Im just curious who here has read all or part of this book. Did you agree or disagree with what you read?
I read it for the essay contest ($10,000 to the winner) and I found it very engaging, though in the end unpersuasive. She was clearly a very intelligent woman.

One thing thats strange to me is the way alot of devout christians love this book. It makes me wonder if they actually read it......? She spends alot of time in that book attacking christianity so its hard for me to see why christians love her so much, except that she advocates for the kind of economics they favor. But yeah she says some really nasty things about christianity: belief in God is based on a willful refusal to think, christian ethics leads directly to dictatorship - in one place she even quotes jesus and shows how wrong he is. Dont get me wrong shes entitled to her opinion but how is it that Christians go along with this? Her whole view point is diametrically opposed to whats in the bible.

So... yeah... any thoughts on this book?

I read it in the summer between high school and college. I enjoyed it, actually. I was it's target audience: relatively naive intelligent kid that felt that he could relate to the misunderstood geniuses of the book. I out grew that, and with it my objectiveness leanings over time.

I actually like it as an alternate history story. A lot of people hate the plot and the characters, and maybe they're right, but I found the slowly building collapse of society interesting to read about. I felt bad for poor eddie at the end though.

Haven't read it, though it is on my "To Read" list.

yes.... everyone can see themselves as the misunderstood genius of a misunderstood genius story. instant identification. commercially very safe. Enders Game was kind of like that too.... Objectivism has a nice, satisfying compactness and internal logic to it.... but it has the faults of its virtues - its narrow, it only accounts for a part of the human experience. I find it particularly annoying how to Ayn Rand the only production is material production. I mean she talks about the mind all the time but really what that tends to result in is producing and acquiring things. Theres more to life than things.

I thought alot of her social commentary was pretty good. The way the society collapsed, yes.... I thought her polar opposite world - the utopia at galts gulch - was pretty absurd. "over here a distinguished judge and philosopher is contentedly raising pigs. mmm mmm good bacon." what a bunch of nonsense. would never happen. She was spot on about shifting the blame and never taking responsibility. As near as I can tell this is 1 activity occupies the majority of many Americans days.

I like the idea of a society coming slowly apart, it's a really fascinating idea. Everything else is gak.

Before you even look at the politics of the thing, it needs to be acknowledged that is a very poorly written piece of fiction. It just isn't acceptable to stop in the middle of the climax and have a character give a monologue for about 50 pages. The prose is stilted, and the characters are not at all real - they're pastiches that act in silly ways to demonstrate Rand's ideas. If the novel were to be judged on as a piece of fiction it never would have sold out it's first edition, yet it's had countless reprints.

So what's in the philosophy that's so appealing? Basically Rand creates a number of extremely gifted supermen and puts them in charge of major companies, and says these men are the sole reason why these companies succeed, and the reason why society progresses. Everything that restricts or limits these men is bad and will destroy society. It is a fantasy that allows the reader to presume he is one of those geniuses, held back by our society. This has great appeal to the smart kid who was is getting picked on in highschool. It has just as much appeal to the over-confident kid who's just got his first pay cheque and seen the government took $200 - if only that was still his money and he could buy things and gain the status he deserves.

You know how you'll meet an idiot on your university campus who announces himself as a communist and goes off on rants about the evils of corporations or whatever. Well that guy is stupid in exactly the same ways as Rand and her followers are. They've rejected the complexities of society and life, and embraced a very simple view that places themselves as it's victim and some other group as it's perpetrators. The communists just chose to hate the rich, the Randians chose to hate the poor and the government. Everything else is much the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:One thing thats strange to me is the way alot of devout christians love this book. It makes me wonder if they actually read it......? She spends alot of time in that book attacking christianity so its hard for me to see why christians love her so much, except that she advocates for the kind of economics they favor.

You know, it wasn't so long ago that christians were are large part of progressive, socially minded economics. And given what Jesus kept talking about, I can't see why that shouldn't be the case.

One of the worst things about the evangelical movement in the US forming a close alliance with the conservatives is how much it's changed their own views on economics.

sebster wrote:
You know how you'll meet an idiot on your university campus who announces himself as a communist and goes off on rants about the evils of corporations or whatever. Well that guy is stupid in exactly the same ways as Rand and her followers are. They've rejected the complexities of society and life, and embraced a very simple view that places themselves as it's victim and some other group as it's perpetrators. The communists just chose to hate the rich, the Randians chose to hate the poor and the government. Everything else is much the same.

Word.

I like Ayn Rand's books but only because I like the idea of ideals turned into fairly 2 dimensional characters and played out. I thought The Fountainhead was better overall (Howard Roark is one of my favorite fictional badasses).

Edit: A favorite quote:

"Now, talk. Talk about the things you really want said. Don't tell me about your family, your childhood, your friends or your feelings. Tell me about the things you think"
Mallory looked at him incredulously and whispered:
"How did you know that?"
Roark smiled and said nothing.
"How did you know what's been killing me? Slowly, for years, driving me to hate people when I don't want to hate.... Have you felt it, too? Have you seen how your best friends love everything about you--except the things that count? And your most important is nothing to them, nothing, not even a sound they can recognize. You mean, you want to hear? You want to know what I do and why I do it, you want to know what I think? It's not boring to you? It's important?"
"Go ahead," said Roark.
Then he sat for hours, listening, while Mallory spoke of his work, of the thoughts behind his work, of the thoughts that shaped his life, spoke gluttonously, like a drowning man flung out to shore, getting drunk on huge, clean snatches of air.

Yeah, I think sebster's right - that's awfully wooden prose.

I'm happy to see you guys have this locked down really well as this book appeals to a sort of emotionally and mentally stunted personality type that's all too common among gamers. Seriously, Rand will rot your brain, kids.

She's sort of like Steinbeck in the gray, coldness of her description, but instead of describing a dusty field for 7 pages she talks about how scummy and weak charity workers look and how badass and unfeeling her main characters are

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

No, says the man in Washington; it belongs to the poor.
No, says the man in the Vatican; it belongs to God.
No, says the man in Moscow; it belongs to everyone.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose...

Rapture.

A city where the artist would not fear the censor.
Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality.
Where the great would not be constrained by the small.
And with the sweat of your brow,
Rapture can become your city as well.


No, wait, that was Andrew Ryan, not Ayn Rand.

Also, don't ever compare Steinbeck to Rand, as Steinbeck actually could write; his Pulitzer and Nobel prize are the most obvious tip-offs. His descriptions weren't wooden or lacking in human dimension. If you really want unending pages of description that go on and on, you need Henry Melville or perhaps Cooper (of the James Fenimore variety).

Ha, I don't claim to be a literature junkie so I won't argue :p I just couldn't stand reading Steinbeck in school. "The woman is breastfeeding the homeless guy! It's nearly over!" comes to mind

Hmmmm- I think a fitting analogy would be that Ayn Rand is the CS Goto of philosophical fiction. You'll enjoy her, right up until you actually learn something about philosophy.

I should admit that I only read The Fountainhead, but that was enough for me.

Which reminds me, isn't there a term for when an author has a character that essentially a mouthpiece for themselves? I can't remember it now.

sebster wrote:
You know, it wasn't so long ago that christians were are large part of progressive, socially minded economics. And given what Jesus kept talking about, I can't see why that shouldn't be the case.

One of the worst things about the evangelical movement in the US forming a close alliance with the conservatives is how much it's changed their own views on economics.

Yes. the alliance between christian conservatives and economic conservatives is extremely bizarre to me. The christian ethic and the free market ethic are polar opposites. As Ayn Rand points out 1 views money as the root of all evil the other as the root of all good.

The Republican party could never survive without the votes of "wal mart republicans" - people who dont have any money but vote republican. They're voting to impoverish themselves and make their employers richer why? Because they dont like the gays or abortion or they think the president is a muslim. They're basically allowing themselves to be duped because they want to vote their prejudices. Oh well if they go along with it they deserve what they get.
AF

Ahtman wrote:Which reminds me, isn't there a term for when an author has a character that essentially a mouthpiece for themselves? I can't remember it now.

A "raisonneur" IIRC.

sebster wrote:I like the idea of a society coming slowly apart, it's a really fascinating idea. Everything else is gak.

Before you even look at the politics of the thing, it needs to be acknowledged that is a very poorly written piece of fiction. It just isn't acceptable to stop in the middle of the climax and have a character give a monologue for about 50 pages. The prose is stilted, and the characters are not at all real - they're pastiches that act in silly ways to demonstrate Rand's ideas. If the novel were to be judged on as a piece of fiction it never would have sold out it's first edition, yet it's had countless reprints.

So what's in the philosophy that's so appealing? Basically Rand creates a number of extremely gifted supermen and puts them in charge of major companies, and says these men are the sole reason why these companies succeed, and the reason why society progresses. Everything that restricts or limits these men is bad and will destroy society. It is a fantasy that allows the reader to presume he is one of those geniuses, held back by our society. This has great appeal to the smart kid who was is getting picked on in highschool. It has just as much appeal to the over-confident kid who's just got his first pay cheque and seen the government took $200 - if only that was still his money and he could buy things and gain the status he deserves.

You know how you'll meet an idiot on your university campus who announces himself as a communist and goes off on rants about the evils of corporations or whatever. Well that guy is stupid in exactly the same ways as Rand and her followers are. They've rejected the complexities of society and life, and embraced a very simple view that places themselves as it's victim and some other group as it's perpetrators. The communists just chose to hate the rich, the Randians chose to hate the poor and the government. Everything else is much the same.

I agree with all this. I think her mixing of philosophy and drama can potentially work. Frank Herbert did it in Dune after all. But yeah the plot is absurd. Rearden loves Dagny but then decides half way through "Galt can have him he's the better man." Get out of here. What a bunch of nonsense. The plot was never all that interesting but after about page 700 I just started skipping it entirely.

Ahtman wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

No, says the man in Washington; it belongs to the poor.
No, says the man in the Vatican; it belongs to God.
No, says the man in Moscow; it belongs to everyone.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose...

Rapture.

A city where the artist would not fear the censor.
Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality.
Where the great would not be constrained by the small.
And with the sweat of your brow,
Rapture can become your city as well.


No, wait, that was Andrew Ryan, not Ayn Rand.

Also, don't ever compare Steinbeck to Rand, as Steinbeck actually could write; his Pulitzer and Nobel prize are the most obvious tip-offs. His descriptions weren't wooden or lacking in human dimension. If you really want unending pages of description that go on and on, you need Henry Melville or perhaps Cooper (of the James Fenimore variety).

or Mein Kampf perhaps? Ooo Godwin's law activate!

reds8n wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Which reminds me, isn't there a term for when an author has a character that essentially a mouthpiece for themselves? I can't remember it now.

A "raisonneur" IIRC.

RAISONNEUR - TWS/Bingo - 80 points

Hey guys. I just gotta say. Ayn Rand seems a very intelligent theorist, and a completely lousy writer. The characters are so one sided and the plot of her ideals gets hammered so far down your throat every other page.

I first read the Fountainhead and was very engaged by Howard Roark's idealism as I was in a place myself similar to his, frustrated by being forced into mediocrity and working dirty jobs and bosses who were dumber and less creative than I percieved myself to be.

I read Atlas Shrugged a few years later and I was appalled by her characterization of John Galt as the perfect 'get things done' guy. Nobody like that exists. Ms. Rand wanted it to exist, but it doesn't. There is no 'perfect' burger flipper to whisk off into a velley to make your burgers because he is so good at it. There is just burger flippers who do it because they have to, and they don't really care if the burger is good or not just as long as they get their piddly little check and don't get a complaint to their boss. Reality is not an idealistic affair with what it 'would' be like if only the smart people made decisions. Reality is that bureaucracies function slowly and systematically for a reason to keep the entire society on some (acknowledgably flawed) functioning level.

The Fountainhead seemed like an inspiration for creative minds.

Atlas Shrugged seemed like an elitist pep-talk for people who think they know they are better than others. Sorry we can't all be John Galt, ms. Rand.

Gitzbitah wrote:Hmmmm- I think a fitting analogy would be that Ayn Rand is the CS Goto of philosophical fiction. You'll enjoy her, right up until you actually learn something about philosophy.

I don't think multilazors count as a philosophy.

True, but both authors make you realize exactly what's missing in their work. Goto's work is missing any semblance to 40k, and Rand's work is missing any to philosophy or reason. Compare to anything, say, Umberto Eco has written.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

No, says the man in Washington; it belongs to the poor.
No, says the man in the Vatican; it belongs to God.
No, says the man in Moscow; it belongs to everyone.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose...

Rapture.

A city where the artist would not fear the censor.
Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality.
Where the great would not be constrained by the small.
And with the sweat of your brow,
Rapture can become your city as well.


No, wait, that was Andrew Ryan, not Ayn Rand.

Also, don't ever compare Steinbeck to Rand, as Steinbeck actually could write; his Pulitzer and Nobel prize are the most obvious tip-offs. His descriptions weren't wooden or lacking in human dimension. If you really want unending pages of description that go on and on, you need Henry Melville or perhaps Cooper (of the James Fenimore variety).

or Mein Kampf perhaps? Ooo Godwin's law activate!

Ha! Fascist apologist was the first thing I thought when I read that extract too.

