Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read the book, haven't seen the movie. I liked it, it had an impact on me, but the story is very unrealistic. The characters in Rand's book do not portray normal human beings. Rather they are a collective of robotic-like, unemotional creatures who rely entirely on Ayn Rand's brand of human nature. Kind of like that guy from Star Trek. Anyway, my point is, it's unrealistic. An extremely miniscule amount of people on this planet are likely to act in the same manner as John Galt, Dagny Taggart, and Hank Rearden. We are just not built that way. You can try, as I did in my youth, but you will most likely fail at it.
Is it not ironic that the ones who were and are the creators in this world tend to be the most compassionate? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Larry Page, Sergei Brin, et al, are/were all advocates for humanity, wealth re-distribution, and all that other mushy, sappy stuff that Ayn Rand argued against in her books. It seems, more often than not, it is those who can hardly construct a grammatically correct sentence, let alone an object of great societal value, that think that they are the best and are walking in the giant shoes of Hank Rearden or Dagny Taggart.
Last edited by Z3N1TH 0N3; 12-07-2011 at 12:42 PM..
Rand did some good work, but needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Not long after W2 and FDR.
WHo would have predicted the current social sewer? Quite a few had clues in the time of Rand. Rand really did in a round about way.
She did wind up broke dying of cancer on the public charity.
Some of the characters are stilted. As in who has not given others breaks or been helped over a lifetime? Not much room for that in Rand's world. I can count some memorable breaks people have given me, and I hope some others will think of things I have done for them.
Everyting is about driving hard bargains and being selfish for Rand.
She could not quite fill out the characters like some of the great Russian Novelists but gets the job done if you can read between and around the lines. Her books are must read.
Is it not ironic that the ones who were and are the creators in this world tend to be the most compassionate? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Larry Page, Sergei Brin, et al, are/were all advocates for humanity, wealth re-distribution, and all that other mushy, sappy stuff that Ayn Rand argued against in her books.
One must keep in mind that Rand had emigrated from the USSR where she was raised under socialism and "re-distribution" and had frankly had enough of it. At the time this book was written, the policies of the Russians were very much in disfavor in the US. Hard work and the rewards from it were admired here in the US; not so in Russia. Today, some of that has changed in this country, but you cannot blame Rand for feeling as she did, having just come here from the USSR.
There are still many Americans who feel that what they earn should be theirs to keep! Who's right? Who's wrong?
I have always been a huge fan of Ayn Rand; not so much her novels but her non-fiction writings. She was absolutely right about "selfishness" - too many people misinterpret her idea of selfishness as being mean-spirited and, well, selfish. Her belief was that people should not be driven or forced to be altruistic, to sacrifice themselves for others - but should have the opportunity to choose to do so - or to choose not to, without penalty.
Her basic belief was that the self-made person, who used his own mind, his own talents, his own hands and sweat, to built whatever he thought was important, irrespective of what anyone else thought, was the primordial driving force of every human being. She was appalled at the collective, where everyone's time and energy was worth exactly the same - even if most simply lived off of the sweat and creativity of others. She did not believe in altruism "because it's the right thing to do!" but insisted that people should be allowed to choose to give - or not to give.
Her novels, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" were simply fictionalized ideals of what people could achieve, could become, could aquire, if they stopped (or never started) playing the altruistic socialistic games and buying into the manipulations of the weak non-achievers. Her childhood in Russia taught her that being forced to give to and work for the enrichment of others was abhorrent and against the natural growth and achievement of man. Collectivism ultimately destroys not only the worker and the shirker, but the entire progression of the species.
I don't need a movie to tell me that. And a lot of folks won't understand the movie any more than they will or do understand the book. It's sort of like watching the movie "Dune" with a bunch of folks who have never read Frank Herbert - the implications of freedom, independence, righteousness, and the true nature of Man are lost on most folks; they are too busy looking at the giant worms crawling and Baron Harkonnen floating about.
Her ideas are very libertarian. One guru once said that selfishness means to consider oneself and that if everyone was selfish, we would all be happy because everything that we do for others will be from our own will instead of our ideas of obligation or kissing butt. He said before we can love anyone, we must love ourself, because otherwise from where will love come if you don't even have it for yourself?
He described two people who don't love themself but try to love others as "2 beggers begging from eachother".
Her ideas are very libertarian. One guru once said that selfishness means to consider oneself and that if everyone was selfish, we would all be happy because everything that we do for others will be from our own will instead of our ideas of obligation or kissing butt. He said before we can love anyone, we must love ourself, because otherwise from where will love come if you don't even have it for yourself?
