Atlas Shrugged turns 50

[Wrecked944]

Originally Posted by legion

Investing is the act of enabling people with ideas to execute those ideas, in exchange for some of the fruits of their effort.

Exactly. I completely agree with you. I have no problem with investing. But by d'Aconia's statement "When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others" then "enabling" other people's efforts is excluded - and no he isn't mentioning those who "risk" either. That statement is pretty cut and dry and semantics isn't involved.

I've read lots of Rand - including her essays which most of her supports seem to ignore. The odd thing about her fictional characters - like d'Aconia - is that they express a moral judgement against those who try to "steal" their money. But those "looters" and "moochers" are just pursuing their own self interest. They have presumably concluded that acquiring the wealth of others is more cost effective than earning their own. It is as though her characters are saying "Pursue your own self interest but only if you do it in the same way I pursue MY self interest." It assumes that stealing cannot be in someone's self interest. I think it shows incredible hubris to assume one can know what is in another's self interest.

I wish instead she had written a book that explored a purer form of self interest - a real anarchy where people simply took what they wanted by force, guile, skill, whatever. The role of self interest in human motivation is grossly undervalued IMO and I think Rand can be credited greatly with raising the issue and treating it seriously. I only whish she had stuck to the core topic of self interest without adding all of the unnecessary (and, IMO, misplaced) moralizing.

Originally Posted by Rearden

How so? That would be like animals in the jungle, where none of the animals make anything. Do they need money?

Things don't need to be produced for wealth to exist. Capital can be owned even if it wasn't produced by human hands. Land, for instance, has often throughout history been acquired through violence. And that doesn't prevent the new "owner" from selling it for money.

[lendaddy]

The owner of the land procured it in some way yes? Either by honest means, hook or crook but it's still a possession made possible by the owners action/"work".

Regardless, in the end it's not important for the theory to be flawless. Often people search for an exception and are so pleased when they do that they ignore and dismiss the the balance which is true (often as in this case overwhelmingly).

[the]

Originally Posted by JanusCole

But those "looters" and "moochers" are just pursuing their own self interest. They have presumably concluded that acquiring the wealth of others is more cost effective than earning their own. It is as though her characters are saying "Pursue your own self interest but only if you do it in the same way I pursue MY self interest." It assumes that stealing cannot be in someone's self interest. I think it shows incredible hubris to assume one can know what is in another's self interest.

They are not pursuing a rational self interest.

Stealing is not in one's rational self interest.

That's pretty basic stuff.

[scottmandue]

I study philosophy as a hobby and picked up a copy of "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" at the library and bought a cheap paperback of "The Romantic Manifesto".

I have not read any of her fiction but if it is a philosophers job to make people think, judging by the responses here I feel she has succeeded.

[sammyg2]

Had no clue about the subject so i googled it and found this quote:

Fifty years after it was published, "Atlas Shrugged" lives on like no other book outside of, well, the Bible. Eight percent of Americans have read it, according to a 2007 Zogby poll. Yet a 1991 Library of Congress and Book of the Month Club poll found that, next to the Bible, it is the book that had most frequently "made a difference" in people's lives.

Now it's no secret that I've read the bible, but
I have never in my life read this book, or even heard about this book or it's author. Is it some kind of hippie book or something? Maybe it's a liberal book and hense not allowed in Orange County

[BeyGon]

Sammy, try it.
It isn't a liberal type book, I think most of the liberal types here don't think much of it. It is over 1000 pages so that puts some people off. Plus you need to think about what you are reading. I have only read it twice and need to do it again. Try Anthem first.

[Tobra]

No, it is not a hippie book. The conservative manifesto, perhaps, would be a fair thumbnail of it.

Basically, it is about how things are heading in the US, awards for "participating" rather than winning a competition, because if there is a winner, there is a loser, and it is bad to have losers. If one company is making a better product because they spent money on R&D to develop it, that is not fair, because everyone should get a better product, not just the customers of that company, so they should give the plans to their competitior for free, or a rail company letting their competitors use their track since they did not maintain their own, punitive taxes for success, that sort of thing.

It has a happy ending, unlike the ending for the US will be.

[sammyg2]

Wow, sounds like good reading. Why is it that I never heard of it? Am I that far off the beaten path? Maybe I spend too much time at work and soccer games.

[legion]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Why is it that I never heard of it?

The liberals that control the educational system in this country despise this book. It is diametrically opposed to their beliefs. It espouses all that they fear. It makes heroes out of the left's villains and villains out of their heroes. It praises self-reliance and marginalizes government intervention.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Had no clue about the subject so I googled it and found this quote:

Fifty years after it was published, "Atlas Shrugged" lives on like no other book outside of, well, the Bible. Eight percent of Americans have read it, according to a 2007 Zogby poll. Yet a 1991 Library of Congress and Book of the Month Club poll found that, next to the Bible, it is the book that had most frequently "made a difference" in people's lives.

Now it's no secret that I've read the bible,

Funny... I can think of a half dozen (or more) books that claim to be second only to the Bible.

"Zen and the art if motorcycle maintenance" also supposedly "changed people’s lives". I liked the book but I think that is a bit much, I lent my copy to a friend and he and his wife hated it.

Sammy, I am pretty sure the public library has copies of "Atlas Shrugged" you could check out.

[Wrecked944]

Originally Posted by the

They are not pursuing a rational self interest.

Stealing is not in one's rational self interest.

That's pretty basic stuff.

It is still not up to you or anyone else to decide what is in someone else's self interest. You are assuming everyone has the same rational self interest which is almost guaranteed to be incorrect. Stealing may not be in YOUR rational self interest. But it may well be in someone else's rational self interest. Assuming you know what is best for someone else - whether you think you have a rational justification for it or not - is hubris. That's even MORE basic stuff.

