4 ms·

The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are magnificent. To suggest that anyone -not- read them (for the sake of brevity, no less) is to suggest a reader not experi

by rrival 19y ago

The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are magnificent. To suggest that anyone -not- read them (for the sake of brevity, no less) is to suggest a reader not experience great, life-changing literature. Her objectivist philosophy may be a bit overt in the latter, but never for a second could I sleep well knowing I'd proposed that others -skip- these books.

rms 19y ago
We should be explicitly working towards the advancement of human civilization instead of working for rational self-interest.
- dfens 19y ago
  The way you've phrased that makes it sound as if you're telling people to be irrational.
- uuilly 19y ago
  "Man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress." -Ayn Rand Her books make the case that individuals working in their own self interest are the best thing for "human civilization." Disagree if you will, but you'll have a tough time coming up with a definition of "advancement of human civilization" that everyone can agree on. In the end you fight for your own vision of what the world should be and ignore the rest. Might is right. Ignore that at your own peril. Especially if you're in a startup.
  - rms 19y ago
    >you'll have a tough time coming up with a definition of "advancement of human civilization" that everyone can agree on No, I think it's easy, we've got a great way to measure progress. We call it "power." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
    - uuilly 19y ago
      Where does Brittany Spears fit in the Kardashev Scale? There a millions of people that think she is more important than energy consumption. Should we put them all in the gas chamber? Even if we let them live, Kardashev, brilliant though he may be, has hardly come up w/ a universal set of values that everyone is, should, or will eventually strive for. The best you can do is to absorb his ideals, spread his word and create technology that furthers his goals. And in doing that you become an Ayn Rand follower.
      - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
        > Where does Brittany Spears fit in the Kardashev Scale? There a millions of people that think she is more important than energy consumption. Should we put them all in the gas chamber? Only if we can use them as fuel.
        gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
        (You guys do get that I'm joking, right...?)
        rms 19y ago
        These crazy Rand zealots have no sense of humor. :P
        uuilly 19y ago
        You're probably right. By definition we take ourselves too seriously. But I think what you're seeing has been a long time coming. The Rand Zealots in the tech world have been lurking in the corners of Slashdot, Digg and Reddit listening to a cacophony of post modern, no up or down, no left or right emotional bullshit. I for one am sick of armchair socialists, open source evangalists and peddlers of western guilt. We like our one's and zeros but there is a lot we have to put up with to hang. I think this thread has released the Ayn Rand hounds. Political disagreements stem from philosophical disagreements. If two mathematicians were arguing about geometry and one assumed that parallel lines never met and the other assumed they did they would not have a meaningful conversation. The problem with most conversations is they mostly deal with surface issues. Clinton or Obama. Bush or Kerry. Blah or Bleh. Amen to Hacker news for getting to the heart of the matter. And to the the non-Rand-ers, apologies for our intensity and contrarian views. But this conversation will be good for everyone...
- jsmcgd 19y ago
  I don't see a conflict of interest.
  - rms 19y ago
    OK, there isn't one. I lost here, I forgot that Objectivism ends up encompassing any rational belief so it's hard to argue against it.
    - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
      Well, it doesn't. The exact rational beliefs that Objectivism encompasses were very carefully laid out by Rand before her death, and all other opinions, beliefs or perspectives were explicitly denounced as irrational. It's hard to take anything seriously that on the one hand says "reject irrationality, think for yourself, reach your own conclusion!" and on the other hand says "but the only way you'll know, and we'll accept, that you're being rational is that you'll reach these conclusions here". And of course, her primary error is that humans are rational beings. We're not. We're evolved animals, and one of the things we've evolved is the ability to rationalise behaviours that stem from thoroughly irrational sources. That a whole bunch of bright self-made and aspiring individualists who prefer doing to theorising have a lot of time for someone who essentially gave them a way to feel just great about both means and ends which have caused pain to other people+ is hardly surprising; but it's correlation, not cause. Indeed, I suspect that the people who readily accept Rand would basically have thought and acted that way anyway, but would have found an alternative, less satisfying, justification for doing so (for example, the economical justification of the Austrians). The importance of Rand to such people is the moral justification she crafted for them. + Note, I'm not passing moral judgement here; what makes us feel guilty about our actions is the combination of empathy with knowledge of the pain we have caused someone else - but we can alleviate that guilt if we can convince ourselves it's for a greater good; and there is no greater good than to have done what is morally right.
      - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
