Atlas Shrugged Part 1

by littlerockguy 126 Replies latest social entertainment

  • BizzyBee
    BizzyBee
    Whatever kind of person Ayn Rand was or was we have the Objectivist Philosophy to deal with which I find quite extraordinary in many ways.

    If an architect is a child molester and builds a fantastic building why should we decry the architecture?

    Oh, Terry. Such a disappointingly poor analogy. Rand did not create architecture or music or any other tangible artistic product. She created a philosophy - her novels were simply a conveyance for that ideology - and is judged upon its merits.

    Whatever kind of person Ayn Rand was or was we have the Objectivist Philosophy to deal with which I find quite extraordinary in many ways.

    And that is her product - not a building or a piece of music - but a philosophy.

    For one thing, it is rational to the point of being consistent with itself which is more than you can ever say for Christianity. (Thou shall not kill vs Just War, for examp

    The rationale for Christianity is not the high point of intellectual thought, so why bother to refute it?

    But, what inspired her characters or who inspired them is almost irrelevent to the fictional nature of the written character

    ???

    Let's not get crazy here.

    Indeed.

  • Terra Incognita
    Terra Incognita

    Terry:

    "I have a hard time seeing why we can't or won't separate Wagner's music from Adolf Hitler's love of Wagner's music."

    "If an architect is a child molester and builds a fantastic building why should we decry the architecture?"

    Terry; as Bizzy Bee said, there is no grand achievemnt here. Ayn Rand's philosophical 'architectural blueprint', if it were actually turned into a society, would lead to the construction of a 'building' that would collapse pretty quickly.

    "Creationists still attack Charles Darwin rather than the actual science of Evolution. They even make up stories about a deathbed confession."

    That is not true. They attack both but they attack the science (fallaciously of course) above and beyond the person of Charles Darwin.

    "For one thing, it is rational to the point of being consistent with itself which is more than you can ever say for Christianity. (Thou shall not kill vs Just War, for example.)

    Terry; Ayn Rand justified the stealing of Indian land and did not believe they had any rights (See video above). I don't know if such behavior is condoned in her official Objectivist philosophy; but my understanding is that Libertarians, and their relations, claim that they do not believe in the initiation of violence. Where is the consistency here?

    "You can take or leave her books on their own merit."

    What merit is there in the elitist belief that the rich are the creators of wealth? They are nothing but social tapeworms who suck up the labor created wealth of their wage slaving workers. I recommend that you meditate on the meaning of the cartoon that SacrificialLoon posted. It's more profound than its cartoonish nature projects.

  • Berengaria
    Berengaria
    You can take or leave her books on their own merit.

    Just so. But tell me, how would you react if a chunk of the populace (including a large number of current and former elected officials) were looking to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as a benchmark for our society? Making correlations and recommendations accordingly? It's fantasy, childish, and absurd. Makes for fun reading, but nothing more.

    Let's not get crazy here.

    Too late, see Ryan budget above.

  • Terry
    Terry

    Oh, sigh......

    I know how this works.

    Instead of refuting an idea on its merits (or lack) we end up with pejoratives and the "death by a thousands cuts."

    I don't for one minute think we can actually have a valid, rational, factual, point by point conversation about Objectivism.

    Why? Because due diligence does not consist of smears and Ad Hominem.

    I have read probably close to 30 books pro and con on both Objectivism and Ayn Rand. I performed my due diligence on both primary

    and secondary sources. I didn't take the time and trouble to do so casually or with a view to prove something true, but, to rule it out.

    I have no need or desire to trade one cult in my life for another. Capish?

    But, I am aware that those on the Left who despise Rand's philosophy cannot refute it on merit.

    I think Rand's philosophy is rational and consistent because I've bothered to understand it.

    I think she baited her critics with words she knew would rankle them (The Virtue of Selfishness).

    Any of us is free to think what we like and our life itself will bear testimony to the wisdom of our deeply held convictions (or refute it.)

    Since the topic is the film Atlas Shrugged Pt.1 I think we should probably SEE the film before we decide to love or hate it. Just so we won't be idiots.

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    Bah! I suffered through the book which went on and on and on and on and on, ad naseum.

  • BizzyBee
    BizzyBee
    But, I am aware that those on the Left who despise Rand's philosophy cannot refute it on merit.

    But, I am aware of those on the Right who worship Rand's philosophy and cannot substantiate it on merit.

    (It was a dull and silly book and I can't imagine the movie being any different. )

  • Terra Incognita
    Terra Incognita

    Terry: "Instead of refuting an idea on its merits (or lack) we end up with pejoratives and the "death by a thousands cuts.""

    She's been refuted, Terry. What's more, you did not respond to my point on her inconsistency on the issue of unjustly killing Indians and stealing their land. If that represents consistent "Objectivist" philosophy then to hell with it! As if consistency equals morality or truth. A psychopath can be consistent.

    Not that consistency matters with tyrants who will say one thing and do another. I'll remind you of my unanswered question below.

    *******************

    "For one thing, it is rational to the point of being consistent with itself which is more than you can ever say for Christianity. (Thou shall not kill vs Just War, for example.)

    Terry; Ayn Rand justified the stealing of Indian land and did not believe they had any rights (See video above). I don't know if such behavior is condoned in her official Objectivist philosophy; but my understanding is that Libertarians, and their relations, claim that they do not believe in the initiation of violence. Where is the consistency here?

    PS: By the way, the Biblical commandment is not "Thou shall not kill" but "You shall not murder". Everyone is aware of that fact and that the commandment was poorly translated.

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    Terra, I sent you a pm.

  • Berengaria
    Berengaria

    Just to clarify Terra I,

    Rand rejected Libertarians. Actually she was very vicious about them and accused them of stealing her work.

    But, I am aware that those on the Left who despise Rand's philosophy cannot refute it on merit.

  • BizzyBee
    BizzyBee
    "For one thing, it is rational to the point of being consistent with itself which is more than you can ever say for Christianity.

    Ayn Rand herself was inconsistent with her own philosophy:

    Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them

    At least she put up a fight before succumbing to the imperatives of the real world. January 29, 2011 |

    Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well.

    Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).

    As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, “In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”

    Her ideas about government intervention in some idealized pristine marketplace serve as the basis for so much of the conservative rhetoric we see today. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” said Paul Ryan, the GOP's young budget star at a D.C. event honoring the author. On another occasion, he proclaimed, “Rand makes the best case for the morality of democratic capitalism.”

    “Morally and economically,” wrote Rand in a 1972 newsletter, “the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull.”

    Journalist Patia Stephens wrote of Rand:

    [She] called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers.” She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”

    Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax. By 1974, the two-pack-a-day smoker, then 69, required surgery for lung cancer. And it was at that moment of vulnerability that she succumbed to the lure of collectivism.

    Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality. Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.

    “She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.

    The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”

    Rand had paid into the system, so why not take the benefits? It's true, but according to Stephens, some of Rand's fellow travelers remained true to their principles.

    Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.” Lane died in 1968.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit