Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#61

Post by SwellJoe »

rrival wrote: post #7
SwellJoe wrote: post #6

All the Ayn Rand you'll ever need is in Anthem. Much shorter than Atlas Shrugged, and better literature to boot. I'm a long-time fan, after finding one of her books at a flea market when I was a kid (bought it coincidentally at the same time as Walden Two, a socialist manifesto by B.F. Skinner...one was delightfully rational and rang true while the other's greatest feat of intellectual brilliance was the use of glass…

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

"To suggest that anyone -not- read them (for the sake of brevity, no less) is to suggest a reader not experience great, life-changing literature."

Brevity is one of the virtues of great literature. You'll probably learn that as you grow older and time becomes more valuable to you. Certainly, great literature can be long (Middlesex is perhaps the best novel of the past 20 years, and it weighs in at a pretty hefty 556 pages...this is still significantly shorter than Atlas), but Atlas Shrugged, as art, suffers under the weight of the philosophical treatise that it's carrying around on its back (much like the mythic Atlas, and yes, I believe he should shrug off all that extra weight).

The Fountainhead is somewhat less marred by needless words, but only Anthem is actually free of cruft, in my opinion.

"Her objectivist philosophy may be a bit overt in the latter, but never for a second could I sleep well knowing I'd proposed that others -skip- these books."

People who like what they find in the shorter Rand books will go on to read the others. People who get stuck in the mud of Galt's speech will never pickup another Rand book. That speech is simply terrible literature. It might be good philosophy, but it's not good art.

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#62

Post by [deleted] »

wyday wrote: post #59
gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is a non sequitur, in that it doesn't follow from the given premises. All that does follow is that one can't determine whether she's a good writer just because she's popular.

The statement (or at least the fixed one) does follow from the given premise. Just because you disagree with the premise (that popularity might be evidence of quality) doesn't make it non sequitur. To save myself from repeating the same argument as the few threads above this, I'll just link to it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=54920

[deleted]

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#63

Post by gibsonf1 »

paul wrote: post #53
robg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a huge Rand fan but I just thought it was an interesting take on why business folks have adopted her. The philosophy works well with architecture because of "classical" limitations and the power of the individual to evoke change in the modern world. That's a message that any startupper needs even as you're certainly right - we need to iterate with customers in mind. But then, that's our sector. Imagine those craz…

Yes, clearly we sometimes need to push what is "normal" and create things that people don't yet know they want, but we should be pragmatic about it. For example, Esperanto may be a more "rational" and well designed language, but I'm going to keep using English because that's what works for me. The early cars were "horseless carriages" because that was easier to build and easier for people to relate to, and there's no…

Think about it this way: how much would you respect an artist that had no personal vision or personal style in his work, but just did whatever his clients wanted so that there was no consistent character at all in his art? Can you name any respected artist that works this way? My guess is no.

The point here is that for an artist to make authentic art, the work has to be a reflection of that artist's core values regardless of what they are. It is that core that gives consistency to an artists work, and it is being true to that core that is necessary (but not sufficient) to make meaningful art.

Rand's point was not at all that Roark would "force" his work on his clients for whom Roark could care less, but rather that the client had to choose Roark because Roark's work resonated with the values of the client in the same way that someone who buys art is hopefully doing so because that art resonates with their values.

The point Rand was making was that culturally the kind of art Roark was producing, in the beginning of the book, is not popular and that only a few desired it. By the end of the book, Roark had found success in finding a growing body of clients who wanted his style of design. He had found his niche and had remained true to his core values as an artist - integrity being the primary one.

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#64

Post by gwenhwyfaer »

wyday wrote: post #59
gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is a non sequitur, in that it doesn't follow from the given premises. All that does follow is that one can't determine whether she's a good writer just because she's popular.

The statement (or at least the fixed one) does follow from the given premise. Just because you disagree with the premise (that popularity might be evidence of quality) doesn't make it non sequitur. To save myself from repeating the same argument as the few threads above this, I'll just link to it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=54920

Right. You know, finally I did what one of us should have done some 8 or 9 messages back - I went and checked what you actually wrote:

> the popularity of her books suggests otherwise [my emphasis]

In other words, you weren't actually making the claim I thought you were - that popularity implies quality. So I'm sorry for missing your point originally.

I do disagree that popularity is evidence of quality; popularity is only evidence of broad appeal, and you'd still need to demonstrate a correlation between broad appeal and quality - I contend that no correlation exists. But that's a reasonable debate, not a logical fallacy.

But I have to ask - why didn't you tell me that I was refuting an argument you hadn't made...?

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#65

Post by dfranke »

SwellJoe wrote: post #55
zach wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too. Having detested Catcher in the Rye and Slaughterhouse Five as a teen, I stopped reading books that seemed to only be popular within the context of being a teenager. It was definitely a good move.

Whoah, you're weird. Salinger and Vonnegut are Good (with a capital G).

Wow, we're definitely on opposite sides of this one. Atlas Shrugged is on my list of life-changing books. I've long since moved on from objectivism (I'm now a Rothbardian), but it was Rand who first got me thinking coherently about property and social obligation. OTOH, I found Cather in the Rye pretty shallow, and Slaughter Five just seemed like dada. Vonnegut did some great work (Harrison Bergeron comes to mind), but that book is not among it.

