Atlas Shrugged
question
How i have to agree with Rand...
Emre
(last edited
Aug 28, 2015 01:40PM
)
Aug 28, 2015 06:19AM
I think Rand was a brilliant mind who could see Capitalism for what it was= The ONLY way you can morally justify Capitalism in its entirety is if you totally eliminate alturism. As long as people care about others, there is something morally wrong with capitalism. (and I agree!) That is why she promoted greed as a virtue and saw alturism as a vice.
I think Rand appeals to the child in us which feels that it deserves more in life, and the reason it doesnt get it's way is that the society is in some form of conspiracy against them. The only reason they are not getting what we deserve is "others" - the society.
I also think, she appeals to the adult-child, the immature part of us, which hates responsibility, sharing, and our own limitations in general.
Think about it. How does a child see the world?
1. The world is what appears to them,and nothing more. (Rational beings, in his/her own opinion).
2. There is no moral ambivalance in children. It's all black & white (Makers vs takers, selfishness vs alturism, etc)
3. Children are not willing to share. IT'S MIIIIIIIINEEEEEEE!!!!!!
4. Children dont like taking responsibility for their actions. Neither does any of Rand's characters (nor Ayn Rand herself).
That is exactly Rand's ideology! She is just a child, posing as an adult. And the people who agree with Rand are just that.
It is like how bullied children watch Jackie Chan movies and read Superman comics. They know its bull.. but nevertheless enjoy those things because it appeals to a fantasy of power in them. Similary, Rand appeals to the children in adults.
I think Rand appeals to the child in us which feels that it deserves more in life, and the reason it doesnt get it's way is that the society is in some form of conspiracy against them. The only reason they are not getting what we deserve is "others" - the society.
I also think, she appeals to the adult-child, the immature part of us, which hates responsibility, sharing, and our own limitations in general.
Think about it. How does a child see the world?
1. The world is what appears to them,and nothing more. (Rational beings, in his/her own opinion).
2. There is no moral ambivalance in children. It's all black & white (Makers vs takers, selfishness vs alturism, etc)
3. Children are not willing to share. IT'S MIIIIIIIINEEEEEEE!!!!!!
4. Children dont like taking responsibility for their actions. Neither does any of Rand's characters (nor Ayn Rand herself).
That is exactly Rand's ideology! She is just a child, posing as an adult. And the people who agree with Rand are just that.
It is like how bullied children watch Jackie Chan movies and read Superman comics. They know its bull.. but nevertheless enjoy those things because it appeals to a fantasy of power in them. Similary, Rand appeals to the children in adults.
reply
flag
Rand proposes an interesting thought experiment but the implementation of said experiment is morally unjustifiable. Agree with Rand or be a person who values morals and the worth of all people. You just can't be both and you're lying to yourself and others if you say that you can.
I think "it's mine" oversimplifies the philosophy. It also encompassed taking care and being responsible for what is yours. When you lose ownership of things you have a tendency to push off responsibility to others. It also argues that being ruled by committee is very difficult and ends up causing conservative management as the decisions try to please everyone and offend no one. I don't understand your point 4. I don't think you read the same book that I did. Dagny absolutely takes responsibility for her company and her actions. I think we don't see her having to deal with negatives as she never fails. if we would have seen her fail at something and take responsibility for it, it may have helped the narrative. She was always willing to put her name on her decisions and was always willing to take action.
While I like her writing, her philosophy at least as expressed in this book is at best naïve. It presumes, the highest of character among those who 'create' and the depths of depravity among those with some actual moral fiber.
We have all seen what corporate greed brings us from allowable murder (bayer knowingly releases drugs to public that contains AIDS virus, bean counters who think it better not to recall defective autos etc) to environmental disaster and it's not pretty. Yet, there are plenty of very capable achievers who are morally well centered and do not fall victim to the complete lack of wit and ability as she portrays is the only case.
I do enjoy her writing when it's not getting too preachy (radio segment a perfect example), but anyone who is fooled into buying what she's selling needs to think a little more practically.
We have all seen what corporate greed brings us from allowable murder (bayer knowingly releases drugs to public that contains AIDS virus, bean counters who think it better not to recall defective autos etc) to environmental disaster and it's not pretty. Yet, there are plenty of very capable achievers who are morally well centered and do not fall victim to the complete lack of wit and ability as she portrays is the only case.
I do enjoy her writing when it's not getting too preachy (radio segment a perfect example), but anyone who is fooled into buying what she's selling needs to think a little more practically.
Rand's point was that people should take responsibility for their own lives. As a child, she lived in the Soviet Union, where shortly after the Russian Revolution, her father's modest shop was confiscated by the Communist government without compensation.
Rand believed that individuals fall into two categories, those who live independently and creatively; and those who live dependently and live at the expense of others. Altruism is voluntary; welfare for the able-bodied and mentally able is enforced altruism and is, therefore, theft. It's black and white, but it's literature based on her own experiences.
One of the earlier posts cites "corporate greed" as an argument against Rand's philosophy. But Rand would say that to cheat, steal, and deceive is a perversion of her principle that to take from others through guile or force is morally reprehensible. For Rand, corporate dishonesty is just as bad as burglary or embezzlement.
For example, recently, a coffee shop in Harvard Square announced it would close. A union representing its employees had demanded $24 an hour, three weeks of paid vacation, and free medical insurance -- far more than workers in similar businesses are paid. Their attitude is, "it's your responsibility to pay us much more than our labor is worth." The owner is the creator of the business and said, no thanks, that's not my job. This is a real-world example, in miniature, of Rand's point.
Rand believed that individuals fall into two categories, those who live independently and creatively; and those who live dependently and live at the expense of others. Altruism is voluntary; welfare for the able-bodied and mentally able is enforced altruism and is, therefore, theft. It's black and white, but it's literature based on her own experiences.
One of the earlier posts cites "corporate greed" as an argument against Rand's philosophy. But Rand would say that to cheat, steal, and deceive is a perversion of her principle that to take from others through guile or force is morally reprehensible. For Rand, corporate dishonesty is just as bad as burglary or embezzlement.
For example, recently, a coffee shop in Harvard Square announced it would close. A union representing its employees had demanded $24 an hour, three weeks of paid vacation, and free medical insurance -- far more than workers in similar businesses are paid. Their attitude is, "it's your responsibility to pay us much more than our labor is worth." The owner is the creator of the business and said, no thanks, that's not my job. This is a real-world example, in miniature, of Rand's point.
Yeah, I agree. Her philosophy is that of a child that hasn't matured beyond themselves. I just hate that any talk of her, automatically brings up the idea that one is subscribed to her philosophy. I certainly am not, and I completely disagree with her philosophy but I love her books, most notably Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I really appreciate the philosophical literature and her writing style. I always read books that I disagree with, that is how I learn, and that is how I think all people can learn. I appreciate these books for the new perspective and what it really does is strengthen things that I already believe in and bring in new convictions that I hold even stronger.
Do you agree with her ideas relative to altruism and greed? Beyond how I might imagine that these ideals move and shake people in the United States, what glaring judgements regarding my convictions will I choose to ignore by painting in such broad strokes? Is this discussion relevant today? Look at how many charity foundations are run by rather greedy people. Is this keeping personal score?
Hayao Miyazaki’s better by a long mile since he RIGHTFULLY values altruism and shuns greed.
Agreed with Rand and agreeing with you too.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
