Ayn Rand

[Skybird]

Just stumble dover her works, and today equipped myself with Atlas Shrugged.

However, she is new ground to me, and research on the web showed me that she is considered to be controversial by not a few people, although a famous poll on the most influential books in the United States had Atlas Shrugged placed on second place directly behind the Bible. It seems her critics tend to see her as what today is called neo-con and that the tea party claims her for themselves. Others more following the path of Murray Rothbard and von Mises seem to claim her for the cause of what they call libertarianism, and Rand herself seems to have named herself as an "objectivist", with that meaning some kind of a catalogue of theorems or principles that are about the relation between reasonable mind and absolute reality forming the basics of a system of natural ethics and ethical behavior.

If I summarize that wrong, forgive me, this is very new stuff for me, I do not claim to have an overview.

I am also aware that after her death a so-called Ayn Rand Institute got founded that as a think tank is even more controversial apparently, and that by some essays I read at a Rand Institute watchgroup website also does not correctly reflect Rand's opinions and views but distorts at least some of them heavily on behalf of neoconservative opinions - in sometime complete opposition to what Rand was thinking about a given issue, for example torture. This club seems to have started to live a life by its own, independent from Rand's views, it seems to me.

Anyhow, I now have a beast of a novel - 1300 pages in fine print, German title is "Der Streik", and this loose collection of impressions and opinions about Ayn Rand, and while I cannot put all that into any order yet since it all is new, I seem to have strayed over a highly influential - in the US at least - name and literature work nevertheless.

So I ask those of you knowing her for your feedback and opinions about the author, and the book, and what both are about. Readers' feedback at US and German Amazon is most enthusiastic, but that must not necessarily match reality. Also, I wonder what public perception she is being given in the contemporary present in the US.

Will start to read it later next week, first I need to finish two other books that are close to their ends.

[AndyJWest]

I suspect, given your numerous posts on the subject, that you will have problems with Rand's view on government:
There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement. Or, to put it another way, he must accept the separation of force and whim (any whim, including his own).
(source: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_the_nature_of_gov ernment)

Rand might well be described as libertarian, but she was no anarchist...

[the_tyrant]

Ayn Rand's world horrified me, Atlas Shrugged gives me nightmares.

I mean, in that book, everyone talks politics all the time. Even during sex!

Imagine having sex with this chick, and the moment after orgasm, she turns around, looks you in the eye, and says, we have to eliminate the moochers, and goes on a long monolog of why hard work is the fundamentals of society. Mind you, I would probably feel more comfortable if she wanted to kill me after sex.

I mean, if you read it as a purely entertaining novel, the book is subpar. Poorly written sex scenes, long, LONG monologs, the really in your face political messages, really don't add up to a good story. In fact, Atlas Shrugged really reminds me of Metal Gear Solid, minus the exciting gameplay. Lots of plot, lots of exposition, not much excitement.

However, if you read her book as a political treatise, I would say it is one of the better ones (purely from a literary standpoint). Unlike the Little Red Book, Atlas Shrugged is really focused, Ayn Rand "rambles" but the story and message is still pretty focused. It isn't nearly as dry as The Wealth of Nations, the story does allow you to see her "point". Compared to Das Kapital, Atlas Shrugged at least isn't confusing in its message (I swear that for a few chapters in Das Kapital, Karl Marx was encouraging me to accumulate capital and try to become a capitalist). However, Atlas Shrugged does drag on, and lacks depth in a few key points. Thus, I say that from a certain perspective, I enjoyed The Prince a bit more.

PS: using the words of left wing detractors, AynRand "fetishized the producer". Ayn Rand is REALLY pushy regarding that point. To her, politicians, political activists, and hippies are the lowest of the low (aka, all the time spent protesting could be spent at work goddamnit!). She also makes her contempt for the clergy very obvious in the works.

Thus, if you are a priest or a political activist, don't bother reading her work, to you, it will be a 800 page insult.


But Skybird, I have a feeling you will like the book, just a hunch.

[Wolferz]

Save your eyes and watch the movie. You'll get more out of it.

[Skybird]

Ayn Rand's world horrified me, Atlas Shrugged gives me nightmares.

I mean, in that book, everyone talks politics all the time. Even during sex!

Imagine having sex with this chick, and the moment after orgasm, she turns around, looks you in the eye, and says, we have to eliminate the moochers, and goes on a long monolog of why hard work is the fundamentals of society. Mind you, I would probably feel more comfortable if she wanted to kill me after sex.