        Actually, I was thinking about this on the way into Sheffield, and I was wrong to use the term "the pain we cause"; I think what I actually mean is "the pain we have the means to prevent", which does encompass cause, but also covers things like survivor guilt as well. Rand's work allows people to admit that they do have the means to prevent the suffering of others (rather than pretending that they don't, which is dishonest), and yet to maintain that preventing that suffering would in fact be immoral, rather than merely impractical, unhelpful or counterproductive.
paul 19y ago
"Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I am never reading again." -- police officer Barbrady, South Park (1998) I made it about 1/3 of the way into The Fountainhead but got bored and lost interest. Self-interest is ok, but I'm not going to make it my religion. The architect who wouldn't design what people like (because it wasn't rational, as I recall) seemed like a really annoying person to deal with. And I certainly wouldn't want to invest in his startup :)
- uuilly 19y ago
  Clever, I just voted you up, but consider the Apple vs. MS saga. One may have been a better investment, but which one is better?
  - paul 19y ago
    The funny thing is that the answer to both question is unclear. For investment, it definitely depends on when you invested: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z... http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=MSFT&l=on&z... The same goes for the early years btw -- apple had it's IPO much sooner than ms. As for which product or company is better, that depends on what you're looking for. I don't believe that there is a single best solution. It's obvious that they both make products that meet a lot of people's needs.
- rrival 19y ago
  Perhaps if you'd realized that The Fountainhead is based on the life of Frank Lloyd Wright or that by tirelessly adhering to existing architectural principles you're continuing to develop derivative crap, you might see what he did as a bit more revolutionary and appreciate what her message was a bit more. I couldn't put it down, but then, I don't really watch South Park.
  - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
pg 19y ago
I advised myself to skip them, and I'm happy so far with that advice.
- zach 19y ago
  Me too. Having detested Catcher in the Rye and Slaughterhouse Five as a teen, I stopped reading books that seemed to only be popular within the context of being a teenager. It was definitely a good move.
  - deleted 19y ago
    [deleted]
  - SwellJoe 19y ago
    Whoah, you're weird. Salinger and Vonnegut are Good (with a capital G).
    - dfranke 19y ago
      Wow, we're definitely on opposite sides of this one. Atlas Shrugged is on my list of life-changing books. I've long since moved on from objectivism (I'm now a Rothbardian), but it was Rand who first got me thinking coherently about property and social obligation. OTOH, I found Cather in the Rye pretty shallow, and Slaughter Five just seemed like dada. Vonnegut did some great work (Harrison Bergeron comes to mind), but that book is not among it.
      - SwellJoe 19y ago
        "Wow, we're definitely on opposite sides of this one." Not sure where you got that. All of my posts on this topic should make clear that I'm a very big Rand fan, and have read all of her books (really, all of them). I would never call myself a SOME-PERSONS-NAMEian of any sort, so perhaps that's the difference. I do sometimes refer to myself as an anarcho-capitalist, so, philosophically, your Rothbardian views and mine probably coincide more than they differ. ;-) I actually did enjoy Atlas Shrugged. But the speech is too much, the book too long (by about half), and the characters are weak (for such a long book). When I first started reading Rand, I wanted to share her books with everybody. So I recommended Atlas, her opus, to everybody I knew. None of them made it through the book. All got bogged down in the speech, and either gave up, or skimmed the rest of it. Even people who were reasonably heavy readers (though mostly pulp) still couldn't stomach the whole thing. I started recommending Anthem after that, and everybody made it through...everybody enjoyed it...and some went on to read other Rand books (I recommend The Fountainhead next). I still believe that intelligent people can get everything they really need to know about Rand's philosophy from Anthem. And, of course, dumb folks can actually read Anthem, understand it, and enjoy it. But, you're definitely weird to think "Catcher in the Rye" is shallow. Perhaps you like a lot of words in your stories. I don't. Word of advice: Stay away from Hemingway, you won't like it.
SwellJoe 19y ago
"To suggest that anyone -not- read them (for the sake of brevity, no less) is to suggest a reader not experience great, life-changing literature." Brevity is one of the virtues of great literature. You'll probably learn that as you grow older and time becomes more valuable to you. Certainly, great literature can be long (Middlesex is perhaps the best novel of the past 20 years, and it weighs in at a pretty hefty 556 pages...this is still significantly shorter than Atlas), but Atlas Shrugged, as art, suffers under the weight of the philosophical treatise that it's carrying around on its back (much like the mythic Atlas, and yes, I believe he should shrug off all that extra weight). The Fountainhead is somewhat less marred by needless words, but only Anthem is actually free of cruft, in my opinion. "Her objectivist philosophy may be a bit overt in the latter, but never for a second could I sleep well knowing I'd proposed that others -skip- these books." People who like what they find in the shorter Rand books will go on to read the others. People who get stuck in the mud of Galt's speech will never pickup another Rand book. That speech is simply terrible literature. It might be good philosophy, but it's not good art.

