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

91–100 of 100 posts

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#91

Post by jrmurad »

uuilly wrote: post #87
jrmurad wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to explain? It is my understanding that they are being driven out and killed by armed thugs. I'm not sure what percentage of said thugs are government agents but I know it's not 0. How is this John Galt (who desires a world free of the aggressive initiation of force) "in action"?

Mr. Mugabe nationalized all farms in Zimbabwe. There were many British Empire leftovers (white guys) running farms quite successfully. Zimbabwe was actually one of the rare African hopes pre Mugabe. Many said it would be the "bread basket" of Africa the way Ukraine is to Europe and Kansas is to the US. Mugabe siezed all "white owned" land and had native Zimbabweans run the farms. Predictably this all went to shit and…

Thanks for clarifying... I read the parent as claiming that the looters (who you refer to as the "masses") are "John Galt in action". It makes more sense to say that the productive farmers picking up and leaving ("striking") would be John Galt in action. However, I think they were generally forced out by the thugs rather than (more Galt-like) voluntarily abandoning their industries.

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#92

Post by vlad »

paul wrote: post #70
pg wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I want to chime in because your two posts combined are still valued less than pg's rebuttal, but I think you are more right. Early cars were simply modified carriages with motors attached by hobbyists. Hobbyists--already busy enough building and improving their engines--wouldn't stop to learn how to carve wood.

Two interesting ideas come to me about this.

From what I've read, Henry Ford studied assembly lines at the Springfield Armory (which was first to create machines to make individual parts for guns, as well as first to allow non-skilled labor to assemble pieces together without involving a craftsman at all.) What's ironic is that two brothers who created and sold the first gasoline car (motorized carriage) were also in Springfield.

Henry Ford made many innovations to the product and the pipeline. New competitors innovated on the design front to get more customers, while Henry didn't. Since Henry did not change his automobile, and people wanted to buy cars in the 1920's with a more modern look (as defined by not looking like the same car Ford had put out since 1908), other designs took hold.

Successive design changes are made to stand out from the current crowd, that's all.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blDuryea.htm

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yqqlYiJW0w4J:www.engr.s...

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#93

Post by rrival »

gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #21
rrival wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps if you'd realized that The Fountainhead is based on the life of Frank Lloyd Wright or that by tirelessly adhering to existing architectural principles you're continuing to develop derivative crap, you might see what he did as a bit more revolutionary and appreciate what her message was a bit more. I couldn't put it down, but then, I don't really watch South Park.

> Perhaps if you'd realized that The Fountainhead is based on the life of Frank Lloyd Wright No it isn't. Both Frank Lloyd Wright and Ayn Rand explicitly refuted such a claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright#Cultural_Ref... In any case, Lloyd Wright's buildings might well have pushed the envelope on art, but they've been criticised on technical grounds. And the idea that "if you don't do anything you'…

From your link: "The architect hero Howard Roark of Ayn Rand's Fountainhead is generally thought to be based on Wright, although both Rand and Wright denied this." Generally thought to be based on / possibly inspired by, not exactly 'explicitly refuted' - there's a bit of Wright in Roark, though it may have been misleading to not explicitly state that Roark's character was not wholly inspired by Wright.

You sound like a BOFH - what is your basis for making such superficial, critical statements about highly creative people?

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#94

Post by brennannovak »

I have not read any Ayn Rand but I will immediately. I can not help but think of our current situation with our President and how the public views him. As I grow and experience more, being a business owner, etc... It seems that no matter how much one human knows or thinks they know- there is almost always another human who knows something else and that something else just might be what the first person needs to know.

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#95

Post by rrival »

rrival wrote: post #93
gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps if you'd realized that The Fountainhead is based on the life of Frank Lloyd Wright No it isn't. Both Frank Lloyd Wright and Ayn Rand explicitly refuted such a claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright#Cultural_Ref... In any case, Lloyd Wright's buildings might well have pushed the envelope on art, but they've been criticised on technical grounds. And the idea that "if you don't do anything you'…

From your link: "The architect hero Howard Roark of Ayn Rand's Fountainhead is generally thought to be based on Wright, although both Rand and Wright denied this." Generally thought to be based on / possibly inspired by, not exactly 'explicitly refuted' - there's a bit of Wright in Roark, though it may have been misleading to not explicitly state that Roark's character was not wholly inspired by Wright. You sound lik…

Ignore the above. I have a better concept for your context. Thanks.