I mean, if you read it as a purely entertaining novel, the book is subpar. Poorly written sex scenes, long, LONG monologs, the really in your face political messages, really don't add up to a good story. In fact, Atlas Shrugged really reminds me of Metal Gear Solid, minus the exciting gameplay. Lots of plot, lots of exposition, not much excitement.



On the role of sex in the book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged


"Through Dagny's associations ... Rand illustrates what a relationship between two self-actualized, equal human beings can be ... Rand denies the existence of a split between the physical and the mental, the desires of the flesh and the longings of the spirit."[33]
– Mimi Reisel Gladstein, Ayn Rand and Feminism: An Unlikely Alliance

In rejecting the traditional altruistic moral code, Rand also rejects the sexual code that, in her view, is the logical implication of altruism. In Atlas Shrugged Rand introduces a theory of sex that is based in her broader ethical and psychological theories. Rather than considering sexual desire a debasing animal instinct, Rand portrays it as the highest celebration of human values, a physical response to intellectual and spiritual values that gives concrete expression to what could otherwise be experienced only in the abstract.

In Atlas Shrugged, characters are sexually attracted to those who embody or seem to embody their values, be they higher or lower values by Rand's standards. Characters who lack clear purpose find sex devoid of meaning. This is illustrated in the contrasting relationships of Hank Rearden with Lillian Rearden and Dagny Taggart, by the relationships of James Taggart with Cherryl Brooks and with Lillian Rearden, and finally in the relationship between Dagny and John Galt.

Adultery is committed by three characters throughout the course of the novel. The first and predominate act is that of Hank Rearden, who sleeps with Dagny after the opening of the John Galt Line, to celebrate the success of his metal and her determination to have the line built. The affair continues for some time - even including a cross-country vacation for the two - until Hank's wife finds out; his wife does not want to divorce him, but instead wants to maintain her image as Mrs. Rearden and allows the affair to continue until Hank manipulates the judicial system to obtain a divorce. Later in the novel, as Mrs. Rearden knows the divorce will be processed shortly, she has sex with Dagny's brother James (who is also married, and despises Hank), as an act of revenge for them both against him. Having caught them, James' wife proceeds to commit suicide. Yet adultery is never addressed on moral grounds; the sex is addressed on its own, either as celebration of accomplishment or as an act of revenge.


I read before that in the book the physical appearance of protagonists is described as if meant to correlate with the protagonists "noblesse" in ethical values according to the conceptions by Rand. The more worthless and depending somebody gets described, the uglier he looks, while the more creative and active and noble the person is, the more desirable the physical appearance is described.

I will need to read it and then form an opinion myself on whether that is true or not, and what it means: if it is intentional or a narrative mishap that Rand did not got aware of. I could imagine however that it could be a stylistic method, a narrative tool in order to further illustrate the "value", the orientation of the person described, like in a fairy tale or a Western the villain often gets depicted as being dressed in dark and the hero in light and the innocent in white.


However, if you read her book as a political treatise, I would say it is one of the better ones (purely from a literary standpoint). Unlike the Little Red Book, Atlas Shrugged is really focused, Ayn Rand "rambles" but the story and message is still pretty focused. It isn't nearly as dry as The Wealth of Nations, the story does allow you to see her "point". Compared to Das Kapital, Atlas Shrugged at least isn't confusing in its message (I swear that for a few chapters in Das Kapital, Karl Marx was encouraging me to accumulate capital and try to become a capitalist). However, Atlas Shrugged does drag on, and lacks depth in a few key points. Thus, I say that from a certain perspective, I enjoyed The Prince a bit more.

PS: using the words of left wing detractors, AynRand "fetishized the producer". Ayn Rand is REALLY pushy regarding that point. To her, politicians, political activists, and hippies are the lowest of the low (aka, all the time spent protesting could be spent at work goddamnit!). She also makes her contempt for the clergy very obvious in the works.

Thus, if you are a priest or a political activist, don't bother reading her work, to you, it will be a 800 page insult.

I cannot image that anyone here would suspect I am. :D


But Skybird, I have a feeling you will like the book, just a hunch.

It better does, 40 Euros is a bit hefty for a book. I briefly considered to get a Kindle just for that monster, but then stick to my principles. :D They really should have made it two books á 20 Euros per piece. 1300 pages, 7 cm thick: that is not the kind of book you read in bed before switching off the light.

[Spoon 11th]

Wikipedia states that Bioshock is sort of based on this book.

[Skybird]

On "objectivism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

It will be interesting to see whether I can get that together with more relative views of "reality" like in radical constructivism. Possibly constructivism can embrace "objectivism", but right now I find it difficult to imagine that this is also possible the other way around.