I'll say it again. I wish she had taken it a step further and explored the heart of self interest. She did us all a service by raising the issue but then did not follow through to its ultimate conclusions.

[the]

Originally Posted by JanusCole

It is still not up to you or anyone else to decide what is in someone else's self interest. You are assuming everyone has the same rational self interest which is almost guaranteed to be incorrect. Stealing may not be in YOUR rational self interest. But it may well be in someone else's rational self interest. Assuming you know what is best for someone else - whether you think you have a rational justification for it or not - is hubris. That's even MORE basic stuff.

I'll say it again. I wish she had taken it a step further and explored the heart of self interest. She did us all a service by raising the issue but then did not follow through to its ultimate conclusions.

No offense, but your posts disclose that you are so far off with such limited knowledge on this subject, it would be impossible to have a meaningful discussion.

But in a nutshell, Rand does believe that everyone has (or should have) the same rational self interest. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with her, but she absolutely "explores the heart" of *rational* self interest. That's a very basic part of her writings, and one that she spends a lot of time on. Its basically the core of her writings. And, again, no offense, one that you obviously are not familiar with.

Again, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Rand. I'm just saying you have a very limited understanding or knowledge of her writings (like most in this thread).

[Wrecked944]

Originally Posted by the

No offense

None taken. Part of the central foundation of Rand's Rational Self-Interest is her assertion that a person's "happiness" is the fundamental moral purpose of life. I think that is almost a direct quote of something she wrote. Rand then, correctly IMO, asserts that a person's emotions can be used a method of measuring "happiness". I'll find the book or essay where she says that if you like. And it is here that Rand's logic breaks down. And it is the same place where most other attempts at devising universal human truths fall down. You simply cannot know the heart of every other human being. And so her definition of rational self interest (reason, productivity, and self-esteem) may perfectly describe her experience and it may well perfectly describe yours - or even the experiences of millions of other people. But unless you can prove with some sort of rigor that everyone has the same experience of happiness, then you have to allow for people who experience happiness through other means (like theft, cruelty, sloth). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anywhere in her book "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" where she explains how it is she can prove that her assertions are universal to all human consciousnesses. Can you point me to the pages I missed? She gets away with it in her novels because they are, after all, fiction, and so she employed some poetic license in ensuring that all of the characters had the same rational self interest.

BTW - If you want to read some recent scientific work that seems to undermine our entire understanding of consciousness, then read the works of Antonio Damasio. His research pulls the rug out from under a lot of earlier attempts to understand human nature - from Descartes to Freud to Rand to just about anybody else who tried to understand human consciousness through personal experience. The scientific evidence really seems to throw western epistemology on the mat and kick it in the head.

Originally Posted by lendaddy

The owner of the land procured it in some way yes? Either by honest means, hook or crook but it's still a possession made possible by the owners action/"work".

No, theft is verboten in Rand's ethical world and so it does not count as "work".

Originally Posted by lendaddy

Regardless, in the end it's not important for the theory to be flawless. Often people search for an exception and are so pleased when they do that they ignore and dismiss the the balance which is true (often as in this case overwhelmingly).

Actually, Rand's theories are presented as a rigorous and consistent philosophy. And so exceptions matter. And as a rigorous philosophy, it invites criticism like every other philosophy. So don't worry. I'm sure Ayn can take the heat.

Lendaddy, If you are going to talk about Rand, you really should read some of her works. Her essays are, IMO, particularly accessible and often ignored even by her supporters.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by JanusCole

No, theft is verboten in Rand's ethical world and so it does not count as "work".

I never said it fit within her definition of rational actions, only that it was/were the fruits of action or work.

Originally Posted by JanusCole

Actually, Rand's theories are presented as a rigorous and consistent philosophy. And so exceptions matter. And as a rigorous philosophy, it invites criticism like every other philosophy. So don't worry. I'm sure Ayn can take the heat.

Lendaddy, If you are going to talk about Rand, you really should read some of her works. Her essays are, IMO, particularly accessible and often ignored even by her supporters.

Again I was making a broad statement in regards these types of discussions, you can get wrapped up in finding the needle and miss the haystack.

[azasadny]

I loved "Atlas Shrugged" and it made a huge impression on me.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by legion

The liberals that control the educational system in this country despise this book. It is diametrically opposed to their beliefs. It espouses all that they fear. It makes heroes out of the left's villains and villains out of their heroes. It praises self-reliance and marginalizes government intervention.

I was 10 years out of college when I read it. Friend loaned me a copy, read it in a few days, returned it and bought a copy for myself. In retrospect I feel a bit cheated that none of my college professors suggested it.

Everyone pursues their own self interest, it is human nature. The manner in which you go about pursuing your self interest is what matters. Are you willing to steal, lie, cheat or kill to further your own interests? I am not. I believe this is what she was referring to with the rational self interest label, but I am pretty conservative, so I must be pretty stupid and uninformed.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by azasadny

I loved "Atlas Shrugged" and it made a huge impression on me.

Art, as you are one of the most even-keeled, unbiased, objective and open-minded folks on OT, I am very interested to hear what impression it made on you.

I've never read it, probably never will.

[Tobra]

I had several peole try to get me to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maint. Never could get through that one.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by Tobra

I had several peole try to get me to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maint. Never could get through that one.

I agree. I did read the entire thing. It never got any better.

Atlas Shrugged, on the other hand, was one of the most influential books I've ever read.

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

Originally Posted by legion

The liberals that control the educational system in this country despise this book. It is diametrically opposed to their beliefs. It espouses all that they fear. It makes heroes out of the left's villains and villains out of their heroes. It praises self-reliance and marginalizes government intervention.

thats funny, it was required reading in my high school along with Anthem.