I don't know that Rand's work is "missing" anything. Is it the greatest thing you've ever read? If you really like her views, probably. She didn't try to write the best stories ever,a ll she did was take an ideal to the extreme and put it in character form. She wrote "man as he ought to be" in her mind, and I believe she got her point across rather well. I guess I'm asking what she did "wrong" if the things people are complaining about was what she was trying to accomplish in the first place?

Yeah, Ayn Rand is pretty good. Wouldn't think of Roark as a badass though, I think he would be like that punk who sits in the corner all day and get the fact that he's an egotistical moron.

I mean, he blew up the houses being developed for the poor because his designs were changed. Rand said it was because it would raise the cost of the housing and went against its own ideals, but it could also mean that Rourke was having a tantrum and needed to blame someone else besides himself. Also, destroying the things you love so nobody else can have them? That's greed and borderline gluttony if we're talking about pie, and I can destroy some pie.

She caught my attention in middleschool and then I read the fountainhead for the same grant and found it difficult answering the grant essay questions because I really didn't believe in Rand's point.

I sent my essay in late anyways so I wasted my time reading that book.

@orkeosaurus
Multilasors don't, but Kill, Maim, Burn does. The multilasors are just a tool to enforce the philosophy.

I guess the things Ayn Rand was missing were things like respect for human dignity and tolerance. I suppose that isn't a crime, nor is it a crime to write poorly, but it doesn't mean her work is worth reading.

There's a difference between me saying her books aren't complete gak and saying I agree with her. I think she's worth a chin scratch or two but no more so than anything else. Her philosophy obviously didn't pan out in her own life very well. There is something to realizing that nobody owes anyone anything though. I think it makes it more special when someone freely gives then. Likewise when one can do what they want creatively because they wanted to, and they don't have to be ashamed by it. I love to hear passionate people speak about what they want to, and I like to do the same, letting the passion itself be the virtue and recognizing idle chitchat as sometimes a completely waste of my life. But whatever, her books are meant to be about as realistic as 40k and she even said that herself. The difference is she may well have believed it could work on a large scale when evidence and common sense would prove otherwise.

You and everyone else I know! What is this obsession with objectivism? I've got four friends who keep talking about this book like it's the bible. What's it about?

It will wear off. It kinda strips humans of their humanity, which lets you become much more focused, but makes it hard to relate to others sometimes when you'd actually want to. Does help you sift through unnecessary crap though

hmmm. what is it about? It's about people who have the world handed to them feeling unjustly held back by people who didn't. Not necessarily janded to them by birthright or money, but handed to them by their level of elite competence in whatever endeavor they are suited to. Remember that Rand had a deep hatred of communism that she grew up with, so her idea of being 'not-allowed-to-stand-out' is kind of extreme. So instead of becoming a mediocre factory worker, she became a mediocre (and that's being generous) writer, spouting her elitism for all of us plebians to read and bow down to.

"Yes miss Rand, I don't know how to fix a railway. Sorry. Neither does any single person unassisted by others but evidently competent at all things. When we get stuck on a desert island and start resorting to canibalism, you are first in the cookpot. You did say you could make the best of yourself so society would be bettered, didn't you? Well in you go.... can someone pass me the other drumstick? Hey Steinbeck... I'm talking to you. Damnit DO I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING MYSELF!??!" You're next Steinbeck... and Chomsky sounds tasty too... Chom Chom CHom. I knew he was named that for a reason.

Awesome spider is already way ahead of you Guiti. Rebel scum are particularly tasty.

sorry bout that last bit. I have a deep resentment for armchair thinkers who think they are better than the people who make their food. Comes from having an academic father I guess.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I don't know that Rand's work is "missing" anything. Is it the greatest thing you've ever read? If you really like her views, probably. She didn't try to write the best stories ever,a ll she did was take an ideal to the extreme and put it in character form. She wrote "man as he ought to be" in her mind, and I believe she got her point across rather well. I guess I'm asking what she did "wrong" if the things people are complaining about was what she was trying to accomplish in the first place?

Well maybe her characters are "man as he should be" but they are not "man as he is" or even "man as he is capable of being."
She has bizarre ideas about what motivates human beings. I guess that would be my complaint. Theres alot more to a romantic relationship, for instance, than a trade of value for value, or to labor relations than a free and unforced agreement. Basically to AR there are two categories of people: heroes of industry and communist moochers. It's reductionist and silly.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Samus_aran115 wrote:You and everyone else I know! What is this obsession with objectivism? I've got four friends who keep talking about this book like it's the bible. What's it about?

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_peikoff_intro
this is a lecture given by Ayn Rands #1 disciple, Leonard Peikoff. He explains it pretty clearly but it takes a while because its a whole system of thought.
The upshot of it is:
1. there is no god.
2. communism is a fraud
3. taxes are robbery
4. get to work.

AF

Where did I say "man as he should be?" I said "man as he ought to be" (her words). These characters are her idea of a perfect person. The goal of her book was to show her ideas of her perfect person. I'd say she succeeded by the reactions being given, and that's all I was driving at. I could even go all tin hat here and say that you're the exact kind of enemy she was talking about, assuming that she should change her ideas and how she would write according to blah blah blah self righteous blah *pistol in mouth* That's like reading Christian fiction and expecting it to give a balanced view of other faiths.

errrr.... whats the difference between should and ought.... exactly....?

well yes thats the thing about objectivism.... it lets you pigeonhole people you dont like as "moochers" or "people who refuse to think clearly." Its very satisfying in a self-fulfilling reductionist circular-logic kind of way.....

I understand that the point of the book was political advocacy. What I'm saying is that she could have made a more convincing case by portraying people as they are, rather than as she wishes they would be. To use her own phrase, she wants A to be not A. She wants people to not be what they are.
AF

Should and ought have very different connotations to me, though that might just be me. Should sounds like a command and ought sounds like a suggestion.

In her mind they could be. We're getting off topic though. Basically I feel her book wasn't missing anything based on random standards. If that were the case I could say the Grapes of Wrath was incomplete because there weren't enough scenes with Godzilla. And in the same way that the Grapes of Wrath would be a bit less effective at communicating what it was trying to with Godzilla in it (albeit more entertaining IMO), her books wouldn't be the same without 2-dimensional highly idealized and overall romantically-confused characters.

ok.... ought to be.... whatever.

well if she thinks every business tycoon ought to be a philosopher or that judges and lawyers will contentedly raise pigs if they dont get their way politically shes obviously out of her mind. has zero correspondence to observed human behavior.

yes grapes of wrath would have been more entertaining if it had a little more godzilla. Really theres no book or movie that couldnt be improved in that way...... hmmmm....

yes they wouldnt be the same without the cardboard characters. they'd be...... better.
AF

I enjoy the work of Marin Amis because I too think that humans are basically vile, selfish, cynical, amoral and ugly creatures lacking in any inherent goodness.

Great writer.

Don't forget we're lousy spellers.

I too choose despair as a form of entertainment....

No, his books are very often laugh-out-loud funny. Will Self is another good author in a similar vein. 'The Book of Dave' is VERY funny, and really bleak at the same time.

Atlas Shrugged?

Rather than respond in my own words, I will allow Michael Prescott to respond for me:

Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman

by

Michael Prescott

Part One: Ayn Rand's "real man"

Recently I was rereading Scott Ryan's fascinating, albeit highly technical, critique of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality, and getting a lot more out of it the second time, when I came across a fact culled from a posthumous collection of Rand's journal entries.

In her journal circa 1928 Rand quoted the statement, "What is good for me is right," a credo attributed to a prominent figure of the day, William Edward Hickman. Her response was enthusiastic. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted. (Quoted in Ryan, citing Journals of Ayn Rand, pp. 21-22.)

At the time, she was planning a novel that was to be titled The Little Street, the projected hero of which was named Danny Renahan. According to Rand scholar Chris Matthew Sciabarra, she deliberately modeled Renahan - intended to be her first sketch of her ideal man - after this same William Edward Hickman. Renahan, she enthuses in another journal entry, "is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." (Journals, pp. 27, 21-22; emphasis hers.)

"A wonderful, free, light consciousness" born of the utter absence of any understanding of "the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people." Obviously, Ayn Rand was most favorably impressed with Mr. Hickman. He was, at least at that stage of Rand's life, her kind of man.

So the question is, who exactly was he?

William Edward Hickman was one of the most famous men in America in 1928. But he came by his fame in a way that perhaps should have given pause to Ayn Rand before she decided that he was a "real man" worthy of enshrinement in her pantheon of fictional heroes.

You see, Hickman was a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer.

Other than that, he was probably a swell guy.

In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com,

"At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area."

Quite a hero, eh? One might question whether Hickman had "a wonderful, free, light consciousness," but surely he did have "no organ for understanding ... the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people."

The mutilations Hickman inflicted on little Marian were worse than reported in the excerpt above. He cut the girl's body in half, and severed her hands (or arms, depending on the source). He drained her torso of blood and stuffed it with bath towels. There were persistent rumors that he molested the girl before killing her, though this claim was officially denied. Overall, the crime is somewhat reminiscent of the 1947 Black Dahlia case, one of the most gruesome homicides in L.A. history.

But Hickman's heroism doesn't end there. He heroically amscrayed to the small town of Echo, Oregon, where he heroically holed up, no doubt believing he had perpetrated the perfect crime. Sadly for him, fingerprints he'd left on one of the ransom notes matched prints on file from his previous conviction for forgery. With his face on Wanted posters everywhere, Hickman was quickly tracked down and arrested. The article continues:

"He was conveyed back to Los Angeles where he promptly confessed to another murder he committed during a drug store hold-up. Eventually, Hickman confessed to a dozen armed robberies. 'This is going to get interesting before it's over,' he told investigators. 'Marion and I were good friends,' he said, 'and we really had a good time when we were together and I really liked her. I'm sorry that she was killed.' Hickman never said why he had killed the girl and cut off her legs."

It seems to me that Ayn Rand's uncritical admiration of a personality this twisted does not speak particularly well for her ability to judge and evaluate the heroic qualities in people. One might go so far as to say that anyone who sees William Edward Hickman as the epitome of a "real man" has some serious issues to work on, and perhaps should be less concerned with trying to convert the world to her point of view than in trying to repair her own damaged psyche. One might also point out that a person who "has no organ for understanding ... the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people" is what we today would call a sociopath.

Was Rand's ideal man a sociopath? The suggestion seems shockingly unfair - until you read her very own words.

No doubt defenders of Ayn Rand, and there are still a few left, would reply that the journal entry in question was written when she was only in her early twenties and still under the spell of Nietzsche, that as her thinking developed she discarded such Nietzschean elements and evolved a more rational outlook, and that the mature Rand should not be judged by the mistakes of her youth. And this might be a perfectly reasonable position to take. Unquestionably Rand's outlook did change, and her point of view did become at least somewhat less hostile to what the average, normal person would regard as healthy values.

But before we assume that her admiration of Mr. Hickman was merely a quirk of her salad days, let's consider a few other quotes from Ayn Rand cited in Scott Ryan's book.

In her early notes for The Fountainhead: "One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself. Fine!" (Journals, p. 78.)

Of The Fountainhead's hero, Howard Roark: He "has learned long ago, with his first consciousness, two things which dominate his entire attitude toward life: his own superiority and the utter worthlessness of the world." (Journals, p. 93.)

In the original version of her first novel We the Living: "What are your masses [of humanity] but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" (This declaration is made by the heroine Kira, Rand's stand-in; it is quoted in The Ideas of Ayn Rand by Ronald Merrill, pp. 38 - 39; the passage was altered when the book was reissued years after its original publication.)

On the value of human life: Man "is man only so long as he functions in accordance with the nature of a rational being. When he chooses to function otherwise, he is no longer man. There is no proper name for the thing which he then becomes ... When a man chooses to act in a sub-human manner, it is no longer proper for him to survive nor to be happy." (Journals, pp. 253-254, 288.)

As proof that her Nietzschean thinking persisted long after her admirers think she abandoned it, this journal entry from 1945, two years subsequent to the publication of The Fountainhead: "Perhaps we really are in the process of evolving from apes to Supermen -- and the rational faculty is the dominant characteristic of the better species, the Superman." (Journals, p. 285.)

So perhaps her thinking did not change quite so much, after all.

And what of William Edward Hickman? What ever became of the man who served as the early prototype of the Randian Superman?

Real life is not fiction, and Hickman's personal credo, which so impressed Ayn Rand - "what is right for me is good" - does not seem to have worked out very well for him. At first he heroically tried to weasel out of the murder rap by implicating another man, but the intended fall guy turned out to have an airtight alibi (he was in prison at the time). Then he heroically invoked the insanity defense – the first use of this tactic in American history. This effort likewise failed, and in 1928 he was sentenced to death by hanging, to be carried out at San Quentin later that same year.

Hickman reportedly "died yellow" - he was dragged, trembling and fainting, to his execution, his courtroom bravado having given way at last.

Part Two: It just gets worse

After writing the above, I found myself questioning whether it was really possible that Ayn Rand admired William Edward Hickman, the child kidnapper and multiple murderer whose credo Rand quotes with unblinking approval in her journal. Although my opinion of Rand is very low, it has never been quite that low, and I was, after all, relying on secondhand sources. Not having a copy of Journals of Ayn Rand, I thought I was unable to check for myself. Then it occurred to me to use Amazon.com's "Search inside" feature to read the relevant pages.

What I found was, in some ways, actually worse than anything the brief excerpts from the journals had suggested.

