"Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand

[dennis99ss]

don't think you have to "buy" into every aspect of someone's philosophy to appreciate some aspects of it. No one agrees with anyone 100% of the time, and often not 50% of the time. That doesn't mean that all of their thoughts and opinions are worthless.

I don't know if you were one of the folks who spoke out against the compass movie, but those folks didn't think it was ok to accept some aspects of something. People who are against stem cell research have a vendetta against the lukemia society because they utilize and support such research.

Can you really tell us that you are so open minded, that you don't have to believe in everything someone believes in order to find some good in them? So, if that is the case, is there anything that Obama says that is not worthless. If there is, you sure haven't mentioned it. Will you start a thread about what good things you see from him, and be as passionate about it as you are on other things.

I certainly think that is how we are born. Babies are ultimately selfish. As they grow they find that by becoming socialized within the family, and later outside of the family, by making other people happy,and meeting other's needs and expectations, they ultimately make themselves happy. They get what they want, they get positive gains, avoid punishment, rejection, find acceptance. That all starts with the EGO at the center of that universe. So, no, I don't find that a foreign concept.

If this is what you really believe, I really, honestly, feel sorry for you. What a horrible way to view your life, and to view others, i.e. thinking that their only goal in doing things is to get something for themselves. I guess doing something for others, just because you can, and they need help, is a foreign concept. I guess doing something because it is the right thing to do, irregardless of how it effects you, is a foreign concept. While I do not understand that attitude, it does explain your attitude towards others, and helping others, or lack of it. If you really believe what you write, I can understand why nobody else deserves any help whatsoever, from any source, much less the government, because, if this comment is true, you only care about yourself, and believe that, because you personally would not benefit from helping others, it is not necessary. On the flip side, you probably believe that anybody who needs help is only doing so or asking for such so they can get into the cookie jar and take your cookies, that you should be able to grab.

I do certain things because it is the right thing to do, not because I want a pat on the back. I do it because I can, and, because i can, I have an obligation to those around me. The obligation does not come from me getting anything back. It comes from doing the right thing.

 

[couldbeme]

No, 1984 is what you have now. You have a president that is truly "Orwellian". He says one thing and does another. He rails against Wall St. yet the political elite charter private jets and go on "fact finding" junkets to Italy. He raises taxes on the producers, but his own inner circle "made simple mistakes". "All Animals are equal. Some Animals are more equal than others". (That's Animal Farm). Obama gets two books from Orwell.

Last time I checked Connecticut was in the United States! Therefore that makes Obama your President also!!!

Doesn't it get tiring?
"He says one thing and does another." By the way... blanket statement not fact based, I can certainly state things he has said and DID!!!
I'm sure you can also,
and its only been a month!!!

 

[Aisling]

Among authors and philosophers, Ayn Rand is noteworthy for her atheism and uncompromising opposition to religion. Unlike many non-believers who see utilitarian value to religion, Rand is somewhat unique in seeing (with minor exceptions) virtually no value to religion.

Yes, her opposition to religion, but she was a strong believer in the personal freedom of the individual, even religious freedom. She was against religious institutions, not their freedom to exist, but in their capacity to influence people biasedly.

She also said that there really wasn't any such thing as love, that everything we do "in the name of love" is really selfishly motivated. In fact everything we do is selfish in nature, and that we should only be looking out for ourselves (not our family, just ourselves).

But please do read the book ... you may have a completely different perception of what she has to say! And there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

In Anthem, one of the main themes was the freedom to love, and love was one of the motivating factors in Anthem. It wasn't as strong a theme as the concept of "I" , but it was there, as the ending portrays.


I really suggest to those curious to read Anthem to familiarize yourself with Ayn Rand if you don't feel like jumping into a sort-of massive book like Atlas Shrugged. Anthem is very short, to the point, and while not as thought-provoking as her other works, it definitely gives you insight on how strongly she believed in "I" as opposed to the government forced "we". Part of the story has to do with forbidden friendship (because people weren't allowed to prefer one person over another).

And you don't get the feeling that you're being preached to or that it's a political book. She just tells the story, and the rest is up to you. Can you tell I love this book?

 

[ElizK]

I don't know if you were one of the folks who spoke out against the compass movie, but those folks didn't think it was ok to accept some aspects of something. People who are against stem cell research have a vendetta against the lukemia society because they utilize and support such research.

Can you really tell us that you are so open minded, that you don't have to believe in everything someone believes in order to find some good in them? So, if that is the case, is there anything that Obama says that is not worthless. If there is, you sure haven't mentioned it. Will you start a thread about what good things you see from him, and be as passionate about it as you are on other things.