He described two people who don't love themself but try to love others as "2 beggers begging from eachother".
LOL actually the Libertarian Party was started based on Rand's philosophy - but she discounted and disapproved of them; saying that they didn't get it.
Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,†1974] AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.
I do like the last line of your post, though! So true...
LOL actually the Libertarian Party was started based on Rand's philosophy - but she discounted and disapproved of them; saying that they didn't get it.
Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974] AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.
I do like the last line of your post, though! So true...
I'm not an expert, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe she was pretty hostile to most ideas (and people) except for her very own, said and done her own way word for word, even if the end result was the same (I do think that libertarianism and objectivism amount to the same thing in most or all relevant matters). She was highly individualistic even in this regard. Which is, maybe, the prerequisite for anyone wanting to be self-sufficient.
This said, I liked The Fountainhead more than I did Atlas Shrugged. I thought it was a more cohesive novel. Both are very interesting works though.
(I haven't seen the movie based on Atlas Shrugged)
Actually, since most philosophies are 1) either diametrically opposed to Objectivism or 2) are mere apologist doctrines that mix in several philosophies in an attempt to "whole earth" or mix in several approaches to garner more adherents, Rand was right - from her perspective. She once said she could find more common ground to debate with a pure Marxist than with the 'hippies and anarchists' associated with the Libertarians. Pure Objectivism requires strictly objective, non-partisan laws that support capitalism 100%; most anarchists (especially those in the Librtarian Party) want to be free of laws altogether.
Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government. ~ "The Virtue of Selfishness"
Being a pure Objectivist is extremely difficult; many folks (particularly Libertarians) want to make Rand's philosophy 'softer', gentler, and kinder. The fact is that life isn't kind, soft, or gentle, and neither is the human condition. Being in a constant state of upward striving makes people uncomfortable; when do they rest, when do they play, when do they indulge themselves, what about love and passion? Most people do not find passion or joy in their work; they work so that they can have an enjoyable home life or have passion in their families, relationships, friends and leisure pursuits. Rand believed that people shortchanged themselves by this perspective; that they did not commit fully to their life's work, did not embrace their talents and creativity fully by that commitment, and therefore could not be fully happy.
The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one’s life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself—the kind that makes one think:“This is worth living for”—what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself. ~ "The Virtue of Selfishness"
"Objectivism" is not merely living for one's self, but joyfully setting goals and achieving them, to attain the highest goal of all - happiness through self-realization. The absolute goal of finding and using one's talents to the highest success will produce joy. Look around you - why are people unhappy right now? Is it because they don't have jobs, they don't have incomes, they are losing their homes, they went to college and were promised a happy life and feel abandoned, thwarted, and lied to? Not according to Objectivism - in Objectivism, the human being sets his goals for the complete realization of himself and his purpose, his joy is in achieving his purposes and using his talents to his own self-satisfaction and gratification - no matter what is occuring around him.
From Galt's Speech -
Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. A morality that dares to tell you to find happiness in the renunciation of your happiness—to value the failure of your values—is an insolent negation of morality. A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose.
But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.
I have always been a huge fan of Ayn Rand; not so much her novels but her non-fiction writings. She was absolutely right about "selfishness" - too many people misinterpret her idea of selfishness as being mean-spirited and, well, selfish. Her belief was that people should not be driven or forced to be altruistic, to sacrifice themselves for others - but should have the opportunity to choose to do so - or to choose not to, without penalty.
Her basic belief was that the self-made person, who used his own mind, his own talents, his own hands and sweat, to built whatever he thought was important, irrespective of what anyone else thought, was the primordial driving force of every human being. She was appalled at the collective, where everyone's time and energy was worth exactly the same - even if most simply lived off of the sweat and creativity of others. She did not believe in altruism "because it's the right thing to do!" but insisted that people should be allowed to choose to give - or not to give.
Her novels, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" were simply fictionalized ideals of what people could achieve, could become, could aquire, if they stopped (or never started) playing the altruistic socialistic games and buying into the manipulations of the weak non-achievers. Her childhood in Russia taught her that being forced to give to and work for the enrichment of others was abhorrent and against the natural growth and achievement of man. Collectivism ultimately destroys not only the worker and the shirker, but the entire progression of the species.
I don't need a movie to tell me that. And a lot of folks won't understand the movie any more than they will or do understand the book. It's sort of like watching the movie "Dune" with a bunch of folks who have never read Frank Herbert - the implications of freedom, independence, righteousness, and the true nature of Man are lost on most folks; they are too busy looking at the giant worms crawling and Baron Harkonnen floating about.
Another home run.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rand did some good work