[Skybird]

Save your eyes and watch the movie. You'll get more out of it.
So far there only are two of planned three films. And audience reception and critics' verdicts alike both sank the movies. Some rate them amongst the worst movies ever done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged:_Part_I

[the_tyrant]

So far there only are two of planned three films. And audience reception and critics' verdicts alike both sank the movies. Some rate them amongst the worst movies ever done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged:_Part_I

He was probably trolling you

The movies were so bad, I have seen porn with better acting, camera work, and direction:D

[Skybird]

150 pages deep (of 1260 in the German edition), and I love it. I love the descriptions of characters, the way these descriptions are given in vivid and deep-going detail - without making too much words. That means her writing style aims and hits precisely - its economic. I love the moods and atmospheres of places and sceneries coming to life. I like her narrative style. I like the political, philosophical and economical multi-aspect complexity of the book that becomes apparent more and more. I like the presented ideals on what makes man noble and courageous - and what does the opposite. I like that it gives me the feeling of watching an old black-white crime movie from the 40s or 50s. I like the alternative reality setting, the silent undertone of science fiction. I just love it all.

This is a great book both in size and content. Happy that I found it. If you do not know it, check it out.

I only wish they would have published it in two smaller volumes instead of just one big one.

[Platapus]

I guess she is OK as a fiction writer.

[Skybird]

“What is morality", she asked.
"Judgement to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth, and courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price. ”


Have read it in one scene, felt a laser engraving it directly into my brain.

[Bubblehead1980]

Great book and if you are intelligent enough to understand the philosophy behind it(a lot of libs are not I have noticed) it will mean something. I have not read the book since I was 18 but it definitely had an impact along with 1984. The Fountainhead is another book of hers you should read after Shrugged. Rand lived under marxism and the evils that collective thinking/actions will inevitably bring upon the people of a nation.Rand went from living a comfortable live until the communists took over, then they were poor and starving, like everyone else, all in the name of fairness though right? lol. Shrugged is sadly, almost prophetic in the sense that all these years later, we are well on the way the dystopian world created in the novel.

[Skybird]

As far as I can say after having read short of one quarter of this epos, I already agree on all that, Bubblehead. It already now rates as one of the most impressive readings I ever stumbled over. A multi-facetted novel for sure.

To complete the biography you already gave, her family then fled from Russia and emigrated finally to America, where she then met and learned capitalism. So communistic collectivism and individualist capitalism - she both saw it at closest range. And the book shows it, both. Maybe her characters are a bit too prototyped - but I think it indeed is a stylistic tool of narration she used there, like I earlier assumed already, also a condensate of her close-range witnessing of both communism and capitalism.

She also had a strong disgust of the state and government and expressed strong hostility towards it. Which however did not stop her to accept to live by state's wellfare at the end of her life. That is the one big contradiction that struck me when reading about her biography.

Atlas Shrugged was her last fiction novel. After that she wrote only philosophical essays anymore.

[Oberon]

“What is morality", she asked.
"Judgement to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth, and courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price. ”

Well written, but what IS right and wrong? :hmmm: Considering that the answer to this varies from not only person to person but nation to nation, the definitive answer is something that I don't think can actually be given because it changes from era to era.

[Skybird]

Well written, but what IS right and wrong? :hmmm: Considering that the answer to this varies from not only person to person but nation to nation, the definitive answer is something that I don't think can actually be given because it changes from era to era.
The novel last but not least also is a political and a philosophical work. Right and wrong in context of the characters in this book have a lot to do with freedom, dignity, and security, as these things can be concluded on by libertarian views on guaranteeing private property and its safety to the owner. Also, in context of the book, creating value versus parasitic behavior of claiming rights for the working results of others.

Beyond the book, I think that there are many things that we can declare consensus on regarding whether they are right or wrong. Some of that is covered in basic rules of some philosophies and religions. Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not rape. Do not do against others what you would not accept to be done to you. Do not be intentionally cruel for the sake of enjoying it. And so on, basic stuff like that. While some values are indeed depending on cultural context, I also think that some things are so obvious and basic in their value for us as we define ourselves as humans, that I refuse to negotiate any possible relativizing of them (speaking generally, not meaning you specifically).

The full quote beyonds "distinguish between right and wrong" leads to all this, doesn't it, implicitly refusing a too far-reaching relativizing of good and evil.