by rrival 19y ago

rms 19y ago

We should be explicitly working towards the advancement of human civilization instead of working for rational self-interest.

dfens 19y ago
The way you've phrased that makes it sound as if you're telling people to be irrational.
uuilly 19y ago
"Man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress." -Ayn Rand Her books make the case that individuals working in their own self interest are the best thing for "human civilization." Disagree if you will, but you'll have a tough time coming up with a definition of "advancement of human civilization" that everyone can agree on. In the end you fight for your own vision of what the world should be and ignore the rest. Might is right. Ignore that at your own peril. Especially if you're in a startup.
- rms 19y ago
  >you'll have a tough time coming up with a definition of "advancement of human civilization" that everyone can agree on No, I think it's easy, we've got a great way to measure progress. We call it "power." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
  - uuilly 19y ago
    Where does Brittany Spears fit in the Kardashev Scale? There a millions of people that think she is more important than energy consumption. Should we put them all in the gas chamber? Even if we let them live, Kardashev, brilliant though he may be, has hardly come up w/ a universal set of values that everyone is, should, or will eventually strive for. The best you can do is to absorb his ideals, spread his word and create technology that furthers his goals. And in doing that you become an Ayn Rand follower.
    - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
      > Where does Brittany Spears fit in the Kardashev Scale? There a millions of people that think she is more important than energy consumption. Should we put them all in the gas chamber? Only if we can use them as fuel.
      - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
        (You guys do get that I'm joking, right...?)
        rms 19y ago
        These crazy Rand zealots have no sense of humor. :P
        uuilly 19y ago
        You're probably right. By definition we take ourselves too seriously. But I think what you're seeing has been a long time coming. The Rand Zealots in the tech world have been lurking in the corners of Slashdot, Digg and Reddit listening to a cacophony of post modern, no up or down, no left or right emotional bullshit. I for one am sick of armchair socialists, open source evangalists and peddlers of western guilt. We like our one's and zeros but there is a lot we have to put up with to hang. I think this thread has released the Ayn Rand hounds. Political disagreements stem from philosophical disagreements. If two mathematicians were arguing about geometry and one assumed that parallel lines never met and the other assumed they did they would not have a meaningful conversation. The problem with most conversations is they mostly deal with surface issues. Clinton or Obama. Bush or Kerry. Blah or Bleh. Amen to Hacker news for getting to the heart of the matter. And to the the non-Rand-ers, apologies for our intensity and contrarian views. But this conversation will be good for everyone...
jsmcgd 19y ago
I don't see a conflict of interest.
- rms 19y ago
  OK, there isn't one. I lost here, I forgot that Objectivism ends up encompassing any rational belief so it's hard to argue against it.
  - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
    Well, it doesn't. The exact rational beliefs that Objectivism encompasses were very carefully laid out by Rand before her death, and all other opinions, beliefs or perspectives were explicitly denounced as irrational. It's hard to take anything seriously that on the one hand says "reject irrationality, think for yourself, reach your own conclusion!" and on the other hand says "but the only way you'll know, and we'll accept, that you're being rational is that you'll reach these conclusions here". And of course, her primary error is that humans are rational beings. We're not. We're evolved animals, and one of the things we've evolved is the ability to rationalise behaviours that stem from thoroughly irrational sources. That a whole bunch of bright self-made and aspiring individualists who prefer doing to theorising have a lot of time for someone who essentially gave them a way to feel just great about both means and ends which have caused pain to other people+ is hardly surprising; but it's correlation, not cause. Indeed, I suspect that the people who readily accept Rand would basically have thought and acted that way anyway, but would have found an alternative, less satisfying, justification for doing so (for example, the economical justification of the Austrians). The importance of Rand to such people is the moral justification she crafted for them. + Note, I'm not passing moral judgement here; what makes us feel guilty about our actions is the combination of empathy with knowledge of the pain we have caused someone else - but we can alleviate that guilt if we can convince ourselves it's for a greater good; and there is no greater good than to have done what is morally right.
    - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
      Actually, I was thinking about this on the way into Sheffield, and I was wrong to use the term "the pain we cause"; I think what I actually mean is "the pain we have the means to prevent", which does encompass cause, but also covers things like survivor guilt as well. Rand's work allows people to admit that they do have the means to prevent the suffering of others (rather than pretending that they don't, which is dishonest), and yet to maintain that preventing that suffering would in fact be immoral, rather than merely impractical, unhelpful or counterproductive.