Clearly the editor of Journals of Ayn Rand had some qualms about Rand's open admiration of Hickman. He tries to put this admiration into perspective, writing:

"For reasons given in the following notes, AR concluded that the intensity of the public's hatred was primarily 'because of the man who committed the crime and not because of the crime he committed.' The mob hated Hickman for his independence; she chose him as a model for the same reason.

"Hickman served as a model for [her fictional hero] Danny [Renahan] only in strictly limited respects, which AR names in her notes. And he does commit a crime in the story, but it is nothing like Hickman's. To guard against any misinterpretation, I quote her own statement regarding the relationship between her hero and Hickman:

" '[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me.' "

The editor also provides the briefest and most detail-free synopsis of Hickman's crime possible: "He was accused of kidnapping and murdering a young girl. He was found guilty and sentenced to death in February of 1928; he was hanged on October 20, 1928."

As far as I can tell, this is the one and only reference to Hickman's victim to be found anywhere in the book. Ayn Rand never mentions the victim at all in any of her journal entries. The closest she comes is a sneering reference to another girl, "who wrote a letter to Hickman [in jail], asking him 'to get religion so that little girls everywhere would stop being afraid of him.'"

Notice that the editor does not bother to tell us that the victim in question was twelve years old, that Hickman tormented her parents with mocking ransom notes, that Hickman killed the girl even though the parents paid the ransom money, or that Hickman cut the girl in half and threw her upper body onto the street in front of her horrified father while scattering her other body parts around the city of Los Angeles.

This is the Hickman whose "outside" so intrigued the young Ayn Rand.

Now here are some of Rand's notes on the fictional hero she was developing, with Hickman (or what he "suggested") as a model:

"Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen -- it's inborn, absolute, it can't be changed, he has 'no organ' to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.' "

"He shows how impossible it is for a genuinely beautiful soul to succeed at present, for in all [aspects of] modern life, one has to be a hypocrite, to bend and tolerate. This boy wanted to command and smash away things and people he didn't approve of."

Apparently what Hickman suggested to Ayn Rand was "a genuinely beautiful soul." The soul of Marian Parker, the murdered girl, evidently did not suggest any comparably romantic notions to her.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is a term for a person who has "no organ" by which to understand other human beings -- a person who "can never realize and feel 'other people.'" That word is sociopath. I mean this quite literally and not as a rhetorical flourish. A sociopath, by definition, is someone who lacks empathy and cannot conceive of other people as fully real. It is precisely because the sociopath objectifies and depersonalizes other human beings that he is able to inflict pain and death without remorse.

It is also fair to say of any sociopath that he "wanted to command and smash away things and people he didn't approve of." How this relates to having "a beautiful soul" is unclear to me -- and I earnestly hope it will continue to be.

In her notes, Rand complains that poor Hickman has become the target of irrational and ugly mob psychology:

"The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...

"This is not just the case of a terrible crime. It is not the crime alone that has raised the fury of public hatred. It is the case of a daring challenge to society. It is the fact that a crime has been committed by one man, alone; that this man knew it was against all laws of humanity and intended that way; that he does not want to recognize it as a crime and that he feels superior to all. It is the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul."

Before we get to the meat of this statement, let us pause to consider Rand's claim that average members of the public are "beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives." Worse sins and crimes and kidnapping, murdering, and mutilating a helpless little girl? If Rand honestly believed that the average American had worse skeletons than that in his closet, then her opinion of "the average man" is even lower than I had suspected.

We get an idea of the "sins and crimes" of ordinary people when Rand discusses the jury in the case: "Average, everyday, rather stupid looking citizens. Shabbily dressed, dried, worn looking little men. Fat, overdressed, very average, 'dignified' housewives. How can they decide the fate of that boy? Or anyone's fate?"

Their sin, evidently, is that they are "average," a word that appears twice in three sentences. They are "shabbily dressed" or, conversely, "overdressed" -- in matters of fashion, Rand seems hard to please. They are "dried" and "worn," or they are "fat." They are, in short, an assault on the delicate sensibilities of the author. Anything "average" appalls her. "Extremist beyond all extreme is what we need!" she exclaims in another entry. Well, in his cruelty and psychopathic insanity, Hickman was an extremist, for sure. Nothing "average" about him!

Returning to the longer quote above, notice how briskly Rand dismisses the possibility that the public's anger might have been motivated by the crime per se. Apparently the horrendous slaying of a little girl is not enough, in Rand's mind, to justify public outrage against the murderer. No, what the public really objects to is "a daring challenge to society." I suppose this is one way of looking at Hickman's actions. By the same logic, Jack the Ripper and Ted Bundy posed "a daring challenge to society." So did Adolf Hitler, only on a larger scale.

Hickman, she writes, knew that his crime "was against all laws of humanity" -- this is a point in his favor, she seems to think. And "he does not want to recognize it as a crime." Well, neither does any criminal who rationalizes his behavior by saying that his victim "had it coming." Hickman "feels superior to all." Yes, so do most sociopaths. Grandiosity and narcissistic self-absorption are another characteristic of this personality type. Hickman has "a consciousness all his own"; he is a "man who really stands alone, in action and in soul." I cannot think of any comment about this that would be suitable for public consumption.

Although the American people showed no sympathy for Hickman, Ayn Rand certainly did:

"And when we look at the other side of it -- there is a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy turned into a purposeless monster. By whom? By what? Is it not by that very society that is now yelling so virtuously in its role of innocent victim? He had a brilliant mind, a romantic, adventurous, impatient soul and a straight, uncompromising, proud character. What had society to offer him? A wretched, insane family as the ideal home, a Y.M.C.A. club as social honor, and a bank-page job as ambition and career...

"If he had any desires and ambitions -- what was the way before him? A long, slow, soul-eating, heart-wrecking toil and struggle; the degrading, ignoble road of silent pain and loud compromises....

"A strong man can eventually trample society under his feet. That boy was not strong enough. But is that his crime? Is it his crime that he was too impatient, fiery and proud to go that slow way? That he was not able to serve, when he felt worthy to rule; to obey, when he wanted to command?...

"He was given [nothing with which] to fill his life. What was he offered to fill his soul? The petty, narrow, inconsistent, hypocritical ideology of present-day humanity. All the criminal, ludicrous, tragic nonsense of Christianity and its morals, virtues, and consequences. Is it any wonder that he didn't accept it?"

How exactly she knew that Hickman was "brilliant, unusual, exceptional," or that he "had a brilliant mind, a romantic, adventurous, impatient soul and a straight, uncompromising, proud character" is far from clear. A more realistic portrait of Hickman would show him as a calculating sadist.

For all those who assume that Ayn Rand, as a figure on the political right, would be "tough on crime," please note that she here invokes the hoariest cliches of the "victim of society" mentality. Poor Hickman just couldn't help kidnapping and murdering a little girl -- after all, he had a lousy home life and an unfulfilling job. And it would be asking too much of such a superior soul to put forth the long, sustained effort necessary to rise to a position of power and influence by means of his own hard work.

Rand's statement here reminds me very much of an attitude often found in career criminals -- that honest work is for suckers.

"A strong man can eventually trample society under his feet." This is about as bald-faced a confession of Rand's utter dependence on Nietzsche as we are ever likely to see. "That boy was not strong enough. But is that his crime?" No, Ayn Rand, that was not his crime. His crime, in case you have forgotten, is that he kidnapped a twelve-year-old girl and held her for ransom and murdered her and cut her to pieces and threw her body parts in the street and laughed about it. That was his crime. True, he did not quite "trample society under his feet" -- but it was not for want of trying.

Oh, but "he was not able to serve, when he felt worthy to rule; to obey, when he wanted to command." How sad for him. There is a point in most people's lives -- usually around the age of fifteen or sixteen -- when they reject authority and want to rule and command. Rand apparently feels that this adolescent hubris represents the best in human nature. A less addled personality would recognize that it represents a passing phase in one's personal development, a phase that a mature human being has long outgrown.

But of course we know the real villain in the picture. Not Hickman, but Christianity! More specifically, "All the criminal, ludicrous, tragic nonsense of Christianity and its morals, virtues, and consequences. Is it any wonder that he didn't accept it?" So it is Christianity that is characterized as "criminal," just as it is average Americans who are excoriated for their "sins and crimes."

In case there is any doubt as to Rand's position vis-a-vis Christianity, a few pages later we find her fulminating against the depravity of:

"... the pastors who try to convert convicted murderers to their religion... The fact that right after his sentence Hickman was given a Bible by the jailer. I don't know of anything more loathsome, hypocritical, low, and diabolical than giving Bibles to men sentenced to death. It is one of those things that's comical in its stupidity and horrid because of this lugubrious, gruesome comedy."

I can think of at least one thing that is "more loathsome ... low, and diabolical than giving Bibles to men sentenced to death." And that is: ripping up little girls for fun and profit.

Incidentally, given Hickman's claim that he ransomed his victim in order to pay for Bible college, the jailer's decision to hand the condemned man a copy of the Good Book seems like poetic justice to me.

Defending her hero, Rand asks rhetorically:

"What could society answer, if that boy were to say: 'Yes. I am a monstrous criminal, but what are you?' "

Well, society could answer: We are the ones who caught you, tried you, convicted you, and are going to put you to death. Or more seriously: We are the ones charged with upholding all those "laws of humanity" that you chose to violate – and now, dear Willie, you must pay the price.

At times, Rand -- who, we must remember, was still quite young when she wrote these notes -- appears to be rather infatuated with the famous and charismatic boy killer. She offers a long paragraph listing all the things she likes about Hickman, somewhat in the manner of a lovestruck teenager recording her favorite details about the lead singer in a boy band. Rand's inventory includes:

"The fact that he looks like 'a bad boy with a very winning grin,' that he makes you like him the whole time you're in his presence..."

You can practically hear the young aspiring author's heart fluttering. I have always been puzzled by the psychology of women who write love letters to serial killers in prison. Somehow I suspect Ayn Rand would have understood them better than I do.

Still writing of Hickman, she confesses to her "involuntary, irresistible sympathy for him, which I cannot help feeling just because of [his antisocial nature] and in spite of everything else." Regarding his credo (the full statement of which is, "I am like the state: what is good for me is right"), Rand writes, "Even if he wasn't big enough to live by that attitude, he deserves credit for saying it so brilliantly."

Remember all the flak taken by Norman Mailer for championing a jailhouse writer and getting the guy paroled, only to have him commit another crime? Here we have Rand enthusing about the "credit" Hickman "deserves" for expressing his twisted philosophy of life "so brilliantly." Get that man on a work release program!

At one point, a sliver of near-rationality breaks through the fog of Rand's delusions: "I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be this at all. In fact, he probably isn't." Her moment of lucidity is short-lived. "But it does not make any difference. If he isn't, he could be, and that's enough." Yes, facts are stubborn things, so it's best to ignore them and live in a land of make-believe. Let's not allow truculent reality to interfere with our dizzying and intoxicating fantasy life.

Punctuating the point, Rand writes, "There is a lot that is purposely, senselessly horrible about him. But that does not interest me..." No indeed. Why should it? It's only reality.

By the appraisal of any normal mind, there can be little doubt that William Edward Hickman was a vicious psychopath of the worst order. That Ayn Rand saw something heroic, brilliant, and romantic in this despicable creature is perhaps the single worst indictment of her that I have come across. It is enough to make me question not only her judgment, but her sanity.

At this point in my life, I did not think it was possible to significantly lower my estimate of Ayn Rand, or to regard her as even more of a psychological and moral mess than I had already taken her to be.

I stand corrected.

Copyright © 2005 by Michael Prescott. All rights reserved.

I think the guy hams it up a bit. Call me nuts, but I can understand respecting someone for a certain aspect of character despite lacking (any, apparently o_o) other aspects. In the end she admits she's not in love with the guy as much as the possibility that what she considers a strong person in an otherwise hopeless (to her) world exists. I get that. I don't frequently get a hard on for serial killers but there was something she saw there that inspired her, so who am I to judge? As for what the dude did, that's messed up undeniably. I'm still undecided on the death penalty regardless of the crime as I can't see how more killing makes it better, but that's another topic.

Samus_aran115 wrote:You and everyone else I know! What is this obsession with objectivism? I've got four friends who keep talking about this book like it's the bible. What's it about?

I can't believe no one has posted this yet.

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Epic! XD

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I agree with all this. I think her mixing of philosophy and drama can potentially work. Frank Herbert did it in Dune after all. But yeah the plot is absurd. Rearden loves Dagny but then decides half way through "Galt can have him he's the better man." Get out of here. What a bunch of nonsense. The plot was never all that interesting but after about page 700 I just started skipping it entirely.

There's a lot of really good fictional novels with their politics at their core. Graham Greene's The Quiet American is about US politics in SE Asia (written before the Vietnam war, it more or less predicted its outcome) and uses it's three main characters to represent Old Europe, Young America and Vietnam respectively. However, because Greene is very talented whereas Rand was not, Greene makes each into a fully realised character, making the novel and it's political views more complex, and more insightful as a result.

I was looking for it but couldn´t find it. Good job Bookwrack!

M.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I don't know that Rand's work is "missing" anything. Is it the greatest thing you've ever read? If you really like her views, probably. She didn't try to write the best stories ever,a ll she did was take an ideal to the extreme and put it in character form. She wrote "man as he ought to be" in her mind, and I believe she got her point across rather well. I guess I'm asking what she did "wrong" if the things people are complaining about was what she was trying to accomplish in the first place?