[Oberon]

The novel last but not least also is a political and a philosophical work. Right and wrong in context of the characters in this book have a lot to do with freedom, dignity, and security, as these things can be concluded on by libertarian views on guaranteeing private property and its safety to the owner. Also, in context of the book, creating value versus parasitic behavior of claiming rights for the working results of others.

Beyond the book, I think that there are many things that we can declare consensus on regarding whether they are right or wrong. Some of that is covered in basic rules of some philosophies and religions. Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not rape. Do not do against others what you would not accept to be done to you. Do not be intentionally cruel for the sake of enjoying it. And so on, basic stuff like that. While some values are indeed depending on cultural context, I also think that some things are so obvious and basic in their value for us as we define ourselves as humans, that I refuse to negotiate any possible relativizing of them (speaking generally, not meaning you specifically).

The full quote beyonds "distinguish between right and wrong" leads to all this, doesn't it, implicitly refusing a too far-reaching relativizing of good and evil.

Well, that is understandable from a modern point of view, however when one starts adding contexts to it then you run into a problem. What is a person? Is a person of a different nation different to you? Are they worthy of receiving the same treatment that you? What is deemed right and wrong has changed so much over the past several centuries that it has made a mockery of the statement. Murder and rape were perfectly rational undertakings on civilians in war right up until about two hundred years ago, and indeed even more recently in some nations.
In three hundred years from now, I am sure that there will be some things that we do right now that will be seen as wrong, and cruel, just as we view slavery now compared to how we would have viewed it in the early 1700s.

[Skybird]

I have a more unpersonal, absolute view here, it seems.

No matter whether I am an Aztec or a modern man, the value system of humanism is superior to that of the Aztec empire that waged wars only to produce hundreds of prisoners that it could sacrifice to its deities. The Aztec may find that okay, and the modern man not. But I claim it remains to be an act of barbary that remains to be wrong for an outside view, no matter what a person embedded in the cultural context would say about it.

When I enforce my will onto a women and violate her will and rape her, this is an act of evil no matter what the culture says in which I do it. It remains to be wrong to rape somebody.

To torture women to make them confess their witchcraft and then burn them alive, remains to be wrong, no matter whether it is done by Christian inquisitors , or by a mob in some primitive village in Kongo or Sudan.

To burn Indian widows just because their husband has died before them, is evil. The culture in which it takes place may accept it or not - I claim it remains to be evil.

To torment and act cruelly on the weak just for the sake of enjoying it, remains to be evil,. no matter the cultural background of the person doing like this.

So, I object to your claim that just any value is context-sensitive and depending on culture. Some lesser values are like that, yes. But there are also some for which the above examples may serve as illustrations that remain to be what they are in there quality - and any acceptance or rejection of them by the cultural environment in which they are enacted tells us not so much about these values - but only about the culture itself, its level of education or primitivity, barbarism or humane civilization. The culture does not judge the value, but the value judge the culture. Indifference towards these values and relativising them only means to refuse to accept that different cultures are not all of same equal worthiness and development level. But I claim there is a hierarchy of possible development levels and feature levels of human civilizations, and that some civilizations are superior/inferior in their worthiness to others. It is not everything just indifferent and to be treated as if being on same eye level with the others. And thus, there are some moral values and golden rules that remain to be true, no matter where, no matter when.

Also, you may remember that I have often argued that to me it makes no sense to judge war by the set of moral values of peacetime, and that to me war has a different set of morals. While for example rape remains to be evil no matter whether in peace or war, other values like "you should not kill" obviously are not of the same nature in peace and in war. So it may make sense to admit that there can also be something that I - for the purpose of putting it into words here - could be named a unified, single-entity "context-value", a moral value that is inextricably involved in a certain specific situational context, and is not valid outside that context. So, in the above example, there is not "you should not kill" in general, but there are two such moral rules: "though shall not kill in peace", and "killing may be necessary to do in war". Or in self-defence. Or on behalf of protecting somebody.

To me, such multiple context-value-entities do not mean to relativise, since relativising would mean to chnage the good-bad orientation of one and the same value according to different context (for example your cultural contexts). I am talking about different context-values where "context" means the context in which the context-value always remains of the same good or evil quality.

Hm, not sure I got it described like I mean it, I struggle a bit here. Hope you get the general idea.

[Skybird]

Anyhow, here is another short quote from the novel that echoed in my mind, it is maybe not spectacular or sensational, but I like the way in which it is so very concise:


Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

[Oberon]

I have a more unpersonal, absolute view here, it seems.

