never say "sacrifice yourself for me (or my cause, or the Great Cause)"

This is where she differs with Aristotle and Nietzsche and, let's say, Julius Caesar or Napolean or Patton or the Gita (i.e. let the foot soldier carry out his foot soldier role; that's his best life.)

Indeed, she held to the ultimate 'trickle down' theory: d) that the virtuously selfish elite, untrammeled in their acts, like Fords and Edisons and Rockefellers, would cause vast spillover--benefit-- to the rest of humanity, though that is NOT their directly their goal or purpose.

(This has vague similarities with Nietzsche, but carried to the nth degree.)

Anyone see a problem here? Perhaps have a look at Mr. Ambani's plan, and comment on the spilover or 'trickle down'

http://www.smartmoneydaily.com/pers...lar-house-ultimate-luxury-or-living-hell.aspx

 

[amicus]

This thread, begun on 11/06/07 is now 21 pages long and has accumulated 523 comments and a total of 3366 visits at last check.

It is now 11/25/07 and the thread starter has barely participated. I went back a reread the initial post just a few moments ago to remind myself that instead of a positive memorial to the 50th anniversary of the publication of Ayn Rand's book, "Atlas Shrugged", it was a scathing attack on her writing style, her content and her philosophy, in my eyes, a disgraceful misuse of the term, 'commemoration'.

I left some links in an earlier post that if used, guided you to a referendum of the influence of the writing and philosophy of Ayn Rand over the past half century plus; it is quite amazing to consider the breadth of her works and thoughts in the modern world, truly so.

I am continually amused at the cadre of 'usual suspects' that continue to hammer away at any mention of individual values. I further find amusing the tactic of 'name dropping' and Pure and the Gang, (thanx JBJ), who incessantly call upon individualsfrom the past to buttress their arguments while apparently forgetting that these individuals, are precisely that, individual men and women who's thoughts were head and shoulders above others at their time and survive the test of time, as Ms. Rand has.

The work of Ayn Rand focuses upon the individual as the source of all human values; the 'usual suspects' claim that all values originate in the group, yet they will not defend the ethics or morality of the group function.

Ayn Rand states that human ethics and morals and the study of them is a function of formal philosophy and the branch of Epistemology and she categorically dissects the origins of ethics and morality in human actions.

The 'usual suspects' reject this approach from two directions, first they claim that ethics and morals are subjective and the province of free choice for each individual, forgetting for the moment that they do not honor the individual, but still that is what they claim. Second, to support that contention, they claim there can be no absolute knowledge of human ethics or morality because they are abstract concepts divorced from the hard sciences and therefore, unknowable.

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned they had never heard of Ayn Rand before this thread began and did a search to discover something about her and her philosophy; I hope many others have done or will do the same.

Objectivism is not a faith you can just memorize and repeat, it is an approach to thinking about matters of importance that are seldom taught anywhere anymore. If you have moral and ethical questions you find difficult to resolve, an understanding of objectivist ethics may offer you a course towards understanding.

It basically defines and explains the mental tools you already possess to set forth on your journey of understanding.

I am honored to offer what small things I can in the world wide continuing discussion and debate over this truly gifted woman's contribution to the continuing expansion of human thought and endeavor.

Pure, I once again suggest you return to your usual practice of cutting and pasting and stealing the thoughts of others to make your points; your last post is a vivid indictment of your inability to express a focused thought on any subject.

Amicus...