If this is what you really believe, I really, honestly, feel sorry for you. What a horrible way to view your life, and to view others, i.e. thinking that their only goal in doing things is to get something for themselves. I guess doing something for others, just because you can, and they need help, is a foreign concept. I guess doing something because it is the right thing to do, irregardless of how it effects you, is a foreign concept. While I do not understand that attitude, it does explain your attitude towards others, and helping others, or lack of it. If you really believe what you write, I can understand why nobody else deserves any help whatsoever, from any source, much less the government, because, if this comment is true, you only care about yourself, and believe that, because you personally would not benefit from helping others, it is not necessary. On the flip side, you probably believe that anybody who needs help is only doing so or asking for such so they can get into the cookie jar and take your cookies, that you should be able to grab.

I do certain things because it is the right thing to do, not because I want a pat on the back. I do it because I can, and, because i can, I have an obligation to those around me. The obligation does not come from me getting anything back. It comes from doing the right thing.

But can charity be legislated, and is it still considered charity if you MUST contribute? I 100% agree with DawnCt1's comments above. That does not mean that I don't help people in any way I can. Should my family suffer so that someone else's can do better? We are by no means considered wealthy or even well off, but we've worked hard for what we have. We contribute to the causes we want to help with, and we volunteer where we want to volunteer. You're saying that is not enough? When is it enough? When everyone has exactly the same lifestyle/income, regardless of the amount of effort they put in? There is no incentive to achieve if the majority of the results are taken away from you, and no incentive if you're going to be given what you didn't earn.

 

[DawnCt1]

Can you really tell us that you are so open minded, that you don't have to believe in everything someone believes in order to find some good in them? So, if that is the case, is there anything that Obama says that is not worthless. If there is, you sure haven't mentioned it. Will you start a thread about what good things you see from him, and be as passionate about it as you are on other things.




If this is what you really believe, I really, honestly, feel sorry for you. What a horrible way to view your life, and to view others, i.e. thinking that their only goal in doing things is to get something for themselves. I guess doing something for others, just because you can, and they need help, is a foreign concept. I guess doing something because it is the right thing to do, irregardless of how it effects you, is a foreign concept. While I do not understand that attitude, it does explain your attitude towards others, and helping others, or lack of it. If you really believe what you write, I can understand why nobody else deserves any help whatsoever, from any source, much less the government, because, if this comment is true, you only care about yourself, and believe that, because you personally would not benefit from helping others, it is not necessary. On the flip side, you probably believe that anybody who needs help is only doing so or asking for such so they can get into the cookie jar and take your cookies, that you should be able to grab.

I do certain things because it is the right thing to do, not because I want a pat on the back. I do it because I can, and, because i can, I have an obligation to those around me. The obligation does not come from me getting anything back. It comes from doing the right thing.

Again, human beings aren't born doing what is right because it is the "right thing to do". They are socialized. This debate has gone on since the days of pre modern China and Mencius. Mencius was one of the interpreters of Confucianism. He focused explicitly on the innate goodness of human nature and the innate goodness that is born into the individual. He believes that all humans are born “good” and it is societies influences and its lack of cultivating positive influence that corrupts the individual and result in bad moral character. He stresses the need for the proper environment for bringing up children. Mencius believes that every person has an original value, which he terms “pure nobility” or “Heavenly honors”. He describes Heavenly honors as benevolence, righteousness, loyalty, trustworthiness, and “delighting in goodness without tiring”. “A desire for nobility is what people’s hearts all share in common. Everyone has what is noble inside but they simply do not reflect on it.” Mencius believes that evil was completely acquired with no innate connection. Mencius’ theory is to only say human nature is good, but it is problematic when dealing with that which is not good. In other words, initially there is nothing that is not good, but afterwards there is that which is not good.
Unlike Mencius, Xunzi claims that “human nature is bad”. He does however admit that righteousness is a necessary condition for preserving a secure and stable life for human beings. Xunzi questioned Mencius’ conclusion that human nature is purely good by asking; “If we only say benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom are nature, then why are there those born into the world without these virtues? “ He feels that physical endowment is the reason. He also says; “Humans’ natures are all good, however, some are born good and some are born evil: this is because their physical endowments differ” In Xunzi’s opinion, evil qualities also have an innate source, yet this innate evil can be transformed by moral cultivation.
The debate of nature vs nuture is as old as Confucius.

To put your mind at ease, and alleviate the concern you have for what you perceive as my "insensitivity" and ultimately my soul, I have been enculturated to be a loving, caring person, who indeed loves my family, my friends and my country, but we are not born with those virtues; despite what Mencius says; we acquire them. So the truth may be closer to Xunzi, but its probably somewhere in the middle.
Freud in fact, shared the same opinion as Rand; if you consider the psycho sexual development of the human being. Infants are controlled by the Id, the Ego and Superego develop much later. Some never develop a superego, and thus become our sociopaths. Maybe you would do better to consider the topic rather than 'personalize' it to me.