No matter whether I am an Aztec or a modern man, the value system of humanism is superior to that of the Aztec empire that waged wars only to produce hundreds of prisoners that it could sacrifice to its deities. The Aztec may find that okay, and the modern man not. But I claim it remains to be an act of barbary that remains to be wrong for an outside view, no matter what a person embedded in the cultural context would say about it.

When I enforce my will onto a women and violate her will and rape her, this is an act of evil no matter what the culture says in which I do it. It remains to be wrong to rape somebody.

To torture women to make them confess their witchcraft and then burn them alive, remains to be wrong, no matter whether it is done by Christian inquisitors , or by a mob in some primitive village in Kongo or Sudan.

To burn Indian widows just because their husband has died before them, is evil. The culture in which it takes place may accept it or not - I claim it remains to be evil.

To torment and act cruelly on the weak just for the sake of enjoying it, remains to be evil,. no matter the cultural background of the person doing like this.

So, I object to your claim that just any value is context-sensitive and depending on culture. Some lesser values are like that, yes. But there are also some for which the above examples may serve as illustrations that remain to be what they are in there quality - and any acceptance or rejection of them by the cultural environment in which they are enacted tells us not so much about these values - but only about the culture itself, its level of education or primitivity, barbarism or humane civilization. The culture does not judge the value, but the value judge the culture. Indifference towards these values and relativising them only means to refuse to accept that different cultures are not all of same equal worthiness and development level. But I claim there is a hierarchy of possible development levels and feature levels of human civilizations, and that some civilizations are superior/inferior in their worthiness to others. It is not everything just indifferent and to be treated as if being on same eye level with the others. And thus, there are some moral values and golden rules that remain to be true, no matter where, no matter when.

Also, you may remember that I have often argued that to me it makes no sense to judge war by the set of moral values of peacetime, and that to me war has a different set of morals. While for example rape remains to be evil no matter whether in peace or war, other values like "you should not kill" obviously are not of the same nature in peace and in war. So it may make sense to admit that there can also be something that I - for the purpose of putting it into words here - could be named a unified, single-entity "context-value", a moral value that is inextricably involved in a certain specific situational context, and is not valid outside that context. So, in the above example, there is not "you should not kill" in general, but there are two such moral rules: "though shall not kill in peace", and "killing may be necessary to do in war". Or in self-defence. Or on behalf of protecting somebody.

To me, such multiple context-value-entities do not mean to relativise, since relativising would mean to chnage the good-bad orientation of one and the same value according to different context (for example your cultural contexts). I am talking about different context-values where "context" means the context in which the context-value always remains of the same good or evil quality.

Hm, not sure I got it described like I mean it, I struggle a bit here. Hope you get the general idea.


I think I get the general idea, but the context-value area is a bit confusing, because of its similarity to what I put forward in terms of values being different in contexts. These contexts being era, nation and upbringing/personal experience.
For example, the 'killing may be necessary to do in war' can quite easily be transmorphed into 'killing may be necessary to do to Blacks' or 'killing may be necessary to do to Islamists', particularly if one declares one to be in a war against the aforementioned subjects.
It's a slippery slope. :yep:

[Skybird]

I think I get the general idea, but the context-value area is a bit confusing, because of its similarity to what I put forward in terms of values being different in contexts. These contexts being era, nation and upbringing/personal experience.
For example, the 'killing may be necessary to do in war' can quite easily be transmorphed into 'killing may be necessary to do to Blacks' or 'killing may be necessary to do to Islamists', particularly if one declares one to be in a war against the aforementioned subjects.
It's a slippery slope. :yep:
Transmorphing. Well, what kind of value assessment does that deserve? And the context-value you described, "killing-Blacks-positive" is right that, the combination of finding it positive to kill Blacks. The moral conclusion on that I think must not be further specified: murder Blacks just because they are Black, with Black being the primary reason to kill them, is murder due to racism.

Maybe I failed in explaining illustrative enough what I mean by "context-value". It pretty much rules out what you call transmorphing.

Context-values as I mean them, however are absolute only within the context that they include. Outside that, they are pretty much invalid, and useless, since outside the context of a situation the context of that situation does not exist. :) In other words: they are not really absolute, but specific. They do not fit into the role of a general blueprint by which all acts (of killing in the above example) could be described. They are not generalistic, but highly specific.

Common phrase to describe this maybe is: to judge every case individually. By which I do not mean that identical cases one time may be seen this way, and on another day differently.

Also, there can be hierarchies of different absolute values and context-values, and people can end up in situations that are complex enough that they must sort mutually contradicting values to work it out which values to follow when there are also conflicting ones. You then have to set priorities, you attribute different levels of importance to them.

