101–108 of 108 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So in the metaphor of the story's title, Atlas, whose shrugging caused the collapse of society, is the looters ? Not the successful entrepeneurial giants, Galt et al. , who in their collective departure from the world leave it, figuratively speaking, unsupported?
No, Atlas is people like Galt. The point is that the looters pushed the weight of the world on to them, and that's the failure of their society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So by that logic, is it free if your life depends on it? I'm looking forward to the economic apologies not rooted in reason or fact.
Freedom from the undesired action of men. Nobody is free from nature. Everyone needs sustenance to survive.
How does a free market protect you from this?
>When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.
It's been quite a saga.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fundamental problem with Rand's ideology is her cartoonish categorization of everyone that isn't Galt-esque or an enthusiastic, hypercompetent support person as evil looters/parasites. Iirc, Galt is basically trying to collapse society for everyone but the former. When you realize that you can't just write off people because they didn't turn out to be brilliant entrepreneurs or perky worker bees, and that the wor…
Ayn Rand's characters and storytelling is crappy. The correct response when someone asks, "Who is John Galt?" is always "WHO THE #$%^&* CARES?!" That notwithstanding, Rand understood that one can moralize without limitation in our culture as long as one does it in narrative form, and she used her platform to the extreme. The message and moral I took from her stories was essentially pro-human, where the archetypal goo…
So same basic concept as nitschze espoused?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ayn Rand's characters and storytelling is crappy. The correct response when someone asks, "Who is John Galt?" is always "WHO THE #$%^&* CARES?!" That notwithstanding, Rand understood that one can moralize without limitation in our culture as long as one does it in narrative form, and she used her platform to the extreme. The message and moral I took from her stories was essentially pro-human, where the archetypal goo…
> In any case, her brand of optimism is so rare, and that sells. You're saying Ayn Rand is popular because of the optimism in her works?
I hope to God Rand's writing isn't gobbled up for its sex scenes, yikers!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ayn Rand's characters and storytelling is crappy. The correct response when someone asks, "Who is John Galt?" is always "WHO THE #$%^&* CARES?!" That notwithstanding, Rand understood that one can moralize without limitation in our culture as long as one does it in narrative form, and she used her platform to the extreme. The message and moral I took from her stories was essentially pro-human, where the archetypal goo…
> it feels like an atheist's attempt to replace God with Man and then posit him as the highest virtue. So same basic concept as nitschze espoused?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ayn Rand's characters and storytelling is crappy. The correct response when someone asks, "Who is John Galt?" is always "WHO THE #$%^&* CARES?!" That notwithstanding, Rand understood that one can moralize without limitation in our culture as long as one does it in narrative form, and she used her platform to the extreme. The message and moral I took from her stories was essentially pro-human, where the archetypal goo…
> It's so interesting to me that your critique went to group politics and identity, though. Rand was consistently negative about groups and big government cronyism. She treated her archetypes as equally noble whether they were breaking rocks in a quarry or engineering some new miracle metal. Do you view the world through such a group identity lens that you couldn't see that in her writing? It's absolutely plain. I’m…
> Galt is basically trying to collapse society for everyone but the former.
There is an interesting feature of the Christian bible where God starts out walking/talking directly with Man, and as the stories progress, God grows more and more distant. Eventually, God can only communicate with mankind via prophets and Jesus. I think the point of this storytelling device was to indicate the increasing sin divide between humanity and God. God, being incompatible with sin, simply could not approach us even though He wanted to.
I believe Rand uses this same 'disgusted separation' device in Atlas Shrugged to remove her heroes further and further away from the fallen world.
That you took Galt's exodus and luring of the most productive people from society as an offensive move to destabilize that society struck me immediately as a "class struggle" thought. You had formed Rand's productive archetypes as some kind of oppressive elite class, or some such.
I wish there was some gray in Rand's writing and thoughts to allow for that. In her philosophy, voluntary denial of one's productive capacity to others could never be considered terrorism.
I clearly see targeted terrorism in Galt's luring of key people out of society, regardless of when and why, because we all need one another, period. But Rand thought Galt was saving those people from an already too-far-gone, collapsing world, there to help rebuild after the old world finally bottomed out.
> When you realize that you can't just write off people because they didn't turn out to be brilliant entrepreneurs or perky worker bees
This felt to me like another oppressor/victim thought you had where the oppressor might be the employed and the victim might be the indigent or jobless. Life is more complicated than that, so those characterizations are only sometimes true (and perhaps not even mostly true in my personal, subjective experience.) Reducing the world down to too generic terms risks missing the truth of things, giving one false rationale for all kinds of mischief.
You make a good point about gradients in Riordan vs Galt. It's been a couple of years since I read AS, but I recall Riordan's "sin" was that he loved the work too much and gave in to the government cronies rather than just shrugging them off. Ugh, that book was a hot mess...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's so interesting to me that your critique went to group politics and identity, though. Rand was consistently negative about groups and big government cronyism. She treated her archetypes as equally noble whether they were breaking rocks in a quarry or engineering some new miracle metal. Do you view the world through such a group identity lens that you couldn't see that in her writing? It's absolutely plain. I’m…
It was two things you said which gave me some insight into your worldview: > Galt is basically trying to collapse society for everyone but the former. There is an interesting feature of the Christian bible where God starts out walking/talking directly with Man, and as the stories progress, God grows more and more distant. Eventually, God can only communicate with mankind via prophets and Jesus. I think the point of t…
I said that, forgetting there was terrorism (hero blows up a building) in The Fountainhead. AS is definitely a more pure statement of Rand's philosophy, but I think she rationalized away too much in every case to cleanly make her point.