 

[DawnCt1]

But can charity be legislated, and is it still considered charity if you MUST contribute? I 100% agree with DawnCt1's comments above. That does not mean that I don't help people in any way I can. Should my family suffer so that someone else's can do better? We are by no means considered wealthy or even well off, but we've worked hard for what we have. We contribute to the causes we want to help with, and we volunteer where we want to volunteer. You're saying that is not enough? When is it enough? When everyone has exactly the same lifestyle/income, regardless of the amount of effort they put in? There is no incentive to achieve if the majority of the results are taken away from you, and no incentive if you're going to be given what you didn't earn.

And also consider that when mankind acts in their own best interest, to develop agriculture, to create the assembly line for mass produced cars, to invent airplanes for travel, trains to move produce across the country, for their personal financial gain those who use those goods and services, those who take advantage of the jobs created by the "selfish" individual in pursuit of his own gain, also benefit and it benefits society at large.

 

[ElizK]

I would really like to hear some honest replies to my post, as well as to DawnCt1's.

 

[happily single]

Now I know what book I'm buying this weekend. I read Fountainhead many years ago and it remains my favorite book of all time, unless The Unoffical Guide to Disney counts, Can someone who has read both Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged tell me how that compare?

Thanks

 

[Cool-Beans]

I read that about 10, 12 years ago. It's a really good book, especially if you are conservatively inclined.

I'd read The Fountainhead first. I remember being glad I had, but don't remember why.

 

[MrsPete]

No, 1984 is what you have now. You have a president that is truly "Orwellian". He says one thing and does another. He rails against Wall St. yet the political elite charter private jets and go on "fact finding" junkets to Italy. He raises taxes on the producers, but his own inner circle "made simple mistakes". "All Animals are equal. Some Animals are more equal than others". (That's Animal Farm). Obama gets two books from Orwell.

You can't discuss 1984 without mentioning that NewSpeak is alive and well in America. We put a pretty name on something, and it seems to be more acceptable. For example:

We've decided to call second mortgages "home equity loans".
We're calling the recent federal bailout a "stimulus package".
When a kid fails in school, he doesn't flunk, he is "retained".
No one dies anymore, or even passes away; instead, they all "pass".
We don't have secretaries anymore; now we have "assistants".

The list could go on and on.

Among authors and philosophers, Ayn Rand is noteworthy for her atheism and uncompromising opposition to religion. Unlike many non-believers who see utilitarian value to religion, Rand is somewhat unique in seeing (with minor exceptions) virtually no value to religion.

Always puzzled me that so many of the right wing, a America is a Christian nation, family values folks manage to ignore the underpinning of her philosophy that they glomm onto.

I can't read her books. She has quite a following for her extremist anti-God philosophies, and I just can't get past all her negativity towards my beliefs. Read something about her life; she was quite the activist. I've read a few chapters, and I just can't keep going. I see too much of what I know about the author's life in between every line, and I really find her disgusting. Well, actually, what I can't stand is her society's attempts to push these novels into children's hands. I can't get past that. Their politics are underhanded.

 

[MrsPete]

Yes, her opposition to religion, but she was a strong believer in the personal freedom of the individual, even religious freedom. She was against religious institutions, not their freedom to exist, but in their capacity to influence people biasedly.

But the organization that bears her name is very much against religion in any form. They are actively trying to get their materials into the school system, in an attempt to spread her anti-religion ideals to young people. We receive packets and packets of the stuff every year -- they focus on the high school juniors and seniors. It's hard for me to accept that we can't have public prayer during the school day, but atheists can send all the free materials they want to English classes. No matter what you believe, that's obviously not a fair situation.

 

[Bluestars]

I read Atlas Shrugged years ago. I don't remember much about the book other than I really enjoyed it and couldn't put the darn thing down. That was tough because it had so many pages! I should pick it up again.

Dawn, I completely agree with what you have said in this thread.

I think people perform at their best when they are working for personal gain. Not only is it motivating and inspiring, it can increase confidence and self worth. Giving people things without asking them to contribute breeds laziness and takes away their motivation and self worth. People feel better about themselves when they accomplish things on their own.

Just look at the sense of entitlement some people have. They want someone to take care of their every need instead of taking the necessary steps themselves to become self sufficient. It's like giving a spoiled kid money. He has no reason to work for anything.

 

[smartestnumber5]

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged. I read The Fountainhead a long time ago. I don't remember much about it other than that I had to write a journal while reading it in high school--I remember there being a lot of snark because I kind of hated the characters.