My thought experiment with this "context-values" is trying to break up "meta-values" (context-unsensitive values that are not absolute) who else would be needed to be arbitrarily interpreted differently in each varying situation, and always new. "You should not kill", for example. True in peace, untrue in a situation of racism, and sometimes true and sometimes untrue in war (depending on the nature of the person that is about to get killed,. and the situational context). Thus I break all that up, and make the context integral part of the value. Hope that makes it clearer?!

Anyhow. All that bis abstract and academic, and does not bother me when living my real life and have to make decisions: I do not decide everyday issues by using pocket calculators. :) The quote by Rand I recommend to take with a less abstract and stronger pragmatic sense for realism. I doubt she had all this abstract philosophizing on mind with that sentence. It stands as it is, and I think its pretty good and strong and valuable.

[Oberon]

I think I get what you mean, and I think we're both on a level agreeing on something but we keep missing our connection. Certainly I agree on the existence of Context-values, however I believe that Context-values are far greater in number than you seemed to originally indicate, and that the three indicators I brought up earlier, era, nation and experience directly affect the Context-value, hence why in a nation that is at war, you will get conscientious objectors, who will refuse to be drafted even if it means a prison sentence. In the era of the Great War, the Context-value was that Conscientious objectors were criminals who undertook treason by refusing to serve the state in a time of need, today they are looked upon quite differently. Even by the Second World War, a difference of only twenty-one years, the attitude towards Conscientious objectors had changed by a fair amount, there were still prison sentences but at a lower rate than in the war before. The Context-value had changed, only slightly, but it had changed in the space of twenty-one years.

Of course, as you correctly say, this is not something that really applies to current every day life because we are all bound by our own Context-values as defined by era, nation and experience, to perceive the world in our own ways. I know what is right and what is wrong because I was taught, both by my parents and by society and the state, just as all those who have come before me have been taught their versions of right and wrong, stretching back to the era of the dawn of man.
But yes, taken at face value, the sentence is strong, strong enough to inspire our conversation, and at the end of the day, that is what, in my opinion, works like Atlas Shrugged are all about, inspiring thought. :yep: (although I must add as a disclaimer that I have not actually read Atlas Shrugged beyond its wikipedia page, but it is on my lengthy list of books to get around to reading one day)

[Onkel Neal]

So far there only are two of planned three films. And audience reception and critics' verdicts alike both sank the movies. Some rate them amongst the worst movies ever done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged:_Part_I

Well, the movies were very low budget.

150 pages deep (of 1260 in the German edition), and I love it. I love the descriptions of characters, the way these descriptions are given in vivid and deep-going detail - without making too much words. That means her writing style aims and hits precisely - its economic. I love the moods and atmospheres of places and sceneries coming to life. I like her narrative style. I like the political, philosophical and economical multi-aspect complexity of the book that becomes apparent more and more. I like the presented ideals on what makes man noble and courageous - and what does the opposite. I like that it gives me the feeling of watching an old black-white crime movie from the 40s or 50s. I like the alternative reality setting, the silent undertone of science fiction. I just love it all.

This is a great book both in size and content. Happy that I found it. If you do not know it, check it out.

I only wish they would have published it in two smaller volumes instead of just one big one.

:up: Glad you are enjoying it and getting something out of. Right or wrong, it does make you think.

[Skybird]

I think I get what you mean, and I think we're both on a level agreeing on something but we keep missing our connection. Certainly I agree on the existence of Context-values, however I believe that Context-values are far greater in number than you seemed to originally indicate, and that the three indicators I brought up earlier, era, nation and experience directly affect the Context-value, hence why in a nation that is at war, you will get conscientious objectors, who will refuse to be drafted even if it means a prison sentence. In the era of the Great War, the Context-value was that Conscientious objectors were criminals who undertook treason by refusing to serve the state in a time of need, today they are looked upon quite differently. Even by the Second World War, a difference of only twenty-one years, the attitude towards Conscientious objectors had changed by a fair amount, there were still prison sentences but at a lower rate than in the war before. The Context-value had changed, only slightly, but it had changed in the space of twenty-one years.

