4 ms·

What about the rest of the book seems ridiculous to you? The first time I read it, I thought that everything in Atlas Shrugged was perfect. Even with repeated r

What about the rest of the book seems ridiculous to you? The first time I read it, I thought that everything in Atlas Shrugged was perfect. Even with repeated readings, I never once thought anything was ridiculous. Be specific in your answer.

jacoblyles 18y ago
Ayn Rand often overstates her case for the sake of art (her evil characters, for example, are mostly shallow caricatures). I find that people who don't share her views often mock her works and call her "ridiculous" because she treats some ideas that they hold completely without nuance or sympathy. I can see why they do this, but I think Ayn's detractors overstate their case. She is valuable because she is the only major author that writes from her point of view. I read many books in high school with a feminist or socialist moral, I read many literary triumphs that exposed the "failure" of capitalism, only Ayn dared to be different. I think every teenager should have a run-in with Rand, if only to begin the process of developing critical thinking. However, I do think her complete philosophical system has many more flaws then she would care to admit (the one laid out in the "BFS", "Big Frackin' Speech", at the end of Atlas Shrugged). She tries to lay out a case for the absolute, unassailable truth of her ethics, but absolute truth shall ever elude humans in this complex world.
- maxharris 18y ago
  "but absolute truth shall ever elude humans in this complex world." Why? Do you think a grand unified field theory is impossible? Do you think that quantum mechanics is the final word in physics? Do you suppose that that truth is knowable to some hypothetical race of aliens? (You specifically say that humans can't attain any absolute truth.) Or do you simply think that some truths are unknowable, such as distant historical events? Do you hold any superstitions (religious or otherwise)? (You probably don't, but it helps to cover all the bases.)
  - radu_floricica 18y ago
    Because the world is complicated :) Thankfully. And by the time we get to understand significantly more then we do (not even close to everything) we won't be humans anymore. And this whole point will probably be obsolete.
    - maxharris 18y ago
      Sure, the world is complicated. But how does that make an "absolutist" moral system impossible? I think that with regard to morality (as it applies to humans, on earth), absolute truths and rules are not only possible to know (and make), but necessary. Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation.
      - jacoblyles 18y ago
        Discuss morality with intelligent people, and study evolutionary psychology, and it will not take you long to realize that every moral system has some edge cases where obeying it will lead to stomach-turning results. Our moral intuitions are lumpy, inconsistent, and contradictory. This is to be expected because we were designed by blind evolution, and not by any sort of logical process. Ethical systems serve as great guidelines, but it is impossible to find one simple set of consistent ideas to capture everything that an average person feels is right. It is even more impossible (for a non-theist) to find some sort of objective measure of value by which to determine morality. >"Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation." Human actions are guided by reason, but never solely by reason. We have a lot of innate biases left over from our 3 billion year evolution. I think you would enjoy this blog: http://www.overcomingbias.com/ http://www.overcomingbias.com/
        maxharris 18y ago
        What about Objectivism leads to "stomach-turning results"? (Remember, I don't think we shouldn't worry about what the "average person feels is right"; we should worry about what is actually right.)
- radu_floricica 18y ago
  She did veer a bit too much into philosophy after Atlas Shrugged, but I think she was pretty clear her writing should be taken as a romanticized work of fiction. I think she went as far as she did assuming the reader understands this, and trying to take things literally is a bit foolish. Granted, having been told she is right so many times she may have believed it later, but I remember the edition I read had pretty much a disclaimer in this sense somewhere.
  - unalone 18y ago
    I agree with that, and it's why I still like her. However, even then she gets very preachy. Her scene where the people in the train all die because they believe in these ideals is pretty edgy, and not in a good way. That said: The Fountainhead is a great read, and so is Atlas Shrugged, even if it's not the absolute masterpiece she intended.
- donniefitz2 18y ago
  I think you're right about the whole of her philosophy. I think she has a firm grasp of epistemology, but fails to lay out a well reasoned metaphysical and ethical philosophy.
- antigone 18y ago
  "but absolute truth shall ever elude humans in this complex world." “There are no absolutes,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute. - Galt's Speech
