@breadloaf. I've read Atlas Shrugged. Twice. Including the John Galt bit. You're making an idiot of yourself. Please stop.
I just found it dull. I didn't like the main character and I stopped reading it. Same reason I stopped reading the fifth Harry Potter.
Must admit though, if you are going to have a deep philosophical book at least make sure its presented like one. At least Hobbes managed that with Leviathan.
I also really love this
Penny Arcade thread. So much snarky criticism. Also this
post.
Man working for company invents a perpetual motion machine, new management comes in and says "Thanks for all your hard work but we think we have a better use for your device than the one you want to put it to." Man trashes lab, steals device, and leaves. Years later man uses his intellect to bring about the downfall of society as we know it, then monologues for practically forever before taking the people who follow him back to his secret island lair.
John Galt is a mother fucking supervillian and all we can complain about his how is ideas are crazy. I mean seriously what the fuck people. We do not judge supervillians based on how rational their form of government is. Hell it may be a utopia, or it may actually be hell.
The big problem with Atlas shrugged is that it has no super heroes to try and stop him. There is no Industry Titan, and Monopoly Lad to come crashing thought a skylight at the climactic moment, toss some witty one liners, and smash boom bow our way to free renewable energy while Mr. Galt collects royalties in Arkham.
Atlas shrugged exemplifies exactly why supervillians need superheros. Why the dichotomy exists. Take Watchmen, and remove everyone except Ozymandias. Is this a compelling book? No Dr. Manhattan to slowly lose touch with humanity. No Comedian to show us the humor in how horribly we are to each other. No Nightowl, or Silk Specter, no Rorschach. Just Ozymandias ranting about his vision for a couple hours and then BAM giant squid. Heck now i want to take watchmen, cut out everything but Ozymandias, and post it on you tube called "Ozymandias Shrugged"
That is honestly the only answer I've ever received on the subject of objectivism. If people who believe in it aren't going to defend it beyond "you're an idiot", then I find objectivism to actually be as broken a system of belief as I view it as.
I'm not making an idiot of myself at all. If I'm basing my views on a misperception on how objectivism works, it is up to an objectivist to clearly explain how the logic works. Idiocy is only such if I act upon the correct knowledge in a foolish manner.
So tell me, what's wrong?
Post 54 made me glad I'm reading this thread.
I haven't actually finished Atlas Shrugged yet, so I can't comment on how horrible Galt is. I'll get to it someday, I promise!
^^I think he was commenting on your saying it was unreadable.
The quote. With the superheroes.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.Having not even read Atlas Shrugged, you are indeed making a fool out of yourself breadloaf. Nothing you said, as far as I can tell, is actually arguing against Ayn Rand at all.
Ayn Rand's actual position, as far as I can tell and as simply as possible, is:
- Rational self interest is good, or rather good is rational self interest. This is supposed to be able to be rationally derived.
- Letting other people get in the way of your rational self interest is bad, because then the world doesn't have your perpetual motion machine (or w/e).
- Helping other people to the detriment of your rational self interest is worse, because then not only does the world not have your perpetual motion machine, but also because it encourages moochers who ride off your work on the perpetual motion machine. As long as you charge for the perpetual motion it forces other people to persue their own rational self interest; that is, their own good. And that's good.
The major flaw I can see, only in this summary because I have again not read Atlas Shrugged, is that it's a perfectly logical system taking "rational self interest is good" as an axiom, but if you don't take it as an axiom there's no good way to derive it from more common moral principles, or at least not "rational self interest is good in all cases for all people at all times".
Well it's more than that, since otherwise, we'd be talking about classical capitalism, not objectivism. The thing you hit on is...
- Atlas Shrugged is proposing that there are moochers and there are important people. Take away key important people and the whole society collapses. Help said moochers and our society collapses. So altruism is evil.
I'll ignore all the more really esoteric philosophical views on art and such, as it won't add much to the discussion.
Capitalism never went so far in it's defence of enlightened self-interest. It merely remarked on the ability of self-interest to auto-correct price problems in a market driven economy. This is taking it further and saying that it is useful socially to which I completely disagree. My basic attack on objectivism is its notion that rational self-interest extends so far as to regard certain individuals as negative contributors to society and some as positive contributors to society. To be clear, I am saying that everyone contributes to society and that tax dollars are taken and spent, in an altruist manner, in order to increase the amount of positive contribution made by the poor and to increase the maximum positive contribution that can be made by more industrious individuals.
As a second attack on objectivism is that, if there are moochers and there are better people in society, why would this logic suddenly stop at disallowing said people from forming an autocracy and ruling over said moochers in an iron fist fashion? Afterall, that would be rational self-interest would it not?
With respect to the perpetual motion machine... why would I not give it away freely if I were altruistic? I can see how you might argue government interference might impact the release and development of technology but I don't see the argument on rational self-interest. If I managed to develop a perpetual motion machine, then if I were working on purely rational self-interest, the only thing I would want to do is maximise my profit and never ever let anybody get the technology and take it with me to my deathbed (or transfer it to a child). The last thing I would want to do is ever help society with it.
As far as statistical analysis of the real world goes, socialism does well to improve quality of life, standard of living and reduce poverty.
edited 25th Jan '11 9:29:05 PM by breadloaf
I don't think it's fair to criticize the movement for the beliefs of the founder, back when such beliefs were perfectly fine. Objectivism doesn't need the shining moral example of Ayn Rand to stand as a philosphy.
Does anyone know if she considered herself one of the "movers and shakers" who mattered more than everyone else?
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.Well, her followers certainly do. According to the Objectivist group at my school, Atlas Shrugged is the second-most influential book in US history.
And I've heard before that the main flaw is that rational self-interest isn't easily defined, and Rand does it badly, but I wouldn't know.
edited 25th Jan '11 9:28:39 PM by Tzetze
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.Do you mean in Rand's terms? Because that's not the definition that comes to mind for me.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.I'm just gonna respond with another post
from that Penny Arcade thread:
and it wiped out 90% of the populace? Does this world not have the ability to build new roads? I mean the ensuing year would be pretty rough but how does that result in total societal collapse?
The missing CE Os would just be replaced by the people directly under them and the government would launch a massive stimulus package to repair the infrastructure.
All the smart people were on strike. Without the smart people to show them the way, the horrible leeches on society who are putting down the rich and smart die as they should.
See, that's what they get for not being special.
Like Ayn Rand and John Galt and me.
Yeah, ignoring Objectivism itself, Atlas Shrugged is complete pants when it comes to promoting the philosophy.
Because apparently trying to wipe out most of the human race because the company that financed your invention wanted a share of the profits from its sale is acting in your "rational self-interest."
edited 25th Jan '11 9:52:10 PM by Medicus
It's not over. Not yet.Is it? I thought it would be something more along the lines of "be as awesome as you can be". So a genius who spent all day lazing around would not be moral, even if that was what he really wanted to do.
Well, as long as we're being silly.
◊
^That's not what I'd think either! Boy, this sure is demonstrative.
edited 25th Jan '11 9:54:20 PM by Tzetze
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.Just regarding that comic, does Hank Rearden make that special magical steel on his own, or does he just pay people to do it?
If that's the case, then why does he deserve to be saved? Or are the engineers and scientists that developed it not acting in their rational self-interest by accepting a regular job with a paycheck instead of working on their own until they hit the big time?
It's not over. Not yet.I think that it would have been better without the explanatory coda. Now I'm interested in the book for more than its political influence.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

The thing is, I saw her comment on the Vietnam war and it seemed like a cop-out.
Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.