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#96

Post by gwenhwyfaer »

rrival wrote: post #95
rrival wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your link: "The architect hero Howard Roark of Ayn Rand's Fountainhead is generally thought to be based on Wright, although both Rand and Wright denied this." Generally thought to be based on / possibly inspired by, not exactly 'explicitly refuted' - there's a bit of Wright in Roark, though it may have been misleading to not explicitly state that Roark's character was not wholly inspired by Wright. You sound lik…

Ignore the above. I have a better concept for your context. Thanks.

I don't know; I was quite tickled to find myself described as a BOFH...

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#97

Post by rrival »

gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #96
rrival wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignore the above. I have a better concept for your context. Thanks.

I don't know; I was quite tickled to find myself described as a BOFH...

Taken without consideration of the lengthy post you've made throughout the thread it did seem a bit ... arrogant? I'm not sure if that's the right term =)

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#98

Post by gwenhwyfaer »

rrival wrote: post #97
gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know; I was quite tickled to find myself described as a BOFH...

Taken without consideration of the lengthy post you've made throughout the thread it did seem a bit ... arrogant? I'm not sure if that's the right term =)

Er, what's arrogant or critical about correcting a misconception (that The Fountainhead was based on Lloyd Wright's life) with a reference?

As to Lloyd Wright's skills as an architect (if that's what "superficial, critical statements about highly creative people" was referring to) - I do not dispute that he was highly creative, nor that he was the first great American architect. But his roofs habitually leaked, and there were other technical problems with his creations. Since buildings, whilst unquestionably being creative endeavours, are not purely expressive in purpose, technical failings are not trivialities; they'd have curtailed the career of a lesser architect.

Oddly enough, the same is true in software; there's lots of uninspired but technically competent software, there's rather less beautiful but technically unsound software; and very little code which is both beautiful and sound - but competence can keep a coder in the game even if they have no artistic flair.

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#99

Post by gibsonf1 »

paul wrote: post #72
gibsonf1 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 regar…

That's a false dichotomy. Vision is important, but that vision needs to include a path connecting the vision to the present, and that includes making things sufficiently familiar. For pure art it may not matter (though I suspect that wealthy artists have adapted to market demands, but won't admit it), but for functional products it matters a lot. This is sort of an amusing debate, because usually I'm the one pushing…

The point of yours I was responding to is: "I know exactly what people need and my ideas are all rational and brilliant while other's are stupid and irrational" So given that, as opposed to the familiarity issue (which I wasn't talking about - but is another intersting topic), I don't see any false dichotomoy in my response.

I think for art you can look at a work in 2 ways: the subject and the style. The subject can and usually is highly influenced by the buyer, but the style of the artist, which I argue should be a manifestation of the artist's core values, should not be influenced. If it were, the artist would lack core values and consistency - which is never the case (that I know of) for meaningful artists. So again, the buyer chooses the artist for their style, and then goes from there on possibly suggesting a subject (such as a portrait), not the other way around.

You can easily argue that Apple is taking this same approach to technology. They present a distinct style of products - usually highly designed/integrated and simple to use (some would argue almost inspiring to use) in their many different products, but the type of product they make is highly influenced by what people want. For many, Apple products might be too simple or too expensive, but there is a growing group of people willing to pay extra for Apple's style of technology.

Now, if Apple were to change their style based on market research for every product, that would be the death of the apple brand as we know it, and they would morph into yet another cloning company. The familiarity idea you were talking about also breaks down with the Apple example, as who knew they wanted a Mac before it existed? It certainly wasn't familiar, nor was the Iphone, etc. But that issue is another topic. My point was that to be a successful artist adherence to a core set of values is key (in the case of business you could call it branding). This issue shows up alot in music, where people will find that a band has "sold out" by changing their unique sound to appeal more to a mass audience thus losing those original fans.

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#100

Post by aswanson »

pg wrote: post #40
randallsquared wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Popularity isn't proof that someone is a good writer, but it certainly is evidence of same.

I don't know how far you'd want to rely on that evidence. Only a small percentage of people buy books regularly. So to make a big bestseller you have to write a book that gets bought by that huge majority of people who don't read much. And usually their decisions are dominated by random extraneous factors: i.e. it's a biography of someone they admire, or is related to some doctrine they subscribe to, or contains fact…

Kudos for adding in the Chilton manual. I don't know how you do it, but the detail you add makes these types of observations hilarious because I have seen this set of books in so many houses.
Post reply on HN