Of course, as you correctly say, this is not something that really applies to current every day life because we are all bound by our own Context-values as defined by era, nation and experience, to perceive the world in our own ways. I know what is right and what is wrong because I was taught, both by my parents and by society and the state, just as all those who have come before me have been taught their versions of right and wrong, stretching back to the era of the dawn of man.
But yes, taken at face value, the sentence is strong, strong enough to inspire our conversation, and at the end of the day, that is what, in my opinion, works like Atlas Shrugged are all about, inspiring thought. :yep: (although I must add as a disclaimer that I have not actually read Atlas Shrugged beyond its wikipedia page, but it is on my lengthy list of books to get around to reading one day)

Oberon,

I was sent an email with the following quote from the novel, another Aha!-experience, it matches our conversation nicely. I am not deep enough into the book to already have read it, but he said it is from later in the book.


The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute.

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromise is the transmitting rubber tube.


Matches my feelings.

[Tchocky]

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromise is the transmitting rubber tube.

That's one of the more ridiculous excerpts of Rand that I've seen. It's like mainlining adolescent self-righteousness.

[Oberon]

Oberon,

I was sent an email with the following quote from the novel, another Aha!-experience, it matches our conversation nicely. I am not deep enough into the book to already have read it, but he said it is from later in the book.



Matches my feelings.

Fair enough, I must say that I completely disagree with that quote and find it rather narrow minded.

[Tribesman]

Oberon. Narrow minded or simple minded?

[Sailor Steve]

Play nice now.

[Tribesman]

Play nice now.
That was playing nice.
Infantile would be a more accurate description of that particular passage.
But that is a common fault with those who insist on simple absolutes on issues when reality hands up complexities.

[Sailor Steve]

You're right. It was aimed at the book, and not where I thought it was. I apologize.

[Skybird]

To the mind being indifferent always, and that tries to evade responsibility of choice and needed conflicts by denying something valuable being right to be defended, instead relativising it endlessly - like it is so very common nowadays - until no identity is left anymore and nobody is responsible anymore, to such a mind the quote - that is nothing but a revealing of the shame in such an attitude - must indeed appear as an offense and an affront.

Which is (beside the content itself) the second reason why I like it.

It seems that in the context of the novel's plot so far it is those people objecting to that quote's meaning that bring the world down and hinder those that develope and improve it. I'll see if that impression fades or gets supported while I read on.

[Tchocky]

I doubt anyone here is affronted or offended. It's immature writing, the way I see it. Not a crime or indeed even a flaw, but certainly something to keep in mind.

[Skybird]

Aha. Immature. So-so.

That is what I label the indifference often that I meet in real life, in monitoring politics in the media, and in debates. As I said, this indifference, that claims to "reflect complexity" always, is very very wide-spread today. Temporary politics are poisoned from A to Z with it.

Some things are indeed complex. Some, many are not. And rand is right that when the right and the wrong are called to make a compromise, only the wrong can win something, while the right never wins anything, but always looses something. That is no compromise. That is abuse. And of course, evil/wrong finds a thousand excuses why it should be done like this, because it always wins something for free. And that is what is called parasitism.

[Tribesman]

I apologize.
Why? no apology is needed

[Sailor Steve]

That's kind of you, but I always apologize for my mistakes, especially when they're personal.

[Skybird]

Done. :yeah:

Impressive, in general a truthful direction the author is aiming at (with weaknesses maybe in details and some aspects that she ignored), and a very enjoyable language, all in all. I can understand why this book got the fame that it got -both with those loving it and those hating it. It necessarily must be extremely polarizing. I for myself took quite some positive stuff from it. I also recognize my old buddy Nietzsche in her philosophical thinking, and here and there, in some parts of the book, some of the truths she lets her protagonists say reminded me even of R.W. Emerson. The somewhat schematic characterization of most figures I can forgive. The narrative style and language I enjoyed, it made the reading of this long journey a pleasant experience.

This book has been unavailable in German for a very long time, there have been two earlier versions/translations under two different titles, and second hand editions of these were traded for up to 800 Euros, although prices from 150-350 Euros were what you usually would be damended to pay. The new release now is a completely new translation again, of which many say it is the best and closest to the original. Released as a high quality harcover and a starting edition of 5000 pieces, the man publishing it founded his own company for doing so, and sacrificed all his private savings and life insurances for dealing with the costs. He expects the start edition to be sold out by the end of the year, and reading the overwhelmingly positive reviews at German Amazon, I think he can be optimistic for that.

I will buy a second print today, as a christmas present for the end of the year. Possible that later this year I would not get it anymore, if the second edition does not materialise before next year.

This version also is available for Kindle.

Prices are 40 Euros for the hardcover and 15 Euros for the Kindle version(Germany has fixed book prices, every book costs the same in every shop over here, no matter where you buy).