  - unalone 18y ago
    That's a great quote, and it's got a wonderful ring to it, but she's erecting a straw man. "It is extremely unlikely that anything complex can be understood in any entirety" is essentially "There are no absolutes", and it's more absolutely true.
  - jacoblyles 18y ago
    There are plenty of absolutely true tautologies, but few absolute truths that are interesting at all.
captainobvious 18y ago
Externalities ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality ), positive or negative, don't seem to get much consideration throughout.
unalone 18y ago
Other people have responded in other ways, so I won't respond regarding her philosophy. I'll respond in a purer way that nobody else has: she writes bad prose. Her sentences are ugly, overlong, and lack concise flow. So by the definition of literature as the beauties of language, her work is imperfect and, in the case of Atlas Shrugged, actively bad. I daresay I've read Atlas Shrugged more times than you have. Furthermore, though I could be wrong, I would argue that I've memorized more of the central concepts and analyzed them more thoroughly than you have. Judging from how you've written on this thread, you're still operating from a very shallow interpretation of her works, which is antithetical to her own ideas. The central flaw of Atlas Shrugged is that it denies external possibility. Given her own hypothetical world, it follows impressive logic. However, it ignores the fact that people are not so easily judged. A former girlfriend of mine was an Objectivist and simultaneously an irrationalist. She believed in man as an end unto himself, but also that everything was subjective, there was no absolute truth - and she was a believing Christian on the side. The problem with Ayn Rand's writing is that the two are not necessarily incompatible. You can believe in what she writes and still think that things are subjective, and that truth is difficult to find, and while she would argue that that is a corruption of her ideas, and it is, Atlas Shrugged does not define itself well enough. Part of the problem is the nature of language, which is subjective. If I tell you that I'm nice, it could mean that I am "kind" or that I am "accurate". If I call my friend a "motherfucker" it means something different to him than it does to Oedipus. Similar, "objectivity" does not have an objective interpretation. Neither does "selfishness". People will never agree over these definitions. Objectivists don't agree over them in their entirety. By that nature, yes, everything is subjective. But that's beside the point. To give a quick summary of other flaws, I'd say that her writing is preachy, her characters are one-sided, there's no observation of physical stimuli (which is to say, the nature of bad things happening to good people on grounds other than human interference, which leads to questions of philosophy that she neatly ignores), and her book is about three hundred pages too long, drags in the opening, in the latter half of the second part, and John Galt's speech is wholly unnecessary as part of the work. Feel free to respond.
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  Just happening to be reading the book at the time. There's so many pathetic pieces of prose. "He lighted his cigarette." Just to chime in on all the other stuff, Francisco inherited all his wealth, and spent his life quite literally destroying it (rather than give some of it up to the "looters"). I can't think of a better allegory for crony capitalism.
benzim 18y ago
I liked Atlas Shrugged quite a lot, but there were a few parts that seemed ridiculous. Specifically the idea that everything was about money. In the model society near the end the banker loans Dagny a car and says that it isn't free he's charging her for it. As he shows Dagny around he explains how they charge each other for everything. Even husbands and wives pay each other one way or another. I wouldn't want to live in a society like that. Making personal or even business relationships primarily about money causes all sorts of problems. People need to be paid fairly, but focusing too much on money destroys intrinsic motivation. I'll fix my parents computer for free because I want to help them, but I wouldn't do the same thing just for money. Even trying to keep track of how many favors I've done for my friends would cause too many problems. I help them when they need it and they help me, but no one expects that things be exactly equal.
- mistermann 18y ago
  I agree....it's this type of over the top stuff that turns me off her writing. Atlas Shrugged should be rewritten, "now with 50% less cheese!" But actually, can you see her point? Its quite true in real life, that you are constantly being evaluated by your peers to maintain some sort of a balance between reciprocation of favors. I think what she was warning about was excessive power of the state, so that favors were distributed primarily from them, as the result can be an entire society with a dependent personality and no sense of personal responsibility. Does that remind you of anything we see currently?

