atlas shrugged, are we living through it ?

Yes! It wasn't greed that got us here, it was irrational greed.

All greed is irrational. Radix omnium malorum avaritia.

I've mentioned this basic sentiment to a couple very close friends (wouldn't dream of saying it aloud in public) and they essentially laughed at me. Nevertheless, it certainly seems that way to me. Massive government intervention leads to more government intervention, everyone starts putting a hand out, and when things continue to go badly, it's blamed on not enough intervention as opposed to too much. It's certainly scary times either way.

I'm tempted to start putting up some graffiti. Who is John Galt?

ayn rand is a fascist. she grossly misappropriates nietzche for her perverse "ethos." she is a below average novelist incapable of producing real characters who evolve and change- instead favoring flat archetypes that lack humanity. her philosophical arguments are shallow and unsophisticated. taking her seriously demonstrates a severe lack of intellectual rigor.

Mr. Bush?...is that you?

No, it's me George Orwell.

What part of atlas shrugged? That part where giving people in industry free reign screws us or the one where giving government free reign screws us? I am thinking we are getting both.

postfontaine wrote:

or did we all just get screwed by massive criminal greed

i disagree. while i am not her biggest fan, i think it is the popular opinion of ayn rand that demonstrates said lack of intellectual rigor. both atlas shrugged and the fountainhead are about art in a society of commodification. i do agree that her characters are quite archetypal but they show the individuality of creativity.

conservatives like to call it their anthem because they see this creativity as individual freedom. what they don't understand is that conservative politics don't preserve those ideals.

people often recognize the commodification in her books rather than the art. it's like saying jane austen proposes we all live like the aristocrats she writes about. it's amazing how some people can't understand literary satire.

Personally, I maintain that we are living in a society similar to the one in that movie Idiocracy.

Part of me is joking, and the other part is dreadfully sincere.

While you don't have to agree with Rand--I would say that she is an above average novelist. Critics of Rand's books focus too much on their disagreements with her philosophy, she's actually quite a good writer.

And just from a personal standpoint, while I could never support an entirely Randian philosophy (although parts I do relate with) I wouldn't call her philosophical arguments shallow and unsophisticated. My personal belief would be that Rand is actually a highly IMPROVED version of Nietzsche's basic morality.

Oh, and Hank Rearden changes...

Dagny Taggart changes a little bit....

They are definitely archetypal, but there is still moderate change. Argue against her philosophy all you wish, but people like you that just categorically deny the quality of her writing in general are just searching for something to denigrate

i agree with the poster who stated that contemporary conservative politics who identify with rand are hypocritical. the corporate ascendancy and deregulation of the recent past has very little to do with the ideals of individual freedom and creativity.

as for rand's relationship with these ideals-i think that she emphasizes the ascendancy of the individual over the ways that talented individuals can use their means to improve their lives and the lives of others. the destruction of the public housing project in 'the foutainhead' is especially disturbing. it raises interesting questions about the "ownership" of art. i think it is clear, however, that a writer who presents this kind of destruction in a positive light clearly has something of God or messianic complex in relationship to their own work.

one thing i can say to her credit is that, to quote kierkegaard she "never lacked the courage to think a thought whole." that is, she at least owns her ideas.

the political implications of rand's philosophy remains for me at least, quite horrifying.

as for rand's relationship with these ideals-i think that she emphasizes the ascendancy of the individual over the ways that talented individuals can use their means to improve their lives and the lives of others. the destruction of the public housing project in 'the foutainhead' is especially disturbing. it raises interesting questions about the "ownership" of art. i think it is clear, however, that a writer who presents this kind of destruction in a positive light clearly has something of God or messianic complex in relationship to their own work.[/quote]

I don't find the destruction of the housing project all that disturbing. If I remember correctly, Roark's reasoning for destroying the housing project was that it was basically a bastardized version of his design. The project would have never been possible without Roark's strict philosophy on design, and it was agreed that it would be built to his specifications, which it wasn't. It seemed like the point of it was, if more people would adhere to strict standards, in architecture and other disciplines, such as Roark has done, that many problems such as the cost of building the housing project would be solved. So it was almost as though destroying the building, although depriving some, could help many more in the future. The housing project was a band-aid, a temporary fix, while Roark was solving the problem.

i agree with your overall point, but you seem to attribute it to a "for the greater good" mentality... i don't think that's what roark or rand are trying to show in this act

roark created something beautiful in the first place (public housing) and the commodification of that led to its diminishment into a cheaper product. his destruction of that is his self-destruction (the artist) and, in rand's allegorical voice, represents his "ownership" of his artistic identity. it is NOT a political statement against public housing as i'm sure many neo-cons have seen it. roark is not a political creature but one who works outside of those realms.

he is in fact one of the most liberal characters out there. i can only laugh when i see someone confuse that.

read the book (or watch the movie) Perfume: the story of a murderer. it is about the destruction of beauty for the creation of art. a similar concept and, like rand, one that can be misconstrued for something sinister (because he must murder to do so). it's a literary technique that i find fascinating and one that i think few can grasp. the ones who pick up on it (without being told to) have a higher intellect.

i swear it's not just because i place myself in that group, either...

I'll check out "Perfume". Who is it by?

atlas shrugged said that the business man is the hero who will save us, not exactly what is going on now, greed and/or stupidity for the banks, car industry ext prove that

perfume is a great movie, i never read the book... but you know seemingly opposite binaries are often essential to the other.

love/pain

beauty/destruction

truth/lie

creation/death

something's negation is essential to its positive meaning..its how language works-referential.

the 'greater good' argument is not really where i'm coming from...i am sort of coming from the point of view that no individual exists in a vacuum, no art exists purely in the "genius" of the creator. it is dependent upon the conditions surrounding its generation. in this sense, i don't believe that art can ever be really owned-art and ideas...they are not like mules or plots of land, they cannot be owned by a man, cannot be made the servant of man-when people try to make ideas their servant..you enter the realm of ideology.

Alright, I haven't read any of her works yet, and to be fair I will at least read the "epic" Atlas Shrugged, but after reading enough about her philsophies, as well as making general observations of my lovely extreme conservative co-workers and even friends who taut her work like it was the voice of God, it is my, likely biased, opinion that this women and those who worship her all have this sad need to feel and make others believe that they are indeed intelligent. Listen to yourselves, you all sound just as stupid as the couple who had to convince me that if I didn't believe in the 2nd coming of christ in 1948 that I was off to the dungeon. Come on people, stop kidding yourselves, you are not smart and reading this stupid book is not going to make you so, you are all stupid, I am stupid; can't we just accept this.

One last comment, why is it that those who got their PhD's from crappy state schools all talk about this great 1000 page book like it was a milestone accomplishment that immediately defines them as smart. Inferiority complex??? (note I do not have a PhD from a better school or even one at all and I am definitely no genius)

1) I don't recall anyone in the thread saying that reading this book makes them smart, it is simply a discussion of the philosophy present in the book.

2)You sound like you may be a little jealous of those with PhD's from "crappy" state schools. I agree that a PhD does not mean mean you are a genius, but it does mean you are reasonably intelligent and have put in the work to earn a PhD. Do YOU have an inferiority complex?

3) Rand isn't the greatest author ever, but she is decent, and aspects of her books do merit some discussion. Although you haven't read the book, you say it is stupid. What books do you consider worthwhile? Do you read the "Twilight" series?

4)You come on here to bash some people because they are discussing book you have never read, but know is stupid. I agree with you on one thing, you are stupid.

"Then you will see the rise of the double standard – the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money – the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law – men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims – then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'