paul 19y ago

"Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I am never reading again." -- police officer Barbrady, South Park (1998) I made it about 1/3 of the way into The Fountainhead but got bored and lost interest. Self-interest is ok, but I'm not going to make it my religion. The architect who wouldn't design what people like (because it wasn't rational, as I recall) seemed like a really annoying person to deal with. And I certainly wouldn't want to invest in his startup :)

uuilly 19y ago
Clever, I just voted you up, but consider the Apple vs. MS saga. One may have been a better investment, but which one is better?
- paul 19y ago
  The funny thing is that the answer to both question is unclear. For investment, it definitely depends on when you invested: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z... http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=MSFT&l=on&z... The same goes for the early years btw -- apple had it's IPO much sooner than ms. As for which product or company is better, that depends on what you're looking for. I don't believe that there is a single best solution. It's obvious that they both make products that meet a lot of people's needs.
rrival 19y ago
Perhaps if you'd realized that The Fountainhead is based on the life of Frank Lloyd Wright or that by tirelessly adhering to existing architectural principles you're continuing to develop derivative crap, you might see what he did as a bit more revolutionary and appreciate what her message was a bit more. I couldn't put it down, but then, I don't really watch South Park.
- gwenhwyfaer 19y ago

pg 19y ago

I advised myself to skip them, and I'm happy so far with that advice.

zach 19y ago
Me too. Having detested Catcher in the Rye and Slaughterhouse Five as a teen, I stopped reading books that seemed to only be popular within the context of being a teenager. It was definitely a good move.
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
- SwellJoe 19y ago
  Whoah, you're weird. Salinger and Vonnegut are Good (with a capital G).
  - dfranke 19y ago
    Wow, we're definitely on opposite sides of this one. Atlas Shrugged is on my list of life-changing books. I've long since moved on from objectivism (I'm now a Rothbardian), but it was Rand who first got me thinking coherently about property and social obligation. OTOH, I found Cather in the Rye pretty shallow, and Slaughter Five just seemed like dada. Vonnegut did some great work (Harrison Bergeron comes to mind), but that book is not among it.
    - SwellJoe 19y ago
      "Wow, we're definitely on opposite sides of this one." Not sure where you got that. All of my posts on this topic should make clear that I'm a very big Rand fan, and have read all of her books (really, all of them). I would never call myself a SOME-PERSONS-NAMEian of any sort, so perhaps that's the difference. I do sometimes refer to myself as an anarcho-capitalist, so, philosophically, your Rothbardian views and mine probably coincide more than they differ. ;-) I actually did enjoy Atlas Shrugged. But the speech is too much, the book too long (by about half), and the characters are weak (for such a long book). When I first started reading Rand, I wanted to share her books with everybody. So I recommended Atlas, her opus, to everybody I knew. None of them made it through the book. All got bogged down in the speech, and either gave up, or skimmed the rest of it. Even people who were reasonably heavy readers (though mostly pulp) still couldn't stomach the whole thing. I started recommending Anthem after that, and everybody made it through...everybody enjoyed it...and some went on to read other Rand books (I recommend The Fountainhead next). I still believe that intelligent people can get everything they really need to know about Rand's philosophy from Anthem. And, of course, dumb folks can actually read Anthem, understand it, and enjoy it. But, you're definitely weird to think "Catcher in the Rye" is shallow. Perhaps you like a lot of words in your stories. I don't. Word of advice: Stay away from Hemingway, you won't like it.

SwellJoe 19y ago

"To suggest that anyone -not- read them (for the sake of brevity, no less) is to suggest a reader not experience great, life-changing literature." Brevity is one of the virtues of great literature. You'll probably learn that as you grow older and time becomes more valuable to you. Certainly, great literature can be long (Middlesex is perhaps the best novel of the past 20 years, and it weighs in at a pretty hefty 556 pages...this is still significantly shorter than Atlas), but Atlas Shrugged, as art, suffers under the weight of the philosophical treatise that it's carrying around on its back (much like the mythic Atlas, and yes, I believe he should shrug off all that extra weight). The Fountainhead is somewhat less marred by needless words, but only Anthem is actually free of cruft, in my opinion. "Her objectivist philosophy may be a bit overt in the latter, but never for a second could I sleep well knowing I'd proposed that others -skip- these books." People who like what they find in the shorter Rand books will go on to read the others. People who get stuck in the mud of Galt's speech will never pickup another Rand book. That speech is simply terrible literature. It might be good philosophy, but it's not good art.