jacoblyles 18y ago

Ayn Rand often overstates her case for the sake of art (her evil characters, for example, are mostly shallow caricatures). I find that people who don't share her views often mock her works and call her "ridiculous" because she treats some ideas that they hold completely without nuance or sympathy. I can see why they do this, but I think Ayn's detractors overstate their case. She is valuable because she is the only major author that writes from her point of view. I read many books in high school with a feminist or socialist moral, I read many literary triumphs that exposed the "failure" of capitalism, only Ayn dared to be different. I think every teenager should have a run-in with Rand, if only to begin the process of developing critical thinking. However, I do think her complete philosophical system has many more flaws then she would care to admit (the one laid out in the "BFS", "Big Frackin' Speech", at the end of Atlas Shrugged). She tries to lay out a case for the absolute, unassailable truth of her ethics, but absolute truth shall ever elude humans in this complex world.

maxharris 18y ago
"but absolute truth shall ever elude humans in this complex world." Why? Do you think a grand unified field theory is impossible? Do you think that quantum mechanics is the final word in physics? Do you suppose that that truth is knowable to some hypothetical race of aliens? (You specifically say that humans can't attain any absolute truth.) Or do you simply think that some truths are unknowable, such as distant historical events? Do you hold any superstitions (religious or otherwise)? (You probably don't, but it helps to cover all the bases.)
- radu_floricica 18y ago
  Because the world is complicated :) Thankfully. And by the time we get to understand significantly more then we do (not even close to everything) we won't be humans anymore. And this whole point will probably be obsolete.
  - maxharris 18y ago
    Sure, the world is complicated. But how does that make an "absolutist" moral system impossible? I think that with regard to morality (as it applies to humans, on earth), absolute truths and rules are not only possible to know (and make), but necessary. Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation.
    - jacoblyles 18y ago
      Discuss morality with intelligent people, and study evolutionary psychology, and it will not take you long to realize that every moral system has some edge cases where obeying it will lead to stomach-turning results. Our moral intuitions are lumpy, inconsistent, and contradictory. This is to be expected because we were designed by blind evolution, and not by any sort of logical process. Ethical systems serve as great guidelines, but it is impossible to find one simple set of consistent ideas to capture everything that an average person feels is right. It is even more impossible (for a non-theist) to find some sort of objective measure of value by which to determine morality. >"Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation." Human actions are guided by reason, but never solely by reason. We have a lot of innate biases left over from our 3 billion year evolution. I think you would enjoy this blog: http://www.overcomingbias.com/ http://www.overcomingbias.com/
      - maxharris 18y ago
        What about Objectivism leads to "stomach-turning results"? (Remember, I don't think we shouldn't worry about what the "average person feels is right"; we should worry about what is actually right.)
radu_floricica 18y ago
She did veer a bit too much into philosophy after Atlas Shrugged, but I think she was pretty clear her writing should be taken as a romanticized work of fiction. I think she went as far as she did assuming the reader understands this, and trying to take things literally is a bit foolish. Granted, having been told she is right so many times she may have believed it later, but I remember the edition I read had pretty much a disclaimer in this sense somewhere.
- unalone 18y ago
  I agree with that, and it's why I still like her. However, even then she gets very preachy. Her scene where the people in the train all die because they believe in these ideals is pretty edgy, and not in a good way. That said: The Fountainhead is a great read, and so is Atlas Shrugged, even if it's not the absolute masterpiece she intended.
donniefitz2 18y ago
I think you're right about the whole of her philosophy. I think she has a firm grasp of epistemology, but fails to lay out a well reasoned metaphysical and ethical philosophy.
antigone 18y ago
"but absolute truth shall ever elude humans in this complex world." “There are no absolutes,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute. - Galt's Speech
- unalone 18y ago
  That's a great quote, and it's got a wonderful ring to it, but she's erecting a straw man. "It is extremely unlikely that anything complex can be understood in any entirety" is essentially "There are no absolutes", and it's more absolutely true.
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  There are plenty of absolutely true tautologies, but few absolute truths that are interesting at all.