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#66

Post by gwenhwyfaer »

gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #46
gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it doesn't. The exact rational beliefs that Objectivism encompasses were very carefully laid out by Rand before her death, and all other opinions, beliefs or perspectives were explicitly denounced as irrational. It's hard to take anything seriously that on the one hand says "reject irrationality, think for yourself, reach your own conclusion!" and on the other hand says "but the only way you'll know, and we'll…

Actually, I was thinking about this on the way into Sheffield, and I was wrong to use the term "the pain we cause"; I think what I actually mean is "the pain we have the means to prevent", which does encompass cause, but also covers things like survivor guilt as well. Rand's work allows people to admit that they do have the means to prevent the suffering of others (rather than pretending that they don't, which is dis…

Hmm. It looks as though someone's systematically downed every comment of mine they could get to in this thread. If so, that someone should be ashamed of themselves.

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#67

Post by shawndrost »

Is Ayn saying that the individual is more important than the collective, or that the best route to collective improvement is through selfishness? I suspect it's the latter, but Ayn and her followers frame the debate so combatively that it's hard to be sure. I see this confusion rearing its head throughout this page.

(I read the first 100 pages of Atlas Shrugged, and got sick of it. I thought it was uninteresting as a novel and inefficient and not rigorous as a treatise. This part of the novel seemed to intentionally perpetuate my confusion: the conflict, as I recall, was between truly selfish people and collectivists that were too incompetent to see when the selfish people were doing collective good. Why conflate incompetence and collectivism?)

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#68

Post by SwellJoe »

dfranke wrote: post #65
SwellJoe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoah, you're weird. Salinger and Vonnegut are Good (with a capital G).

Wow, we're definitely on opposite sides of this one. Atlas Shrugged is on my list of life-changing books. I've long since moved on from objectivism (I'm now a Rothbardian), but it was Rand who first got me thinking coherently about property and social obligation. OTOH, I found Cather in the Rye pretty shallow, and Slaughter Five just seemed like dada. Vonnegut did some great work (Harrison Bergeron comes to mind), bu…

"Wow, we're definitely on opposite sides of this one."

Not sure where you got that. All of my posts on this topic should make clear that I'm a very big Rand fan, and have read all of her books (really, all of them). I would never call myself a SOME-PERSONS-NAMEian of any sort, so perhaps that's the difference. I do sometimes refer to myself as an anarcho-capitalist, so, philosophically, your Rothbardian views and mine probably coincide more than they differ. ;-)

I actually did enjoy Atlas Shrugged. But the speech is too much, the book too long (by about half), and the characters are weak (for such a long book). When I first started reading Rand, I wanted to share her books with everybody. So I recommended Atlas, her opus, to everybody I knew. None of them made it through the book. All got bogged down in the speech, and either gave up, or skimmed the rest of it. Even people who were reasonably heavy readers (though mostly pulp) still couldn't stomach the whole thing. I started recommending Anthem after that, and everybody made it through...everybody enjoyed it...and some went on to read other Rand books (I recommend The Fountainhead next).

I still believe that intelligent people can get everything they really need to know about Rand's philosophy from Anthem. And, of course, dumb folks can actually read Anthem, understand it, and enjoy it.

But, you're definitely weird to think "Catcher in the Rye" is shallow. Perhaps you like a lot of words in your stories. I don't. Word of advice: Stay away from Hemingway, you won't like it.

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#69

Post by SwellJoe »

paul wrote: post #13
rrival wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I am never reading again." -- police officer Barbrady, South Park (1998) I made it about 1/3 of the way into The Fountainhead but got bored and lost interest. Self-interest is ok, but I'm not going to make i…

"The architect who wouldn't design what people like (because it wasn't rational, as I recall) seemed like a really annoying person to deal with. And I certainly wouldn't want to invest in his startup :)"

This one made me laugh a little. What did people want from gmail, Paul? Folders, right? Lots of good folder-related features. Did you give it to them? Nope. You made search work right, threaded the conversations, and to hell with what people wanted. You gave'em what they didn't know they wanted (but what was right). And you were right to do so.

Sure, now you have labels, which are just like folders only not called folders, but I'm pretty sure you weren't around for that (or at least you didn't push for labels if you were around for it).

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#70

Post by paul »

pg wrote: post #56
paul wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, clearly we sometimes need to push what is "normal" and create things that people don't yet know they want, but we should be pragmatic about it. For example, Esperanto may be a more "rational" and well designed language, but I'm going to keep using English because that's what works for me. The early cars were "horseless carriages" because that was easier to build and easier for people to relate to, and there's no…

I don't think early car manufacturers deliberately made cars look like horseless carriages because they'd be familiar or easy to build. I think it was more because it was the only kind of vehicle they could imagine.

Yes, I didn't mean to imply that there was a conscious decision -- everyone is limited by what is familiar, including designers and inventors. The point is that retaining familiar elements doesn't doom us to stagnation. Incremental improvements are usually sufficient and more successful.
Post reply on HN