I look at Rand's work as just interesting fiction. I don't agree with her political agenda/outlook at all. And her moral theory--well that's always just seemed absolutely crazy to me. Most people tend to separate the claim that self-interestedness/selfishness good in terms of the way the economy works and how the govt should regulate it. But she took it way further than that--she thought that *morally* it is a good thing to act only for one's own self-interest and never for anyone else's (hence the only thing wrong with harming other people is that--often--harming others ends up hurting your own self-interest in the long-run.) That's just disturbing.

 

[Aisling]

But the organization that bears her name is very much against religion in any form. They are actively trying to get their materials into the school system, in an attempt to spread her anti-religion ideals to young people. We receive packets and packets of the stuff every year -- they focus on the high school juniors and seniors. It's hard for me to accept that we can't have public prayer during the school day, but atheists can send all the free materials they want to English classes. No matter what you believe, that's obviously not a fair situation.

Wow, I didn't know this. Thanks for the information.

 

[JMD]

I'm bringing Atlas Shrugged with me on my trip to WDW on Sunday. Should make for good reading on the plane.

 

[DawnCt1]

I'm bringing Atlas Shrugged with me on my trip to WDW on Sunday. Should make for good reading on the plane.

I am bringing it the following week! For the plane and pool only however!

 

[PrincessKsMom]

I don't think you have to "buy" into every aspect of someone's philosophy to appreciate some aspects of it. No one agrees with anyone 100% of the time, and often not 50% of the time. That doesn't mean that all of their thoughts and opinions are worthless.

Uh, like the Bible -- take what you want and leave the rest. I do that and get slammed.

 

[DawnCt1]

Uh, like the Bible -- take what you want and leave the rest. I do that and get slammed.

I didn't realize that Ayn Rand represented a "religion". If one considers the Bible inspired by God, then it isn't a menu but a meal plan.

 

[pisco]

I got about three quarters of the way through the book before I realized that I really didn't care what happened to any of the characters. As a work of fiction I thought it was really poorly written and just wearying to read. She hammered home her philosophy so much that it disconnected me from the plot.

As for the politics, some of it I agree with and some not. I agree that we are better of in a society where people are encouraged and given the opportunity to accomplish all that they can. However, in my interpretation of that goal, I feel that an completely free market will lead to the greediest and most corrupt finding ways to accumulate such a disproportionate amount of the available resources (energy, capital, workforce, etc.) that it limits the amount of opportunity for the vast majority of us who are basically decent and honest.

So the question I find myself continually looking for a workable answer to is this. How do we find the balance between a free market and the need to regulate the unethical (or sometimes just plain stupid) behavior of the minority. Given that the middle class has been steadily shrinking since at least the Reagan administration (if it started sooner please correct me, I am working from memory) we don't seem to be doing a good job of it.

As someone who barely escaped high school yet has reached the level of upper middle class through a lot of hard word, self education, and a few lucky breaks; I appreciate the necessity of hard work, desire and persistence in making anything of yourself in life. But I also want to make sure that those opportunities that I took advantage continue to be available to future generations.

 

[DawnCt1]

I got about three quarters of the way through the book before I realized that I really didn't care what happened to any of the characters. As a work of fiction I thought it was really poorly written and just wearying to read. She hammered home her philosophy so much that it disconnected me from the plot.

As for the politics, some of it I agree with and some not. I agree that we are better of in a society where people are encouraged and given the opportunity to accomplish all that they can. However, in my interpretation of that goal, I feel that an completely free market will lead to the greediest and most corrupt finding ways to accumulate such a disproportionate amount of the available resources (energy, capital, workforce, etc.) that it limits the amount of opportunity for the vast majority of us who are basically decent and honest.

So the question I find myself continually looking for a workable answer to is this. How do we find the balance between a free market and the need to regulate the unethical (or sometimes just plain stupid) behavior of the minority. Given that the middle class has been steadily shrinking since at least the Reagan administration (if it started sooner please correct me, I am working from memory) we don't seem to be doing a good job of it.

As someone who barely escaped high school yet has reached the level of upper middle class through a lot of hard word, self education, and a few lucky breaks; I appreciate the necessity of hard work, desire and persistence in making anything of yourself in life. But I also want to make sure that those opportunities that I took advantage continue to be available to future generations.

Actually, I have just read the first two chapters and I find it rather well written. It certainly is comfortably readable and the story begins along with the character development. It certainly is more readable than Foucoult's Pendulum by Umberto Eco, which I also enjoyed.

With regard to your journey to upper middle class, that is the story of most of us. The advantage DH and myself had was the ability to engage in hard work and to be patient, anticipate that you will have to rely on yourself and do so.