Thing is, having some people agree with your philosophy doesn't make your philosophy any good. To make her philosophy work, Rand had to write about characters and social relationships that don't exist. A philosophy that requires people and situations outside of the real world is a bad philosophy, and one that is very unlikely to have any real world use.

Yes, people can use simplistic characters to demostrate their philosophy, but if they're any good those simplistic characters rely on a greater truth. William Golding's Lord of the Flies never really fleshed the boys out into real characters, but it's still a great work because there is real insight in it about the nature of man and how our failings are reflected in our society. We have the reason embodied in Ralph, we have the intelligence and education of Piggy, we have the base instincts of Jack.

Compare that to Atlas Shrugged... is there really a conflict between Randian styled ubermensch desiring only the freedom to create, and insipid undermensch looking to control and limit the supermen? It's just a fantasy created by people frustrated by society to explain how they're really awesome and it's just society keeping them down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Samus_aran115 wrote:You and everyone else I know! What is this obsession with objectivism? I've got four friends who keep talking about this book like it's the bible. What's it about?

Objectivism has a whole load of stuff about philosophy, all of which could basically be summed up as "Rand really hated Kant". I could go into it but philisophy is not my strong point so I'd likely get a lot of it wrong, and it's also really boring.

But the big bit that gets everyone's attention are her views on economics, to be honest I suspect that a lot of Randians are only familiar with this part. Basically, Rand argues that the only moral system of government is a completely free capitalist society. Rand imagines each person as a rational, assumes they fully informed and on equal bargaining terms with all others, and argues that therefore society is best served by each person entering into contracts on their on behalf. Rand fails to properly consider the necessity of society in forming property, corporation and contract laws.

Typically Randian discussions tend to dissolve into arguments over whether a person should be able to sign themselves into slavery. The whole thing is a bit ridiculous really, it's probably less practical than classical communism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Where did I say "man as he should be?" I said "man as he ought to be" (her words). These characters are her idea of a perfect person. The goal of her book was to show her ideas of her perfect person. I'd say she succeeded by the reactions being given, and that's all I was driving at. I could even go all tin hat here and say that you're the exact kind of enemy she was talking about, assuming that she should change her ideas and how she would write according to blah blah blah self righteous blah *pistol in mouth* That's like reading Christian fiction and expecting it to give a balanced view of other faiths.

I have no problem with people arguing their own world views, I love it, but when they're finished the rest of us should be able to give our own impressions of that worldview. Rand isn't drawing criticism because she has a different world view, she's drawing criticism because her worldview has serious failings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I think the guy hams it up a bit. Call me nuts, but I can understand respecting someone for a certain aspect of character despite lacking (any, apparently o_o) other aspects. In the end she admits she's not in love with the guy as much as the possibility that what she considers a strong person in an otherwise hopeless (to her) world exists. I get that. I don't frequently get a hard on for serial killers but there was something she saw there that inspired her, so who am I to judge? As for what the dude did, that's messed up undeniably. I'm still undecided on the death penalty regardless of the crime as I can't see how more killing makes it better, but that's another topic.

Sure, Roman Polanski is a great director who raped an underage girl. The horrible nature of his crime doesn't detract from his skills as a director, they're unrelated.

But what Rand saw in Hickman's philosophy of "What is good for me is right" is part and parcel of his sociopathic life. It's one thing to admire an element of a person despite having failings elsewhere, it's another entirely to admire them for a character trait or philosophy that directly led to them doing horrible things.


Also, comics!

Cann
well not to be unfair to Miss Rand the book had alot of really good points and I respect her intellectual rigour. Its not so much that I thought that what she was saying was wrong as that it was incomplete. Theres more to money than life etc. Alot of her villains say that over and over again so maybe Im inviting the label but its really true. Anyway I dont want to be too negative about her. She was very intelligent and I believe intellectually honest. Also what she said about being totally committed to your work, having a love affair with it, not letting small minded people hold you back, overcoming adversity, etc, was pretty good. And alot of her social commentary on stupid people in positions of power was great. Especially the whole thing about the train blowing up in the tunnel bc no one could be bothered to take repsonsibility.

To clarify: I get the feeling that people are thinking I'm some kind of fan boy or something. I don't think she was right. I think she had a few interesting ideas and having read her books made me not have to feel guilty for keeping money in my pocket when I walked past a homeless guy (mainly to counteract my traditional Christian upbringing :p). I also think it's nice to hear that people don't suck entirely, because I think humans are flawed beings in many regards, but I also think we deserve a pat on the back and do a damn good job with what we're given (a lot of us anyway). I just don't like to see the orange juice get thrown away when there's at least half a glass that's still worth drinking (similar to my past Twilight defense; not that I'm a major fan boy but it's better than people give it credit for as far as chick-based teen fiction goes).

@seb: I agree with basically everything you said, but I think you can still admire parts of a person and take them for what they are. Otherwise nobody would be fans of the villains in movies or play Chaos I also believe that while there aren't blatant, televised courtroom displays of creative men fighting to bravely counter those who worship the mundane, the themes certainly do exist in the real world, otherwise they wouldn't resonate with anyone. We've all seen the better man lose out for some stupid reason at some point (usually someone else's benefit or for the good of "everyone") and it never feels great when that happens. I like it when people of passion/ambition win as a blanket rule, and I think we can all agree on some level

@AF: Agree as well. She thought you could find total happiness from an isolated segment of one's life, and while it may be fulfilling, it's not all there is. I daresay many Objectivists have died feeling pretty lonely.

Agree.

I enjoyed the book. I felt that, while not a rollicking read, it was neither boring nor wooden. Mabye if I read it again now, I'd dislike it, but if you think the conflict is between the heroes and the villains you're missing the point.

The conflict is internal, as the characters have to balance their lives and accomplishments in mainstream society against their desire to live the ideal objectivist lifesyle. The two main characters, Dagny Taggert and Hank Rearden spend the first third actively trying to prop up society, fighting against what they saw as some "destroyer" stealing the talented people in the world. It's why I've never really understood the complaint that Dagny was a shallow character: she wanted, more than anything, to run her railroad. It was only when it became impossible that she joined the gultch community.

Yeah, the pure objectivist demi-gods are much flatter: with John Galt being little more fleshed out than a mythic god, but Rearden seems like a pretty decent, normal guy with a wife and business and family and all that.

I read maybe the first fifth of it, and couldn't go any further.

I think my reaction to it was pretty congruent with my general outlook. I didn't find her hero characters especially appealing or likeable, but I found the "parasite" characters to be DISTURBINGLY accurate, to the point that I was so disgusted with them, and so unwilling to be reminded how real they are in our world, that I couldn't stand reading the book anymore.

IRL I always say "the only people I hate more than Republicans are Democrats." That's about how the book played for me. I didn't really like her heroes, and I wanted to slaughter the villains.

Samus_aran115 wrote:You and everyone else I know! What is this obsession with objectivism? I've got four friends who keep talking about this book like it's the bible. What's it about?

Basically it says that everyone else is wrong and that you are right and that the rest just try to keep you down. Of course you are so awesome that you will overcome them. Basically it plays into the notion of the individual as the ultimate expression. It's like the joke where everyone on a trolley is thinking at the same time "Look at all these sheep who can't think for themselves". Who doesn't want to think they are an beautiful snowflake? Also, business is the main expression of awesomeness and manliness. Think of a paranoid hardcore Libertarian and you get the idea.

sebster wrote:
Typically Randian discussions tend to dissolve into arguments over whether a person should be able to sign themselves into slavery.

The other popular point is "Rand must be right, she resolved the is-ought problem!" At which point anyone who has ever read philosophy laughs at the speaker.

sebster wrote:
The whole thing is a bit ridiculous really, it's probably less practical than classical communism.

Yep. Because, really, all those Randian supermen are just as likely to follow their vision towards a global empire as they are to follow it towards some weird architectural ideas.

Nurglitch wrote:Don't forget we're lousy spellers.

Speke for yurself!

It's really ironic that people who most commonly praise Atlas Shrugged are heartily condemned as parasites destroying the human race in it.The heroes in Atlas Shrugged are the people who manufacture things and make real things (like trains running) happen on time, and the villains are 'second-handers', who don't really make anything but manipulate laws or paper to take the money that rightfully belongs to the heroes. While there are some people who run companies and are Randian heroes, the vast majority of those involved in running large companies are second-handers, who have no concern with actually delivering a worthwhile product or service, but instead manipulate the system to buy up smaller profitable companies and squeeze them dry, run the company to get good stock prices while people work around them to accomplish things, and use their connections to lobby for the government to pass laws requiring people to buy their services or ban their competitors.

If Francisco d'Anconia was running his finance company, gave out a bunch of loans that were a really bad idea, then during an economic slump found that people defaulting on those loans bankrupted him, he'd pass on his assets to pay off creditors, find some basic job, and take the first dollar he earned from that job to rebuild his financial empire from scratch. Actual bank CEOs demanded that the government take money from other people at gunpoint (taxes) and use it to shield them from the consequences of their loans. Every Randian hero embraced the idea of succeeding and failing on his own merits, while actual executives bitterly oppose performance-based pay and set up a system where they get paid massive amounts of money regardless of whether they do even a basic job. Randian heroes stand up and give incredibly long speeches about topics including personal responsibility and take a 'buck stops here' attitude, real executives answer "I don't know," "I was not aware of that," "You can't prove that I told anyone to do that" and so on.

Imagine if the executive management team of Goldman Sachs and AIG and all of the others stood up and said "NO MORE! We are tired of you ungrateful bastards, we are going to move to Galt's Gulch today" when the Obama administration was talking about cutting executive bonuses for companies that got bailouts. First off, do you think ANY of them would be willing to abandon all of their wealth and move to a secret island where they'd spend the rest of their life doing manual labor, slopping pigs and digging ditches? Then, do you really think the whole economy would grind to a halt, or would other people in the company and people not currently working there know at least enough to keep the companies functioning?

Wow your story would be true if it were. It isn't so the example is false. Its (AR not you) like someone who never had a clue how an economy actually works, wrote a book about it. Reminds me of Das Kapital...

Agree. Real business leaders dont behave the way she imagines they do. To Rand they all hate the govt. In real life they only hate the govt when they cant control. Ie when it serves the interests of the people instead of their own.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Agree. Real business leaders dont behave the way she imagines they do. To Rand they all hate the govt. In real life they only hate the govt when they cant control. Ie when it serves the interests of the people instead of their own.
AF

Or when they can't make money off the government.

yep.
there was a particular point in the book where shes talking about Nat Taggart, the rail road tycoon who built the company up from nothing, and she talks about he wouldnt accept a loan from the govt and even tried to kill someone who offered him one, but he would prostitute his own wife to raise capital. I thought what a bunch of nonsense. In the real world the govt gave away massive ammounts of land to the rail road companies in order to encourage their expansion. I mean shes clearly out of her mind, at least in this one area.
AF

Anyone else notice that the Emperor is a Randy Superman?

Nurglitch wrote:Anyone else notice that the Emperor is a Randy Superman?

He's not at all. The Randian superman would use his abilities to build something amazing, secure himself from harm, and to destroy what he built if someone tried to take it, but forcibly uniting people under his banner is pretty much the direct opposite of what John Galt or Howard Rorak did. Rand's heros seek to do something that interests them, but not to force other people to their will, they'd be more liklely to just leave this Galaxy than to form a Great Crusade. The Emperor's big program to prepare humanity to become psychic and to fight the Chaos powers just isn't the kind of thing Rand's heroes would do, it's very altruistic.

Rand's aesthetic idea that things like art and music are objectively right or wrong (you don't just like or dislike music, either you're correct in what music you like or you're a bad person) do kind of parallel the way chaos corruption works. There are some things that if you see/read them, you know they're wrong and looking at them too much will hurt your mind.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:The Randian superman would use his abilities to build something amazing, secure himself from harm, and to destroy what he built if someone tried to take it, but forcibly uniting people under his banner is pretty much the direct opposite of what John Galt or Howard Rorak did.

I disagree. Building an empire is both to create something amazing, and secure oneself from harm.

As far as destruction goes: the Imperial solution to corruption from within is generally "kill it with fire"; implying destruction of that which was created if the creation (an Imperial citizen) rebels, or is taken.

In fact, my biggest problem with Rand's work has always been that her heroes were basically little more than conquerors; implying that, if given the chance, they would create the sort of state she most abhorred. In essence, I don't believe that Galt's Gulch follows from her philosophy at all. In fact, it doesn't seem that she did either, given that she had to keep all her heroes there with the fear of death or incarceration.

dogma wrote:I disagree. Building an empire is both to create something amazing, and secure oneself from harm. As far as destruction goes: the Imperial solution to corruption from within is generally "kill it with fire"; implying destruction of that which was created if the creation (an Imperial citizen) rebels, or is taken.

Rand does not advocate treating people as objects, she actually rails against it a bit, and neither do her hero characters. Building an empire involves killing people and forcing others to do things at gunpoint, which all of her characters oppose. A huge chunk of the Galt speech is complaining about governemnt forcing people to do things, and the whole idea of the society they work for and love is for people to freely associate and make choices. The Atlas Shrugged heroes never hurt anyone except in direct self-defense, and The Fountainhead's hero makes absolutely certain that no one is hurt when he destroys the building.

In fact, my biggest problem with Rand's work has always been that her heroes were basically little more than conquerors; implying that, if given the chance, they would create the sort of state she most abhorred.

