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.

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.

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.

Why? no apology is needed

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

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).

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.

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.

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_R...White_Liberals

I have a feeling you would love it Skybird.

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-Lib...ics+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-Co...lev+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.