[Catfish]

For what i have read from it, i think the author is setting up some absolute truths - but if you look close they are nothing but his opinion, and while it is exclaimed as an absolute truth and self-evident, it is just an egoistic point of view. This is exactly why wars start, and the leaders get away with it. I think it is badly overrated.

[Skybird]

The full novel as pdf in English is available here (and at others sites as well, as far as I see it, it is legal):

http://pix.cs.olemiss.edu/csci300/atlasShrugged.pdf

And here I would recommend to read at least the final speech by John Galt near the end of the chapter in order to get a basic idea of what Rand is about. Pages 914 - 958.

Also helpful as a brief spotlight on some of the more important parts of Rand's thinking, is p. 676-677, Galt's introductory explanation to Dagny Taggert after she arrived in the valley.

And already earlier, Hank Rearden'S speech of defence when he is charged at court, p. 442-448.

And throughout the whole novel, there are paragraphs of razorsharp conversation and explanations that also would deserve to be quoted and referred to.

And you are right, Catfish, Rand does claim some truths having absolute status. For a rotten Zeitgeist like ours, that proclaims the total arbitrariness and relativity of all and everything (a claim which is an absolute in itself again) and that rejects to stand up for any substantial values except of that your needs and even your mere desires already define your claims you have towards others, this necessarily is an intellectual provocation - and the provocation lies not only in that Rand is right in doing so when considering what it is that she claims to be absolute truths, but also that she demands intellectuality and reason as the fundament of replying to her claims.

There is so much in this book that one could write more books about it. But one thing is clear. The more left-leaning and socialist-communist-thinking the reader is, the more he will hate this novel. It reads like a screenplay for establishing the modern EU as we have it. For the same reason I say since years that the EU functions by the same principles of power now like the old Warsaw Pact States and the Soviet Union.

What Rand completely ignores, is the abuse of industrial power by monopolists, the abuse of currency-manipulation by the state in order to legally rip the citizens off their private savings, and the abuse of power by banks as we have seen becoming possible over the past 20 years or so. So, he views in my opinions are not so much wrong, but they are not complete in that the ignores several important fields. To claim that her protagonists, industrials of the good kind, are too one-sided a reflection of the essence of business tycoons ( acriticism apparently often directed against the book), is not correct, because the Dagny Taggarts, Reardens, Anconias and Galts in the novel are opposed not only by socialist politicians and pseudo-intellectual dumbheads who simply have lost their mind's sanity, but by industrials of the manipulative, unfair, criminal type as well. And they stand for the irresponsible bankers and social politicians and Eurocrats and debt-raisers and business fraudsters and money printers and tax-looters that we in the reality of modern present get ruined and killed by.

[the_tyrant]

You know, when taken "out of context", many of the speeches in Atlas Shrugged are amazingly written (SO MUCH BETTER than the boring tripe politicians continuously repeat again and again). My favorite one was Francisco's speech about money.

However, they really don't make the characters believable or the story good. The characters seem to be very "one dimensional", they are simply "representing" their ideology.

PS: I read this book while on a cruise ship a while back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rednecks_and_White_Liberals

I have a feeling you would love it Skybird.

[Skybird]

However, they really don't make the characters believable or the story good. The characters seem to be very "one dimensional", they are simply "representing" their ideology.
Since the whole novel just seems to serve the purpose to present Rand's system of political and philosophical ideas and concepts, the characters are indeed more functions in a formula - that is how I started to think about them. However, I like the narrative style in general. The German translation (the 3rd by now) reads very fluid and enjoyable.

John Galt's long radio speech at the end (60 poages or so) is where the most condensate of Rand'S ideas that she put into the book is concentrated. It is also here where it becomes more obvious than in the rest of the book that her thinking is quite close to that of Nietzsche. Rand studied history and philosophy, and was said to be a follower of Nietzsche. That matches nicely for me, since I also hold Nietzsche's Zarathustra in very high esteem.

My current literature is this (in German translation) - http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethics-Liberty-Murray-Rothbard/dp/0814775594/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367443316&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=rothbard+ethics+of+freedom

Today I learned that this book has just been published in German as well, I will get this later this week as my next reading project: http://www.amazon.com/Paper-Money-Collapse-Monetary-Breakdown/dp/1118095758/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367443435&sr=1-1&keywords=detlev+schlichter

Sowell is not available in German, and I have come to appreciate not needing to struggle with a full book in English anymore, I did that in past times occasionally, but do not feel like wanting that anymore, nevertheless thanks for the tip. ;) Somewhere I heard his name before, but I cannot remember the context anymore. Some university or think tank or so, but I cannot say of what orientation and whether constructive or lobbyist.