None of the hero characters in either of her two big books can at all be described as conquerers unless you're using the word 'conquerer' so loosely that it applies to anyone who accomplishes anything (like "the Doctor conquered cancer'). There's nothing in the book to indicate that any of her characters want to set up some sort of socialist or communist society (which is what 'she most abhorred'), Galt spends the whole book and a giant speech working to get out of one, while Rorak shows no desire to govern anything but himself.

There is more than enough to criticize about Ayn Rand's philosophy and books, you don't need to come up with charges that have no basis in what was written.

Also, if you're like me and believe that the Emperor cut a deal with the Chaos Gods to create the Primarchs and was simply engaged in a question to assume the Godhead, then his actions in pursuing the Imperium smack of something a little less altruistic than the future of Mankind. He's no Leto Atreides II. Remember that bit in "False Gods" when Horus is shown a future in which nine of his brothers and the Emperor have been deified in a dystopian nightmare future of religious grim dark, which is ironically the 40k we all know and love.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:One thing thats strange to me is the way alot of devout christians love this book. It makes me wonder if they actually read it......?

Great point. In fact, the kind of behavior that Ayn Rand considers laudable is wretched and pathetic and even gravely sinful from a Christian perspective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:Anyone else notice that the Emperor is a Randy Superman?

I really disagree here. Until Graham McNeill started plagerizing Richard Dawkins, there was no reason to believe that the Emperor was anything but benevolent toward rather than contemptuous of the weak.

Whittaker Chambers reviews Atlas Shrugged in National Review (1957)

Several years ago, Miss Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead. Despite a generally poor press, it is said to have sold some four hundred thousand copies. Thus, it became a wonder of the book trade of a kind that publishers dream about after taxes. So Atlas Shrugged had a first printing of one hundred thousand copies. It appears to be slowly climbing the best-seller lists.

The news about this book seems to me to be that any ordinarily sensible head could possibly take it seriously, and that, apparently, a good many do. Somebody has called it: “Excruciatingly awful.” I find it a remarkably silly book. It is certainly a bumptious one. Its story is preposterous. It reports the final stages of a final conflict (locale: chiefly the United States, some indefinite years hence) between the harried ranks of free enterprise and the “looters.” These are proponents of proscriptive taxes, government ownership, Labor, etc. etc. The mischief here is that the author, dodging into fiction, nevertheless counts on your reading it as political reality. “This,” she is saying in effect, “is how things really are. These are the real issues, the real sides. Only your blindness keeps you from seeing it, which, happily, I have come to rescue you from.”

Since a great many of us dislike much that Miss Rand dislikes, quite as heartily as she does, many incline to take her at her word. It is the more persuasive, in some quarters, because the author deals wholly in the blackest blacks and the whitest whites. In this fiction everything, everybody, is either all good or all bad, without any of those intermediate shades which, in life, complicate reality and perplex the eye that seeks to probe it truly. This kind of simplifying pattern, of course, gives charm to most primitive story-telling. And, in fact, the somewhat ferro-concrete fairy tale the author pours here is, basically, the old one known as: The War between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. In modern dress, it is a class war. Both sides to it are caricatures.

The Children of Light are largely operatic caricatures. In so far as any of them suggests anything known to the business community, they resemble the occasional curmudgeon millionaire, tales about whose outrageously crude and shrewd eccentricities sometimes provide the lighter moments in Board rooms. Otherwise, the Children of Light are geniuses. One of them is named (the only smile you see will be your own): Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’Anconia. This electrifying youth is the world’s biggest copper tycoon. Another, no less electrifying, is named: Ragnar Danneskjold. He becomes a twentieth-century pirate. All Miss Rand’s chief heroes are also breathtakingly beautiful. So is her heroine (she is rather fetchingly vice president in charge of management of a transcontinental railroad). So much radiant energy might seem to serve a eugenic purpose. For, in this story as in Mark Twain’s, “all the knights marry the princess” — though without benefit of clergy. Yet from the impromptu and surprisingly gymnastic matings of the heroine and three of the heroes, no children — it suddenly strikes you — ever result. The possibility is never entertained. And, indeed, the strenuously sterile world of Atlas Shrugged is scarcely a place for children. You speculate that, in life, children probably irk the author and may make her uneasy. How could it be otherwise when she admiringly names a banker character (by what seems to me a humorless master-stroke): Midas Mulligan? You may fool some adults; you can’t fool little boys and girls with such stuff — not for long. They may not know just what is out of line, but they stir uneasily.

The Children of Darkness are caricatures, too; and they are really oozy. But at least they are caricatures of something identifiable. Their archetypes are Left Liberals, New Dealers, Welfare Statists, One Worlders, or, at any rate, such ogreish semblances of these as may stalk the nightmares of those who think little about people as people, but tend to think a great deal in labels and effigies. (And neither Right nor Left, be it noted in passing, has a monopoly of such dreamers, though the horrors in their nightmares wear radically different masks and labels.)

In Atlas Shrugged, all this debased inhuman riffraff is lumped as “looters.” This is a fairly inspired epithet. It enables the author to skewer on one invective word everything and everybody that she fears and hates. This spares her the plaguey business of performing one service that her fiction might have performed, namely: that of examining in human depth how so feeble a lot came to exist at all, let alone be powerful enough to be worth hating and fearing. Instead, she bundles them into one undifferentiated damnation.


“Looters” loot because they believe in Robin Hood, and have got a lot of other people believing in him, too. Robin Hood is the author’s image of absolute evil — robbing the strong (and hence good) to give to the weak (and hence no good). All “looters” are base, envious, twisted, malignant minds, motivated wholly by greed for power, combined with the lust of the weak to tear down the strong, out of a deep-seated hatred of life and secret longing for destruction and death. There happens to be a tiny (repeat: tiny) seed of truth in this. The full clinical diagnosis can be read in the pages of Friedrich Nietzsche. (Here I must break in with an aside. Miss Rand acknowledges a grudging debt to one, and only one, earlier philosopher: Aristotle. I submit that she is indebted, and much more heavily, to Nietzsche. Just as her operatic businessmen are, in fact, Nietzschean supermen, so her ulcerous leftists are Nietzsche’s “last men,” both deformed in a way to sicken the fastidious recluse of Sils Maria. And much else comes, consciously or not, from the same source.) Happily, in Atlas Shrugged (though not in life), all the Children of Darkness are utterly incompetent.
So the Children of Light win handily by declaring a general strike of brains, of which they have a monopoly, letting the world go, literally, to smash. In the end, they troop out of their Rocky Mountain hideaway to repossess the ruins. It is then, in the book’s last line, that a character traces in the air, “over the desolate earth,” the Sign of the Dollar, in lieu of the Sign of the Cross, and in token that a suitably prostrate mankind is at last ready, for its sins, to be redeemed from the related evils of religion and social reform (the “mysticism of mind” and the “mysticism of muscle”).

That Dollar Sign is not merely provocative, though we sense a sophomoric intent to raise the pious hair on susceptible heads. More importantly, it is meant to seal the fact that mankind is ready to submit abjectly to an elite of technocrats, and their accessories, in a New Order, enlightened and instructed by Miss Rand’s ideas that the good life is one which “has resolved personal worth into exchange value,” “has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash-payment.’” The author is explicit, in fact deafening, about these prerequisites. Lest you should be in any doubt after 1168 pages, she assures you with a final stamp of the foot in a postscript: “And I mean it.” But the words quoted above are those of Karl Marx. He, too, admired “naked self-interest” (in its time and place), and for much the same reasons as Miss Rand: because, he believed, it cleared away the cobwebs of religion and led to prodigies of industrial and cognate accomplishment.

The overlap is not as incongruous as it looks. Atlas Shrugged can be called a novel only by devaluing the term. It is a massive tract for the times. Its story merely serves Miss Rand to get the customers inside the tent, and as a soapbox for delivering her Message. The Message is the thing. It is, in sum, a forthright philosophic materialism. Upperclassmen might incline to sniff and say that the author has, with vast effort, contrived a simple materialist system, one, intellectually, at about the stage of the oxcart, though without mastering the principle of the wheel. Like any consistent materialism, this one begins by rejecting God, religion, original sin, etc. etc. (This book’s aggressive atheism and rather unbuttoned “higher morality,” which chiefly outrage some readers, are, in fact, secondary ripples, and result inevitably from its underpinning premises.) Thus, Randian Man, like Marxian Man, is made the center of a godless world.

At that point, in any materialism, the main possibilities open up to Man. 1) His tragic fate becomes, without God, more tragic and much lonelier. In general, the tragedy deepens according to the degree of pessimism or stoicism with which he conducts his “hopeless encounter between human questioning and the silent universe.” Or, 2) Man’s fate ceases to be tragic at all. Tragedy is bypassed by the pursuit of happiness. Tragedy is henceforth pointless. Henceforth man’s fate, without God, is up to him, and to him alone. His happiness, in strict materialist terms, lies with his own workaday hands and ingenious brain. His happiness becomes, in Miss Rand’s words, “the moral purpose of his life.” Here occurs a little rub whose effects are just as observable in a free enterprise system, which is in practice materialist (whatever else it claims or supposes itself to be), as they would be under an atheist Socialism, if one were ever to deliver that material abundance that all promise. The rub is that the pursuit of happiness, as an end in itself, tends automatically, and widely, to be replaced by the pursuit of pleasure, with a consequent general softening of the fibers of will, intelligence, spirit. No doubt, Miss Rand has brooded upon that little rub. Hence, in part, I presume, her insistence on “man as a heroic being” “with productive achievement as his noblest activity.” For, if Man’s “heroism” (some will prefer to say: “human dignity”) no longer derives from God, or is not a function of that godless integrity which was a root of Nietzsche’s anguish, then Man becomes merely the most consuming of animals, with glut as the condition of his happiness and its replenishment his foremost activity. So Randian Man, at least in his ruling caste, has to be held “heroic” in order not to be beastly. And this, of course, suits the author’s economics and the politics that must arise from them.


“Looters” loot because they believe in Robin Hood, and have got a lot of other people believing in him, too. Robin Hood is the author’s image of absolute evil — robbing the strong (and hence good) to give to the weak (and hence no good). All “looters” are base, envious, twisted, malignant minds, motivated wholly by greed for power, combined with the lust of the weak to tear down the strong, out of a deep-seated hatred of life and secret longing for destruction and death. There happens to be a tiny (repeat: tiny) seed of truth in this. The full clinical diagnosis can be read in the pages of Friedrich Nietzsche. (Here I must break in with an aside. Miss Rand acknowledges a grudging debt to one, and only one, earlier philosopher: Aristotle. I submit that she is indebted, and much more heavily, to Nietzsche. Just as her operatic businessmen are, in fact, Nietzschean supermen, so her ulcerous leftists are Nietzsche’s “last men,” both deformed in a way to sicken the fastidious recluse of Sils Maria. And much else comes, consciously or not, from the same source.) Happily, in Atlas Shrugged (though not in life), all the Children of Darkness are utterly incompetent.
So the Children of Light win handily by declaring a general strike of brains, of which they have a monopoly, letting the world go, literally, to smash. In the end, they troop out of their Rocky Mountain hideaway to repossess the ruins. It is then, in the book’s last line, that a character traces in the air, “over the desolate earth,” the Sign of the Dollar, in lieu of the Sign of the Cross, and in token that a suitably prostrate mankind is at last ready, for its sins, to be redeemed from the related evils of religion and social reform (the “mysticism of mind” and the “mysticism of muscle”).

That Dollar Sign is not merely provocative, though we sense a sophomoric intent to raise the pious hair on susceptible heads. More importantly, it is meant to seal the fact that mankind is ready to submit abjectly to an elite of technocrats, and their accessories, in a New Order, enlightened and instructed by Miss Rand’s ideas that the good life is one which “has resolved personal worth into exchange value,” “has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash-payment.’” The author is explicit, in fact deafening, about these prerequisites. Lest you should be in any doubt after 1168 pages, she assures you with a final stamp of the foot in a postscript: “And I mean it.” But the words quoted above are those of Karl Marx. He, too, admired “naked self-interest” (in its time and place), and for much the same reasons as Miss Rand: because, he believed, it cleared away the cobwebs of religion and led to prodigies of industrial and cognate accomplishment.

The overlap is not as incongruous as it looks. Atlas Shrugged can be called a novel only by devaluing the term. It is a massive tract for the times. Its story merely serves Miss Rand to get the customers inside the tent, and as a soapbox for delivering her Message. The Message is the thing. It is, in sum, a forthright philosophic materialism. Upperclassmen might incline to sniff and say that the author has, with vast effort, contrived a simple materialist system, one, intellectually, at about the stage of the oxcart, though without mastering the principle of the wheel. Like any consistent materialism, this one begins by rejecting God, religion, original sin, etc. etc. (This book’s aggressive atheism and rather unbuttoned “higher morality,” which chiefly outrage some readers, are, in fact, secondary ripples, and result inevitably from its underpinning premises.) Thus, Randian Man, like Marxian Man, is made the center of a godless world.

