4 ms·

"What he has found is in direct opposition to Ayn Rand's selfish ideal. For example, in 100 percent of LPA societies ... generosity or altruism is always favore

"What he has found is in direct opposition to Ayn Rand's selfish ideal. For example, in 100 percent of LPA societies ... generosity or altruism is always favored toward relatives and non-relatives alike, with sharing and cooperation being the most cited moral values" Would Rand think it is wrong to be an altruist just for your own family? (E.g. your family's survival). John Galt chose to exit the corrupt society and start (a small) new society based upon his values. If I remember correct he was waiting (and actively helped for) society to implode so he could reboot it. He didn't do what the article claims: "He refused to participate in society and no one has seen him since."

tspiteri 14y ago
He didn't do what the article claims: "He refused to participate in society and no one has seen him since." What that means in the article is that if someone behaved like John Galt, they would not survive among our ancient ancestors. So a John Galt would have disappeared, that's why the article says that "no one has seen him since."
rauljara 14y ago
I think you're misreading the statement. The article refers both to John Galt, the character in Atlas shrugged, and a hypothetical John Galt, who is a particularly self-interestmd member of a primitive society. When the article says "He refused to participate in society and no one has seen him since", it's talking about the hypothetical John Galt. The point the article is making that in primitive societies, the John Galts of the world who refused to fall into the fold would have been ostracized and then died without the community.
nirvana 14y ago
In fact, John Galt, and the others, bore significant personal risk and harm, in a variety of ways- for the goal of ultimately benefiting society. Galt was an altruist, by the modern use of the word. The error the author makes is confusing voluntary sharing with theft (Eg: sharing at the point of a gun)... and they always make this error because they want to pretend like the theft is voluntary so that they don't have to face the fact that they are advocating violence.
- digitalengineer 14y ago
  Great comment (I'm placing it here but there are more).
glesica 14y ago
I didn't "see" the same thing in Atlas Shrugged that I was apparently supposed to see. To me, the protagonists were the altruistic, non-objectivists. The antagonists, far from being "collectivists" were actually compulsively selfish, even to the point of using collectivism as a means to advance their own selfish agendas (for an objectivist, why isn't subjugation of the masses a legitimate means to achieve personal fulfillment?) Of course this is, in part, just good writing on Rand's part, the protagonist is supposed to at least garner sympathy, if not admiration. But in order to make the characters sympathetic or admirable I feel she compromised what was, supposedly, her vision (or maybe it is her vision that has been distorted recently, I don't know). People who are exclusively self-interested don't try to contribute to the world. They do whatever gets them what they want (of course you can argue that Dagney Taggart wanted a successful transportation empire, but that seems like a pretty esoteric thing to lust after). The fact that the heroes and heroines were outraged by what they saw in society means, to me anyway, that they weren't exclusively self-interested (and if they were, then they derived significant personal utility from the welfare of others, which is really the same thing as being tribal/social/collectivist). They were acting as collectivists. Maybe I misunderstood the entire book, who knows.

tspiteri 14y ago

He didn't do what the article claims: "He refused to participate in society and no one has seen him since." What that means in the article is that if someone behaved like John Galt, they would not survive among our ancient ancestors. So a John Galt would have disappeared, that's why the article says that "no one has seen him since."

rauljara 14y ago

I think you're misreading the statement. The article refers both to John Galt, the character in Atlas shrugged, and a hypothetical John Galt, who is a particularly self-interestmd member of a primitive society. When the article says "He refused to participate in society and no one has seen him since", it's talking about the hypothetical John Galt. The point the article is making that in primitive societies, the John Galts of the world who refused to fall into the fold would have been ostracized and then died without the community.

nirvana 14y ago

In fact, John Galt, and the others, bore significant personal risk and harm, in a variety of ways- for the goal of ultimately benefiting society. Galt was an altruist, by the modern use of the word. The error the author makes is confusing voluntary sharing with theft (Eg: sharing at the point of a gun)... and they always make this error because they want to pretend like the theft is voluntary so that they don't have to face the fact that they are advocating violence.

digitalengineer 14y ago
Great comment (I'm placing it here but there are more).

glesica 14y ago

I didn't "see" the same thing in Atlas Shrugged that I was apparently supposed to see. To me, the protagonists were the altruistic, non-objectivists. The antagonists, far from being "collectivists" were actually compulsively selfish, even to the point of using collectivism as a means to advance their own selfish agendas (for an objectivist, why isn't subjugation of the masses a legitimate means to achieve personal fulfillment?) Of course this is, in part, just good writing on Rand's part, the protagonist is supposed to at least garner sympathy, if not admiration. But in order to make the characters sympathetic or admirable I feel she compromised what was, supposedly, her vision (or maybe it is her vision that has been distorted recently, I don't know). People who are exclusively self-interested don't try to contribute to the world. They do whatever gets them what they want (of course you can argue that Dagney Taggart wanted a successful transportation empire, but that seems like a pretty esoteric thing to lust after). The fact that the heroes and heroines were outraged by what they saw in society means, to me anyway, that they weren't exclusively self-interested (and if they were, then they derived significant personal utility from the welfare of others, which is really the same thing as being tribal/social/collectivist). They were acting as collectivists. Maybe I misunderstood the entire book, who knows.