captainobvious 18y ago

Externalities ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality ), positive or negative, don't seem to get much consideration throughout.

unalone 18y ago

Other people have responded in other ways, so I won't respond regarding her philosophy. I'll respond in a purer way that nobody else has: she writes bad prose. Her sentences are ugly, overlong, and lack concise flow. So by the definition of literature as the beauties of language, her work is imperfect and, in the case of Atlas Shrugged, actively bad. I daresay I've read Atlas Shrugged more times than you have. Furthermore, though I could be wrong, I would argue that I've memorized more of the central concepts and analyzed them more thoroughly than you have. Judging from how you've written on this thread, you're still operating from a very shallow interpretation of her works, which is antithetical to her own ideas. The central flaw of Atlas Shrugged is that it denies external possibility. Given her own hypothetical world, it follows impressive logic. However, it ignores the fact that people are not so easily judged. A former girlfriend of mine was an Objectivist and simultaneously an irrationalist. She believed in man as an end unto himself, but also that everything was subjective, there was no absolute truth - and she was a believing Christian on the side. The problem with Ayn Rand's writing is that the two are not necessarily incompatible. You can believe in what she writes and still think that things are subjective, and that truth is difficult to find, and while she would argue that that is a corruption of her ideas, and it is, Atlas Shrugged does not define itself well enough. Part of the problem is the nature of language, which is subjective. If I tell you that I'm nice, it could mean that I am "kind" or that I am "accurate". If I call my friend a "motherfucker" it means something different to him than it does to Oedipus. Similar, "objectivity" does not have an objective interpretation. Neither does "selfishness". People will never agree over these definitions. Objectivists don't agree over them in their entirety. By that nature, yes, everything is subjective. But that's beside the point. To give a quick summary of other flaws, I'd say that her writing is preachy, her characters are one-sided, there's no observation of physical stimuli (which is to say, the nature of bad things happening to good people on grounds other than human interference, which leads to questions of philosophy that she neatly ignores), and her book is about three hundred pages too long, drags in the opening, in the latter half of the second part, and John Galt's speech is wholly unnecessary as part of the work. Feel free to respond.

ojbyrne 18y ago
Just happening to be reading the book at the time. There's so many pathetic pieces of prose. "He lighted his cigarette." Just to chime in on all the other stuff, Francisco inherited all his wealth, and spent his life quite literally destroying it (rather than give some of it up to the "looters"). I can't think of a better allegory for crony capitalism.

benzim 18y ago

I liked Atlas Shrugged quite a lot, but there were a few parts that seemed ridiculous. Specifically the idea that everything was about money. In the model society near the end the banker loans Dagny a car and says that it isn't free he's charging her for it. As he shows Dagny around he explains how they charge each other for everything. Even husbands and wives pay each other one way or another. I wouldn't want to live in a society like that. Making personal or even business relationships primarily about money causes all sorts of problems. People need to be paid fairly, but focusing too much on money destroys intrinsic motivation. I'll fix my parents computer for free because I want to help them, but I wouldn't do the same thing just for money. Even trying to keep track of how many favors I've done for my friends would cause too many problems. I help them when they need it and they help me, but no one expects that things be exactly equal.

mistermann 18y ago
I agree....it's this type of over the top stuff that turns me off her writing. Atlas Shrugged should be rewritten, "now with 50% less cheese!" But actually, can you see her point? Its quite true in real life, that you are constantly being evaluated by your peers to maintain some sort of a balance between reciprocation of favors. I think what she was warning about was excessive power of the state, so that favors were distributed primarily from them, as the result can be an entire society with a dependent personality and no sense of personal responsibility. Does that remind you of anything we see currently?