At that point, in any materialism, the main possibilities open up to Man. 1) His tragic fate becomes, without God, more tragic and much lonelier. In general, the tragedy deepens according to the degree of pessimism or stoicism with which he conducts his “hopeless encounter between human questioning and the silent universe.” Or, 2) Man’s fate ceases to be tragic at all. Tragedy is bypassed by the pursuit of happiness. Tragedy is henceforth pointless. Henceforth man’s fate, without God, is up to him, and to him alone. His happiness, in strict materialist terms, lies with his own workaday hands and ingenious brain. His happiness becomes, in Miss Rand’s words, “the moral purpose of his life.” Here occurs a little rub whose effects are just as observable in a free enterprise system, which is in practice materialist (whatever else it claims or supposes itself to be), as they would be under an atheist Socialism, if one were ever to deliver that material abundance that all promise. The rub is that the pursuit of happiness, as an end in itself, tends automatically, and widely, to be replaced by the pursuit of pleasure, with a consequent general softening of the fibers of will, intelligence, spirit. No doubt, Miss Rand has brooded upon that little rub. Hence, in part, I presume, her insistence on “man as a heroic being” “with productive achievement as his noblest activity.” For, if Man’s “heroism” (some will prefer to say: “human dignity”) no longer derives from God, or is not a function of that godless integrity which was a root of Nietzsche’s anguish, then Man becomes merely the most consuming of animals, with glut as the condition of his happiness and its replenishment his foremost activity. So Randian Man, at least in his ruling caste, has to be held “heroic” in order not to be beastly. And this, of course, suits the author’s economics and the politics that must arise from them.

One Big Brother is, of course, a socializing elite (as we know, several cut-rate brands are on the shelves). Miss Rand, as the enemy of any socializing force, calls in a Big Brother of her own contriving to do battle with the other. In the name of free enterprise, therefore, she plumps for a technocratic elite (I find no more inclusive word than technocratic to bracket the industrial-financial-engineering caste she seems to have in mind). When she calls “productive achievement” man’s “noblest activity,” she means, almost exclusively, technological achievement, supervised by such a managerial political bureau. She might object that she means much, much more; and we can freely entertain her objections. But, in sum, that is just what she means. For that is what, in reality, it works out to. And in reality, too, by contrast with fiction, this can only head into a dictatorship, however benign, living and acting beyond good and evil, a law unto itself (as Miss Rand believes it should be), and feeling any restraint on itself as, in practice, criminal, and, in morals, vicious — as Miss Rand clearly feels it to be. Of course, Miss Rand nowhere calls for a dictatorship. I take her to be calling for an aristocracy of talents. We cannot labor here why, in the modern world, the pre-conditions for aristocracy, an organic growth, no longer exist, so that impulse toward aristocracy always emerges now in the form of dictatorship.
Nor has the author, apparently, brooded on the degree to which, in a wicked world, a materialism of the Right and a materialism of the Left first surprisingly resemble, then, in action, tend to blend each with each, because, while differing at the top in avowed purpose, and possibly in conflict there, at bottom they are much the same thing. The embarrassing similarities between Hitler’s National Socialism and Stalin’s brand of Communism are familiar. For the world, as seen in materialist view from the Right, scarcely differs from the same world seen in materialist view from the Left. The question becomes chiefly: who is to run that world in whose interests, or perhaps, at best, who can run it more efficiently?

Something of this implication is fixed in the book’s dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking feature. Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber — go!” The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture — that Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the difference between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house. A tornado might feel this way, or Carrie Nation.

We struggle to be just. For we cannot help feel at least a sympathetic pain before the sheer labor, discipline, and patient craftsmanship that went to making this mountain of words. But the words keep shouting us down. In the end that tone dominates. But it should be its own antidote, warning us that anything it shouts is best taken with the usual reservations with which we might sip a patent medicine. Some may like the flavor. In any case, the brew is probably without lasting ill effects. But it is not a cure for anything. Nor would we, ordinarily, place much confidence in the diagnosis of a doctor who supposes that the Hippocratic Oath is a kind of curse.

So establishing a galactic Imperium to shepherd Mankind towards a specific evolutionary goal doesn't strike you as having a little less than absolute faith in the power of Mankind to achieve its destiny without a healthy dose of husbandry?

I mean as demi-gods go, the Emperor is no Jesus Christ. There's no "the meek shall inherit the galaxy" in 40k. The galaxy is to be seized by force, and if the common dross of humanity isn't up to the task, then that's why super-humans like the Primarchs and the Astartes need to be created. If anything the Emperor's actions suggest he was specifically interested in culling human weakness rather than accommodating it.

That is certainly a valid point. Konrad Curze, about whom I have been doing a great deal of thinking lately, would absolutely agree with you. But it's not the only view. According to the monodominant philiosophy, the Emperor's ultimate goal in conquering the galaxy was to ensure the survival of humanity. Space Marines are therefore just a means to an end. Superior to normal humans in every way but in the final analysis only made that way in order to protect and advance the interest of their inferiors. As the Marines themselves wondered (especially the traitorous ones), what would become of them if the Great Crusade succeeded? In the Imperium that orthodox loyalists like Guilliman envisioned back in M31, there would be room for the masses of the meek because the strong will be their shield. (Should we start another thread on this?)

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

dogma wrote:I disagree. Building an empire is both to create something amazing, and secure oneself from harm. As far as destruction goes: the Imperial solution to corruption from within is generally "kill it with fire"; implying destruction of that which was created if the creation (an Imperial citizen) rebels, or is taken.

Rand does not advocate treating people as objects, she actually rails against it a bit, and neither do her hero characters. Building an empire involves killing people and forcing others to do things at gunpoint, which all of her characters oppose. A huge chunk of the Galt speech is complaining about governemnt forcing people to do things, and the whole idea of the society they work for and love is for people to freely associate and make choices. The Atlas Shrugged heroes never hurt anyone except in direct self-defense, and The Fountainhead's hero makes absolutely certain that no one is hurt when he destroys the building.

well its true that they dont shoot anyone (at least not until the end. cant remember if they actually shot anyone when they rescued galt, but I know they had some guns around....). But harming other people doesnt have to be direct - as in shooting them. It can be.... say.... paying them slave wages. If you pay someone so little for their work that they cant survive then thats harming someone. "the market made me do it" just isnt a valid justification.

BearersofSalvation wrote:

dogma wrote:In fact, my biggest problem with Rand's work has always been that her heroes were basically little more than conquerors; implying that, if given the chance, they would create the sort of state she most abhorred.

None of the hero characters in either of her two big books can at all be described as conquerers unless you're using the word 'conquerer' so loosely that it applies to anyone who accomplishes anything (like "the Doctor conquered cancer'). There's nothing in the book to indicate that any of her characters want to set up some sort of socialist or communist society (which is what 'she most abhorred'), Galt spends the whole book and a giant speech working to get out of one, while Rorak shows no desire to govern anything but himself.

There is more than enough to criticize about Ayn Rand's philosophy and books, you don't need to come up with charges that have no basis in what was written.

well its true that they dont want to take over at the point of the gun..... but I think its clear that they do want to run the whole economy. The thing is, she advocates competition. All competitions have winners and losers. They dont go on indefinitely - they have an end state. That end state is monopoly, ie total control over the marketplace. Thats alot of power and to me inconsistent with democratic government. She doesnt talk about govt very much but I detect some pretty strong elitist tendencies. Obviously if your average guy is a moron (which she seems to believe) then they shouldnt be allowed to vote. They'll just hold the supermen back and muck everything up. So while she doesnt explicitly advocate a power grab on the part of the business elite I think it pretty clearly follows from the kind of political and economic principles that she does advocate. (you have to make at least a million dollars a year in order to get the franchise, for instance. That would be the kind of power grab that would be consistent with her ideas.)
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
but I'm glad you're sticking up for Ayn Rand. I was starting to wonder if we'd see any Objectivists come in and argue her side of things.

Toomey tried to control those around him, Roark tried to control his work and if anyone went against him he would destroy them, and that one chick who broke statues that she liked so others couldn't take or look at them.

She was trying to get a lot of individualistic ideals across, but to have a world or even a nation where everyone is ideally individualistic would be suicide.

Even in America, where we do preach a lot of individuality, we also have some sense of working for the collective or for the greater good if you will. Its almost atheistic in its intolerance towards helping the downtrodden, I don't give the "homeless" on the street corners money, but I am willing to donate money and sometimes time to soup kitchens.

word.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Rand does not advocate treating people as objects, she actually rails against it a bit, and neither do her hero characters. Building an empire involves killing people and forcing others to do things at gunpoint, which all of her characters oppose. A huge chunk of the Galt speech is complaining about governemnt forcing people to do things, and the whole idea of the society they work for and love is for people to freely associate and make choices.

Its also heavily implied (though not intentionally) that they aren't able to freely associate, or make choices. They are effectively trapped in the Gulch by the end of the novel, at which point they are forced, by default, to follow the Gulch's cultural mores if they wish to survive. Galt may not have wanted to force people into anything, but he ends up creating the sort of society that does exactly that.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
...and The Fountainhead's hero makes absolutely certain that no one is hurt when he destroys the building.

He also raped Dominique.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
None of the hero characters in either of her two big books can at all be described as conquerers unless you're using the word 'conquerer' so loosely that it applies to anyone who accomplishes anything (like "the Doctor conquered cancer').

I mean it in the sense that it refers to one who overcomes due to innate abilities; most often mental, or moral strength.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
There's nothing in the book to indicate that any of her characters want to set up some sort of socialist or communist society (which is what 'she most abhorred'), Galt spends the whole book and a giant speech working to get out of one, while Rorak shows no desire to govern anything but himself.

My argument is that the Gulch was a socialist state in all but name. The members of the community were trapped there for fear of danger, and did not have the option to fully exploit their innovations due to the limitations of social pressure and a captive market. Galt, for example, could have placed an exorbitant price on energy were it not for the limited market defined by the Gulch, and the social pressure caused by being effectively cut off from the outside world.

halonachos wrote:She was trying to get a lot of individualistic ideals across, but to have a world or even a nation where everyone is ideally individualistic would be suicide.

Why would it necessarily be suicide? If you had said a nation where everyone is selfish or self-centered I would be inclined to agree with you, but individualism isn't the same thing as selfishness. It seems to me that individualism has more to do with being able to make your own decisions and form your own thoughts, rather than being every man for himself, which is (correct me if I'm wrong) what you seem to be implying.

Is it rape if you like it? A question Rand herself may have found meaningless . . .

Yeah, the rape is something Dominique later says she wanted to happen. She clearly liked it. Rand herself referred to it as rape so I dunno. She had some interesting fetishes apparently.

In that vein, here are some reviews of new biographies of her:

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1708/article_detail.asp


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And another interesting one:

http://www.thenation.com/article/garbage-and-gravitas?page=full

Hordini wrote:

halonachos wrote:She was trying to get a lot of individualistic ideals across, but to have a world or even a nation where everyone is ideally individualistic would be suicide.

Why would it necessarily be suicide? If you had said a nation where everyone is selfish or self-centered I would be inclined to agree with you, but individualism isn't the same thing as selfishness. It seems to me that individualism has more to do with being able to make your own decisions and form your own thoughts, rather than being every man for himself, which is (correct me if I'm wrong) what you seem to be implying.

websters wrote:Definition of INDIVIDUALISM
1a (1) : a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount; also : conduct guided by such a doctrine (2) : the conception that all values, rights, and duties originate in individuals b : a theory maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual and stressing individual initiative, action, and interests; also : conduct or practice guided by such a theory

Its making your own decisions and being free to choose at your own will yes, but its also making your on decisions and and choosing at your own will to obtain your own goals.

The overall goal of a football team is to win a game, now, most players share individual goals that help the collective goal in the long run. There are instances when the linemen have intentionally missed the block to let the quarterback get hit. In that case we have two sets of individual goals going against one another.

I'm not saying that individualism is a bad thing, just that its bad if everyone followed that policy. If everyone was truly individualistic we wouldn't have a government, a police force, a fire department, medical services, etc. Some people may have the goal to help others so they may establish a medical service, but if everyone else was individualistic they would deny aid from another person. Marriage would be hard as a couple makes group decisions so marriage may not exist, it's really hard to tell whether or not it would happen.

Let's just say this, if everyone was individualistic then that's what we call anarchy.

Depends on the extent of the individualism. Its only anarchy if it breaches laws, else its self reliance.

Yep, but then the person is not completely individualistic. Laws are for a collective and only work if group consensus deems them to be law.

True individualism is anarchy while limited individualism allows the formation of law.

halonachos wrote:Yep, but then the person is not completely individualistic. Laws are for a collective and only work if group consensus deems them to be law.

True individualism is anarchy while limited individualism allows the formation of law.

No. That means they are complying with law. COmpliance is not for the greater good. Compliance is to avoid punishment.

Manchu's article links were interesting. The first one kind of excuses her as an author attempting to convey her world view, which nobody has to agree with. The second one was a bit more shocking to see how many celebrities were all stoked about her. Then upon second thought, when I reflect on the narcissism of the celebrities I have had the 'pleasure' to meet, I am not surprised.

It's fine to idealise the human race as capable of great leaps when left free to express themselves unfettered by the rules of bureaucracies that restrict them. That's all good and well.

It's her EGO makes it ridiculous. Narcisistic interviews about how she asserts that she is the greatest thinker of the century, and all of her thoughts are her own, supported by a flawed personal philosophy, disdain for the needy, insistance that great people make themselves great regardless of background, and extremely blunt-force-trauma style of prose that quite frankly was painfully too obvious to read. I could tell what she was getting at within the first few pages of Fountainhead. Did it need to keep bludgeoning me over and over for another thousand pages? As a writer, and storyteller, she just SUCKS. No finesse whatsoever. No 'art', just bad storytelling to support a bad skewed philosophical view of human nature.

