4 ms·
I think Atlas Shrugged assumes a fantastic future in which the amount of people who CAN step up to the plate have dwindled immensely, and in which many of the o
by unalone 18y ago
I think Atlas Shrugged assumes a fantastic future in which the amount of people who CAN step up to the plate have dwindled immensely, and in which many of the ones who COULD are already broken.
In real life as it stands today, Atlas Shrugged is not a plausible scenario. The trick to reading it without casting it aside in horror is realizing that Rand knows that, and that she's drawing things to their extremes to make a specific point about how she thinks human beings work. People who mock Atlas on that point are missing the point of the book.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- unalone 18y agoBut her characters are absolutely recognizable as humans. I've met people who talk like Rand heroes and people who talk like Rand villains. I've always envisioned Herb Kelleher of Southwest as a Randian hero. He refuses to compromise, gets mocked for a lot of things that turn out in retrospect to have been brilliant, and has a very flippant attitude about it all. It's like reading Asimov, who judges most of his characters by their approach to logic. There's an advantage to illustrating a single facet of a human being. It lets you focus and create characters that revolve around a theme. If Rand had made her books more involved, they'd have lost the focus on the attributes that she writes about.
- SkylerNovak 18y agoOh grow up. You sound like you're 14.
- unalone 18y agoI am aware that neither Rand nor her philosophy is perfect. That said: I think that Rand talks about her ideas in a way that make them very accessible and attractive to people, and I think that her philosophical beliefs are worthy of discussion at the very least. I agree with her statement that it is better to be selfish - in the sense that you act primarily for your own good - than it is to be altruistic. I don't think she is the end-all be-all. I voted Obama, who will expand the government in many ways and demand some altruism from everybody. But I think that compromise is a necessity: that altruism is a necessary evil rather than an end unto itself. The immature one is the one who dismisses somebody's argument because they choose to support a flawed person. Frankly, I'd much rather talk with an Objectivist than a Nihilist - that despite Nietzche's being a much more influential and agreed-with writer. I'm trying to argue my points expressively, and to respond to people who disagree. You're either being immature or a troll.
- RobertHenderson 18y agoAgreed. He's being a jerk.
- unalone 18y agoHow? By attempting to clarify my thoughts? I'm not the one here that's using name-calling.
- Huxley78 18y agoOh yes you are. You are being a rude asshole. Is that what they teach you in the Rand Club?
- unalone 18y agoAt least I'm not a Huxleyite. :-P But seriously. What am I doing that's rude? I said that I thought that Rand was misread, and that I thought it wasn't necessarily bad that she writes in black-and-white terms. I also said that I think it's a mistake of the people who follow her more seriously to assume that the world really is black-and-white. I don't think I was being rude or an asshole. Am I wrong?
- zasz 18y agoThe SkylerNovak and Robert something accounts have been created only a couple hours ago. They're just trolling. I think you're being perfectly courteous and upmodded you accordingly.
- unalone 18y agoThem, and AVC, and HugotheMongoose, and KimStarr, and Huxley78. It's baffling. I've never seen something like that happen before.
- Nerdlinger 18y agoSo what? I signed up to post.
- dgordon 18y agoYou know, you just proved their point about people who talk like Rand's villains. Is there anyone here who has read Rand's novels and can't imagine those words coming from James Taggart, Floyd Ferris, or Ellsworth Toohey? (Maybe not Ellsworth Toohey. He was more subtle.)