I like how the review pointed out all of the famous movie stars who played bad characters in bad movies. (Ask Angelina Jolie what artistic endeavor she created with her 'acting'. Ayn Rand didn't have famous lips or a nice bod however, so she had to turn her sludge of a storyline into a set of interviews to convince the common man that she was great, because she claimed herself to be.

For someone who despised mediocrity, she sure showed a lot of it herself.

Frazzled wrote:

halonachos wrote:Yep, but then the person is not completely individualistic. Laws are for a collective and only work if group consensus deems them to be law.

True individualism is anarchy while limited individualism allows the formation of law.

No. That means they are complying with law. COmpliance is not for the greater good. Compliance is to avoid punishment.

The creation laws is for the greater good. You can comply with them or not, but the simple creation of laws shows that somwhere in a country there are people who are not actual individualists.

Complying with laws may be done to avoid punishment, but then that shows a person has a duty to follow the laws because if they don't some outside force will punish them.

If the individual were to punish themself for not following their own laws we would have true individualism, but the laws were created by some outside force and have influenced the actions of the individual, preventing them from acting in a way that would expedite the realisation of their individual goals.

halonachos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

halonachos wrote:Yep, but then the person is not completely individualistic. Laws are for a collective and only work if group consensus deems them to be law.

True individualism is anarchy while limited individualism allows the formation of law.

No. That means they are complying with law. COmpliance is not for the greater good. Compliance is to avoid punishment.

The creation laws is for the greater good. You can comply with them or not, but the simple creation of laws shows that somwhere in a country there are people who are not actual individualists.

Complying with laws may be done to avoid punishment, but then that shows a person has a duty to follow the laws because if they don't some outside force will punish them.

If the individual were to punish themself for not following their own laws we would have true individualism, but the laws were created by some outside force and have influenced the actions of the individual, preventing them from acting in a way that would expedite the realisation of their individual goals.

Wait you're assuming laws are for the greater good? Haven't looked at the tax code lately have you.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:There is more than enough to criticize about Ayn Rand's philosophy and books, you don't need to come up with charges that have no basis in what was written.

but I'm glad you're sticking up for Ayn Rand. I was starting to wonder if we'd see any Objectivists come in and argue her side of things.

I'm not sure where you've got the idea that I'm an Objectivist or that I'm sticking up for Rand - I'm just discussing what the books say and how they fit in with 40k. Rand has some good ideas here and there, and I think The Fountainhead was a really great book (AS is OK but too many speeches) but as a whole her philosophy is radically divorced from the real world and the way people think and act and involves some really wacky value judgments (like if two people have different musical tastes, one of them is right and one is wrong). Don't confuse 'this is what the book says' with 'this is an endorsement of the author' - discussing whether The Emperor could have done more to prevent Horus's fall during the great crusade based on the BL books wouldn't mean that I follow Dan Abnett's personal philosophy (or even know what it is), it just means I want to talk about what the books said.

I'll write more when I have time.

The tax code is for the IRS's greater good and the good of the Congress.

Just because something is for the greater good doesn't mean its your greater good. By complying with the tax code though, you are giving up your individuality.

I get what you're saying, halonachos, but I still think you're implying that "true" individualism is the same thing as being completely selfish and completely short-sighted, rather than simply being able to decide for yourself. It seems like you're assuming that true individualists will decide only what benefits them in the most direct and short term manner. Or is it something else?

halonachos wrote:The tax code is for the IRS's greater good and the good of the Congress.

Just because something is for the greater good doesn't mean its your greater good. By complying with the tax code though, you are giving up your individuality.

Thats not greater good though, thats special interest good.

Society works because the enlightened self interest of individuals serves to keep it going.

Hordini wrote:I get what you're saying, halonachos, but I still think you're implying that "true" individualism is the same thing as being completely selfish and completely short-sighted, rather than simply being able to decide for yourself. It seems like you're assuming that true individualists will decide only what benefits them in the most direct and short term manner. Or is it something else?

Actually you hit the nail on the head there.

Heck, a true individualist must rely on his own self for everything. Bartering is out the window as he is relying on another to make a good for him to trade for, marriage is out because he would have to rely on his partner for certain things and his partner would have to rely on him for other things.

Not to mention the lack of respect for any outside government force, it would be bad for a nation to be comprised of a 100% individualistic group. There needs to be compromise somewhere.


@ frazzled.

But in return for us supporting the government they are supposed to protect us and represent our needs and wants. This is if everything was ideal, but some senators/congressmen are just people who are going for their own individual gratification.

This is if everything was ideal, but all senators/congressmen are just people who are going for their own individual gratification.

Corrected your typo.

See, so individualism is indeed a bad thing.

halonachos wrote:See, so individualism is indeed a bad thing.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Yeah, the rape is something Dominique later says she wanted to happen. She clearly liked it. Rand herself referred to it as rape so I dunno. She had some interesting fetishes apparently.

Pretty sure she was into domination....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

halonachos wrote:Yep, but then the person is not completely individualistic. Laws are for a collective and only work if group consensus deems them to be law.

True individualism is anarchy while limited individualism allows the formation of law.

No. That means they are complying with law. COmpliance is not for the greater good. Compliance is to avoid punishment.

The creation laws is for the greater good. You can comply with them or not, but the simple creation of laws shows that somwhere in a country there are people who are not actual individualists.

Complying with laws may be done to avoid punishment, but then that shows a person has a duty to follow the laws because if they don't some outside force will punish them.

If the individual were to punish themself for not following their own laws we would have true individualism, but the laws were created by some outside force and have influenced the actions of the individual, preventing them from acting in a way that would expedite the realisation of their individual goals.

Wait you're assuming laws are for the greater good? Haven't looked at the tax code lately have you.

American legal theory holds that laws come out of the public good as expressed through elections. It doesnt always work that way in practice, but that is the principle.

I shrugged once but no one wrote a book about it. Just throwing that out there.

Ahtman wrote:I shrugged once but no one wrote a book about it. Just throwing that out there.

Maybe Atlas has more facebook friends or twitter followers than you do.

How does Kratos figure into Rand's metaphor?

Kratos Raged

Oh, hey, as long as we're talking about Ayn Rand let me share with you the funniest thing an Objectivist has ever said to me:

"Your entire ethical system is flawed because it is based on being rational, while mine is based on reason."

This is funny because, of course, what is reasonable is rational, and what is rational is reasonable. The words means the same thing.

Objectivists: The Smartest Idiots In The Room.

No, that's not quite correct. Rationality is based upon reason, but they are not equivalent terms.

Rationality infers mathematical conclusions, reasonability does not.

dogma wrote:No, that's not quite correct. Rationality is based upon reason, but they are not equivalent terms.

Rationality infers mathematical conclusions, reasonability does not.

rationality
1. the state or quality of being rational.
2. the possession of reason.
3. agreeableness to reason; reasonableness.
4. the exercise of reason.
5. a reasonable view, practice, etc.

I realize you have a hard-on to attack me, D-bag, but seriously: You're making a fool of yourself.

After vaguely skimming over the thread, I can say with confidence that objectivism is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Next to the tea party, that is.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well its true that they dont shoot anyone (at least not until the end. cant remember if they actually shot anyone when they rescued galt, but I know they had some guns around....). But harming other people doesnt have to be direct - as in shooting them. It can be.... say.... paying them slave wages. If you pay someone so little for their work that they cant survive then thats harming someone. "the market made me do it" just isnt a valid justification.

If they did shoot anyone rescuing Galt, it falls under the umbrella of self-defense since Galt had been kidnapped (it's technically 'defense of others', but I'm not trying to write in legalese here). Rescuing your friend who is being attacked is completely and utterly different from going out and making people follow your rulings, so even if you don't think it's defensive, it's still not remotely the same thing.

Rand's heros never pay anyone slave wages, they always pay people well for working for them, the concept of setting up a 'company store' simply isn't something that occurs to them. You can argue that it's not realistic (and I'd agree), but that's irrelevant to whether or not the Emperor fits as a Randian hero. Even if we ignore that Randian heros don't do that, I'm not arguing that Rand's heros don't harm anyone, but that they abhor "killing people and forcing others to do things at gunpoint", which is still completely different than paying someone too little (or setting up a 'company store' arrangement).

well its true that they dont want to take over at the point of the gun..... but I think its clear that they do want to run the whole economy. The thing is, she advocates competition. All competitions have winners and losers. They dont go on indefinitely - they have an end state. That end state is monopoly, ie total control over the marketplace.

Actually no, they want to go off and compete with each other, none of them want to 'run the economy', a good chunk of AS has them going on about how terrible it is for someone to try to direct the economy. If one of them gets a monopoly and starts abusing it, one of the others will start up a competing business and crack the monopoly, and they all know this. It doesn't matter at all whether it's realistic, that is the way that Rand's heros think and act.

Thats alot of power and to me inconsistent with democratic government. She doesnt talk about govt very much but I detect some pretty strong elitist tendencies. Obviously if your average guy is a moron (which she seems to believe) then they shouldnt be allowed to vote. They'll just hold the supermen back and muck everything up. So while she doesnt explicitly advocate a power grab on the part of the business elite I think it pretty clearly follows from the kind of political and economic principles that she does advocate. (you have to make at least a million dollars a year in order to get the franchise, for instance. That would be the kind of power grab that would be consistent with her ideas.)

My comments were all in the context of whether the Emperor is a Randian hero - since the Imperium isn't a democracy 'now', and wasn't when the Emperor started the Great Crusade, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. There have been plenty of non-democratic governments in the real world that don't set out to conquer anything, and plenty of democratic governments that do (without even leaving the US - French and Indian War, Mexican-American War, and various wars with indian nations while expanding west were all clearly for acquiring new territory), so whether they like Democracy has nothing to do with whether they'd conquer people.

The Emperor is a Romantic Hero (in the literary sense, not in the "Romance novels" sense) and so are Rand's heroes, so they have similarities. But the Great Crusade is just not something one of Rand's heros would do. If the Emperor was a Randian hero, he'd find a planet somewhere and start collecting all of the best psychers while trying to master the Webway Gate system and other arcane technologies. They'd take an attitude of 'join us or leave us alone' and let the rest of humanity fend for itself. That's pretty much how Galt's Gulch worked in the book, the elite went off and lived their utopia and left the masses to their own devices. Whether that would work in 40k isn't relevant (I don't think it would), this is just about whether the Emperor is a Randian hero.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Rand's heros never pay anyone slave wages, they always pay people well for working for them, the concept of setting up a 'company store' simply isn't something that occurs to them. You can argue that it's not realistic (and I'd agree), but that's irrelevant to whether or not the Emperor fits as a Randian hero. Even if we ignore that Randian heros don't do that, I'm not arguing that Rand's heros don't harm anyone, but that they abhor "killing people and forcing others to do things at gunpoint", which is still completely different than paying someone too little (or setting up a 'company store' arrangement).

yeah well obviously the emperor isnt a randian hero. he's a theocratic/militaristic quasi-god-like space dictator. which is cool and all. but not at all randian. I just meant that the concept of harming people is not limited to using physical force..... there is also the kind of harm that comes from omission. like if I see someone get run over by a hit and run driver and dont call an ambulance to help. or if I as the owner of a company set up a quasi-feudal relationship with my workers. like if they leave the company grounds, dont buy things from the company store, dont show up to work on time, dont work a full 14 hours 7 days a week, etc. I fire them and they lose their livelyhood. I dont think rand would have anything negative to say about that in principle. she would just say "well that would never happen." and of course it could and has happened.

BearerofSalvation wrote:
Actually no, they want to go off and compete with each other, none of them want to 'run the economy', a good chunk of AS has them going on about how terrible it is for someone to try to direct the economy. If one of them gets a monopoly and starts abusing it, one of the others will start up a competing business and crack the monopoly, and they all know this. It doesn't matter at all whether it's realistic, that is the way that Rand's heros think and act.

ummm.... control over a few key industries would grant the people who own those monopoloies effective control over the entire economy. Rand does want her heroes to run the economy - she just doesnt want to do it through the govt. well whether the govt exercises a monopoly or a private individual does, the market place is no longer free.

Its pure fantasy to say that if someone abuses their monopoly some other hero will just come around and put them out of business. It doesnt work that way. The whole point of a monopoly is abuse. And funny enough it works. Thats why its illegal. The monopoly becomes so large and powerful that it becomes impossible to compete with them on economic terms, besides that people who own monopolies will use the immense wealth it brings them to corrupt the govt in order to protect their monopoly. I know in Rands world that would never happen because all the real achievers in business are stubborn individualists who despise the govt but here shes just out in la la land. In the real world business leaders love the govt as long as they can control it. They use the immense wealth that their companies bring them to corrupt politicains and control the govt. They have in the past, do now, and will continue to do it as long as the legal system permits it. Anyway if we permitted monopolies in todays international market the corporations would quickly become more powerful than any national government, at which point we can all just give up on voting, because it wont matter whose in office.

BearerofSalvation wrote:
My comments were all in the context of whether the Emperor is a Randian hero - since the Imperium isn't a democracy 'now', and wasn't when the Emperor started the Great Crusade, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

There have been plenty of non-democratic governments in the real world that don't set out to conquer anything, and plenty of democratic governments that do (without even leaving the US - French and Indian War, Mexican-American War, and various wars with indian nations while expanding west were all clearly for acquiring new territory), so whether they like Democracy has nothing to do with whether they'd conquer people.

The Emperor is a Romantic Hero (in the literary sense, not in the "Romance novels" sense) and so are Rand's heroes, so they have similarities. But the Great Crusade is just not something one of Rand's heros would do. If the Emperor was a Randian hero, he'd find a planet somewhere and start collecting all of the best psychers while trying to master the Webway Gate system and other arcane technologies. They'd take an attitude of 'join us or leave us alone' and let the rest of humanity fend for itself. That's pretty much how Galt's Gulch worked in the book, the elite went off and lived their utopia and left the masses to their own devices. Whether that would work in 40k isn't relevant (I don't think it would), this is just about whether the Emperor is a Randian hero.

what it has to do with is that I thought you might be interested in having a conversation with some substance to it. obviously the emperor isnt a randian hero. if thats all you want to talk about thats kind of disappointing but w/e....

@ the Kratos comments

Gailbraithe wrote:
rationality
1. the state or quality of being rational.
]2. the possession of reason.
3. agreeableness to reason; reasonableness.
4. the exercise of reason.
5. a reasonable view, practice, etc.

I don't consider definition 2 to be valid. All the other options perfectly illustrate my original objection; ie. rationality is the exercise of reason, but not reason itself.

Note also that most definitions of 'reason' do not include the word rationale.

Gailbraithe wrote:
I realize you have a hard-on to attack me, D-bag, but seriously: You're making a fool of yourself.

I didn't attack you, I pointed out that you said something that didn't appear correct. If you would stop making statement that appeared incorrect, then I wouldn't feel compelled to comment.

I think someone needs to create a philosophy thread for Gailbraithe and Dogma to duke it out in.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:@seb: I agree with basically everything you said, but I think you can still admire parts of a person and take them for what they are. Otherwise nobody would be fans of the villains in movies or play Chaos I also believe that while there aren't blatant, televised courtroom displays of creative men fighting to bravely counter those who worship the mundane, the themes certainly do exist in the real world, otherwise they wouldn't resonate with anyone. We've all seen the better man lose out for some stupid reason at some point (usually someone else's benefit or for the good of "everyone") and it never feels great when that happens. I like it when people of passion/ambition win as a blanket rule, and I think we can all agree on some level

I agree that you can admire parts of a person despite their failings elsewhere. I've made the same argument on this forum before, arguing it in terms of my favourite cricketer, who it turns out was a bit of a prick in his private life, but a wonderful batsman to watch in the game. Thing is, though, the thing I admired Martyn for was entirely unrelated to his failings. It would be very different if his failing was linked to his cricket - if he was taking performance enhancing drugs it would be quite different.

The thing is that Rand's failings tie directly to the beliefs set out in Atlas Shrugged. Her crush on a child killer comes from her fantasy of can-do men, who don't worry about petty morality in getting what they want. That those kinds of people are rarely the great champions of society and almost always violent miscreants is a damning indictment of her views.


And yeah, I also like it when people of passion triumph. I think it makes for great fiction, greater still if the author can put that passion into a believable person who isn't simply superior to other people. It makes for even greater fiction when the author can put passion into those who oppose him. This might build a complex issue, with many shades of grey... one where we might admire a person for their conviction and their honesty even if we might disagree with their conclusion. That makes for great fiction, which is a thing Ayn Rand did not write.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Yep. Because, really, all those Randian supermen are just as likely to follow their vision towards a global empire as they are to follow it towards some weird architectural ideas.

Pretty much. The whole theory is predicated on the idea that Randian Supermen exist and that we should just get out of their way and let them lead create businesses that will be awesome and work in everyone's benefit. Which is a pretty powerful idea when you're 16 and assume you know everything and can do everything and that you will naturally be one of those Randian Supermen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Wow your story would be true if it were. It isn't so the example is false. Its (AR not you) like someone who never had a clue how an economy actually works, wrote a book about it. Reminds me of Das Kapital...

Have you read Das Kapital? Because if you've actually read it then you would know it contained a great number of insights. He recognised capitalism as the first economic system where trade could be seperated from moral and social ties, he described economics as a natural process, part evolutionary and part revolutionary beyond the scope of any individual's control, and in Das Kapital you have the foundations for the entire field of economic history by establishing trade as an action that can be objectively recorded.

I am happy to point out that one of it's central ideas, the labour theory of value, is a load of nonsense and that negatively impacts the final conclusions of the text greatly, but that does not mean the work contains no value. It is one of the great works of politics and of economics.


To bring it back to the thread topic, this can be contrasted against Atlas Shrugged, which has stupid central ideas and a complete lack of insight elsewhere in the text. It is one of the great works of self-indulgent teen lit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:Anyone else notice that the Emperor is a Randy Superman?

I think the Emperor is more Nietzschean than Randian, it's just that both Rand and Games Workshop drew a lot of influence from Nietzsche.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its pure fantasy to say that if someone abuses their monopoly some other hero will just come around and put them out of business.

At what point did I say that Randian heros were realistic? Do you think that adopting a lecturing tone towards me about something I never said will encourage good discussion?

what it has to do with is that I thought you might be interested in having a conversation with some substance to it. obviously the emperor isnt a randian hero. if thats all you want to talk about tats kind of disappointing but w/e....

My comments were about one specific thing (whether the emperor is a Randian hero), you've been arguing with my comments on that topic as though I wasn't making them in that context. If you were simply making points I might want to talk about them, but you're replying to me as though I'm saying a bunch of things that I'm not, making incredibly sweeping statements with tons of highly debateable assumptions (are you harming me by not paying me a living wage right now?), and going off onto lectures instead of genuine discussion. There is way too much hostility over Rand for me to want to engage in a general discussion of slightly related topics, and it's pretty obvious that anyone saying stuff not entirely hostile to Rand that is kind of close to anything she argued is going to get jumped on - For example, you accused me of being an Objectivist for arguing that the Emperor is not a Randian Hero, and you keep lecturing me about how Randian Heros are not realistic when I've never even implied that they are.

sebster wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Anyone else notice that the Emperor is a Randy Superman?

I think the Emperor is more Nietzschean than Randian, it's just that both Rand and Games Workshop drew a lot of influence from Nietzsche.

Probably because there is no such thing as "Randian". Aside from pointing out a fascistic, colossal arrogance. "Have you read YTTH lately?" "No, I don't have time for that Randian nightmare."

My mother was big into Objectivism when she was young, to the point that I'm named after a character in Atlas Shrugged.

Lots of nice analysis here. Thankfully everyone in my family's outgrown Rand at this point. I only ever got about halfway through Atlas Shrugged; it was just too big a pile of lecturing nonsense. Black and white characters can be fun in shorter works (I enjoyed Anthem, and a couple of Rand's short stories like Kira's Viking), but make lousy drama. The most disturbing thing posted in this thread was someone who thought her villains were too realistic. It's hard to even respond to that, so I'm not going to directly argue with the person. Just marvel and be sad.

Manchu wrote:

sebster wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Anyone else notice that the Emperor is a Randy Superman?

I think the Emperor is more Nietzschean than Randian, it's just that both Rand and Games Workshop drew a lot of influence from Nietzsche.

Probably because there is no such thing as "Randian". Aside from pointing out a fascistic, colossal arrogance. "Have you read YTTH lately?" "No, I don't have time for that Randian nightmare."

I thought they meant Randy Superman to mean that Superman was feeling amorous.

If Ayn Rand wrote for BL, we'd all be talking about how she's abit better than James Swallow but no Dan Abnett.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
At what point did I say that Randian heros were realistic?

oh.... I get it.... I want to talk about reality.... and you want to talk about..... whatever. ok cool I get it now. bye.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:oh.... I get it.... I want to talk about reality.... and you want to talk about..... whatever. ok cool I get it now. bye.

I was talking about the reality of what the book says, your idea of talking about reality is to rant and rave and lecture that some fictional characters aren't real. Think about it - you want to talk about reality, but started a thread about a work of fiction, then started replying to me when I was comparing parts of one fictional work to another. If someone is comparing fictional characters in two different works and you come along and lecture that person about how one set of characters is not realistic, it might make you feel smart. But it just annoys the other person and doesn't lead to any worthwhile discussion, the other guy is going to either treat it as a flamewar or ignore you for being obnoxious, condescending, and failing to respond to what was actually written. If you want an actual discussion on a contentious topic, you need to respond to what other people actually write, treat the other person with respect (no lecturing), keep your points clearly defined so that someone can respond to you, and keep the discussion fairly narrow so that someone can discuss individual points instead of a huge mess of things. Or you can do what you did, then think you've won the internets because the other guy lost interest.

I pretty much agree wholeheartedly with Rand's views on epistemology. That said, the rest of her philosophy is basically ridiculous.

It has the same problem as communism, libertarianism, and the vast majority of -isms: For it to work, people have to function in an entirely different way to the manner in which they currently do. Communism COULD work if people had quality X, an objectivist society COULD work if people had quality Y, and so on. As it stands, it would not deliver the results it promises, and that alone is enough for me to disregard it as a form of society.

But even if it weren't, it's untenable as soon as you bring basic physics into the picture. Objectivism holds that property rights are sacrosant; to violate them in any way at all is tantamount to murder.

Now, if I have a light shining through your windows, even just a houselight, how am I not violating your right to control the light level inside your rooms? If I'm broadcasting a radio wave, I'm trespassing. If I fly a cessna over your house, I'm violating your airspace.

And you would be well within your rights to kill me for all of those.

As a political philosophy, objectivism is simply unworkable, and anyone who holds to it is either ignorant or stupid.

Its particularly troubling in light of Rands insistence that A is A, A can never be not A, etc. She says it about a thousand times in the book but does not appear to have bothered to look around her at how people actually behave.

I think its selling point is its appeal to the ego (you're not maladjusted, your a misunderstood genius) and its reassuring reductionism (people dont have complex motives, its all really quite simple... they either make money and are awesome or they mooch money and are drones.)

what puzzles me is why christians dig it. She's obviously an atheist, so..... why would christians love this book so much?

Why are you assuming Christians dig it?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its particularly troubling in light of Rands insistence that A is A, A can never be not A, etc. She says it about a thousand times in the book but does not appear to have bothered to look around her at how people actually behave.

To be fair, A does in fact = A. A cannot not = A. By defininition, A = A.

But you're right, she doesn't actually relate it to anything worth the time it takes to read.

Frazzled
why are you assuming that I'm assuming?
(white) christians as a general rule advocate the same kind of economic policies that ayn rand did, they both vote to the right, people like palin appeal to both groups. basically they're in political alliance. personal experience too. conservativism makes strange bedfellows

Warboss
yes A=A. which is of course a truism.
if she had been truer to the law of identity she would have looked around her at how people actually behave before writing a book about how they ought to behave. No matter how much she wished people would behave like her superheros, they do not and cannot. she ignored the law of identity. AF

Ah, I see.

Again, to be fair, Rand was very open about the fact that her protagonists were idealised.

true. I dont really disagree with her idea that art ought to motivate people to be the best they can be. the part about using your full potential and being dedicated to your work is one of my favorite aspects of objectivism. surely its a contradiction to present purposely unrealistic portraits of people on the one hand, and on the other to insist that the problem with all her villains in the book is that they dont adhere to reality......? But yeah like you said at least shes open about it.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Ah, I see.

Again, to be fair, Rand was very open about the fact that her protagonists were idealised.

True, but when your entire philosophy is based upon people who act in no way shape or form like people then it's nonsense. Believe me, I'd love to dream of a world where every woman was a raging bisexual but the moment I start to espouse a world view and philosophy built upon that I'm just talking out of my ass.

Tyyr wrote:Believe me, I'd love to dream of a world where every woman was a raging bisexual but the moment I start to espouse a world view and philosophy built upon that I'm just talking out of my ass.

You seriously didn't know?

I believe the goal was to identify the potential John Galt in everyone reading it. The unfortunate truth is that most people who read that book and felt inspired by it are quite simply not genius enough to pull off the uberman thing. Heck I liked it when I first read it, but I was 16 years old and kind of naive about the realities of life. At that time I was witty, educated, in great shape, curious, knowledgable about all sorts of wierd things (most of which I have conveniently forgotten) and I truly believed that I could be the world's next super-hero. Nowadays, 20 years of life experience later, I feel almost embarrassed that I behaved like that as a kid. Reality trumps idealism and that's really all there is to it. Objectivism isn't really that objective unless you are a naive teenager who hasn't dealt with life yet. Maybe miss Rand was lucky and never had to live in the 'real' world of drudgerous day jobs and bitchy spouses, so she simply didn't know any better than to idealise her heroes as what she wanted in a perfect man, and her heroines as her idealized version of herself. It's as if she is writing a bad romance novel, but to embarrassed to admit it, so trying to disguise it as a half-assed philosophy "Everyone can achieve but for being held back by the meek and the weak and the leeches". Just say that in the first page of the book, stick Fabio on the cover and get it over with lady.

I don't understand the underpinnings. I've met many CEOs, CFOs etc. Some have been brilliant. Most weren't.

As the immortal bard once said:"Its not what you know, its who you know."

Frazzled wrote:I don't understand the underpinnings. I've met many CEOs, CFOs etc. Some have been brilliant. Most weren't.

As the immortal bard once said:"Its not what you know, its who you know."

Great hair helps a lot as well.