'Atlas Shrugged' may yet come to the screen...

[griffer]

Wow, you just shifted the debate on me, Senator. Tough to have a debate when the resolution keeps changing.

Are you discussing the viability of her philosophy/politics or whether her novel succeed as art and literature?

They two very different discussions.

Then it's really nothing but a fable

She herself admitted that her characters, by the very nature of fiction and art, are extractions. They are dramatic characters- more hero and villain than human. In her manifesto on art she expands on this, so in short, yes. Fables are works of fiction designed to illustrate and communicate an idea.

Yes, very rational and all logic. Too bad the rest of us suffer from human emotion.

Think of her characters as Platonic forms. Now you can debate whether a more distilled and concentrated character is better than a 'realistic' character, but Ayn Rand didn't get into that. Bottom line, she agrees it would be nearly impossible to find a single John Galt, much less a society of them.

Now, her philosophy, which I find under developed, and her politics, take this into account. She no more expects a utopian of supermen than you or I would. Marx, on the other hand, claims that such a society of uniformly enlightened individuals is possible; then the shortcomings of reality require the state to enslave the unenlightened masses for their own good.

Worked for Edison.

Funny, I thought Edison might be referenced. I would look to the character of Gail Wynand, modeled on Hearst. It is possible to do great things and lose sight of the motivation. That doesn't negate the idea. A grasping, cut-throat, paranoid who violates others' rights is a criminal. A thief is one who steals. By your own explicit statements, you acknowledge that humans are flawed. Unfortunately, Hearst, Edison, Speer, are all examples of real men who showed great potential, but ended up lost.


Pick one discussion to play devils advocate with- critique the art, which was a vessel to display her vision of the ideal potential of man. Or her philosophy, which was to challenge men to reach toward their platonic ideal form. But don't try to use the fiction of her stories to discredit her philosophy.

One of her characters had a wonderful sniping comment to the effect of, "Why bother with ideals? We are flawed and will never live up to them, so why bother?"*

Her answer was, "Because that is precisely what makes us human."




*horrible paraphrase; apologies to the author, Peikoff, and all learned men.

 

[Senator Jack]

Pick one discussion to play devils advocate with- critique the art, which was a vessel to display her vision of the ideal potential of man. Or her philosophy, which was to challenge men to reach toward their platonic ideal form. But don't try to use the fiction of her stories to discredit her philosophy.

Difficult to do since she decided to use fiction to illustrate her philosophy. Let's look at this from the perspective of the average reader circa 1943. There's a book called The Fountainhead. It's supposed to be a work of fiction. Average reader reads this book of fiction, and because the hero is so damn magnetic, he gets roped into his philosophies, even though they may not be in the best interest of average reader and his coevals. So I have to believe Rand knew exactly what she was doing here. A philosophical tome would have sold a few hundred copies at best, while the novel sold hundreds of thousands.

My problem with her philosophy is not with the celebration of individuality - I'm all for that - but that she believes men, and especially men of great intellect, don't need to function in society, or even be tethered to it. If John Galt's great gizmo happened to give brain tumors to ten percent of the public, she would have problems with the government pulling it off the market. She'd think Taggart had the right to put the railroad through a farmer's front door simply because he was a great man. Again, this is what I was left with from reading the novel. And again, I had read them in my early twenties. (Funny, I find most people I know who read them at that age promote her theories. I thought they were a bit crackpot.)

More on this later - off to work.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[griffer]

Let's see, where to begin. First, a reminder, this thread is about a great story, a flawed book, and the possibility of it being made into a movie. I hope it becomes a movie that stirs people as well as entertains.

There's a book called The Fountainhead. It's supposed to be a work of fiction.

It isn't 'supposed to be', it is a work of fiction. It is not a philosophical work. But what work of fiction doesn't advance a theme, a worldview, a short hand 'philosophy'? Even the most pulp novels have 'heroic' qualities the author communicates to the reader. I read your comments as though you feel she was propagandizing her philosophy in the form of book and somehow duped the masses. Shame on her for tricking everyone into liking selfishness. You miss the point of her novels- she wanted to tell moving stories, not philosophize.

Difficult to do since she decided to use fiction to illustrate her philosophy.

In fact, she stopped writing fiction after 'Atlas Shrugged' and turned to producing tons of those 'tomes' you feel are the only true vessels for philosophy. She spent the rest of life writing newsletters, essays, etc. expanding on her ideas that had been viewed in scraps in her novels.

My problem with her philosophy is not with the celebration of individuality - I'm all for that

She doesn't 'celebrate individuality', she celebrates the rights of individuals. The first is a touchy-feely concept that everyone is special simply because they are distinct from other equally special little entities, the later is a position which puts the individuals rights ahead of the rights of society. Big difference; now which are you all for, the former or the later?

She believes men, and especially men of great intellect, don't need to function in society...<edited rant>..she would have problems with the government...Taggart had the right to put the railroad through a farmer's front door simply because he was a great man...

This is just incorrect and a misrepresentation of the novel and philosophy. This is absolutely contrary to both the characters in her novels, the plots of the stories, and anathema to the philosophy she later espoused. You might want to get a better handle on the material before launching into critique. What you took from the novel was obviously influenced by your beliefs and has diverged from the text over time. Clearly, you have a conception of what she was saying, and you don't care for it. All I can say is you conception is off-base simply because it is off-text.

For the record, though I am not Rand, nor an Objectivist scholar, I think I can turn these phrases around to be more indicative, thought not completely representative.

1-She believes society needs men, and especially men of great intellect, to function. These men are not required, however, by society to do anything. They can be bums or inventors. It is the call of each man. She said it better,

"The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine. "

2-If a man violates the rights of another- either of property or of life, due process would mete out a legal judgment. She would have a problem with the government 'taking' action without due process.

3-If the farmer sold the front door to Taggart, why not? If Taggart just expropriated the property, say using imminent domain, then yes, she would have a problem with it; see #2.

(Funny, I find most people I know who read them at that age promote her theories. I thought they were a bit crackpot.)

Aaargh. Is that a parenthetical potshot? Well, I am not in my twenties and I am not a crackpot. At least not an Objectivist crackpot.<sigh>

I don't promote her philosophy, but I started reading her fiction about 20 years ago. I think there are bits of it that work, and practical applications where I don't like it, but this isn't about me.

This thread, I don't think, was intended to promote or defend the philosophy of Ayn Rand, but since it is being disparaged, misrepresented and outright maligned, let's put this to bed. At least get the record straight, then go start another thread,
"Why I can't Reconcile my Leftist Mentality with Ayn Rand's Objectivism, 'cause She's a Poopy Head that Tricked Me Into Thinking for a Moment Many Years Ago that Selfishness Might Be O.K....."

 

[Senator Jack]

No one's disparaging or maligning anyone here, Griffer. Just a friendly argument. That's all. I have friends who don't believe in God, and I do. I don't get all bent out of shape when they start saying there is no supreme being.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[griffer]

It's not a disparaging of beliefs, I am not even an objectivist.

It's just getting it wrong that irks me.

[huh]

 

[Senator Jack]

Shame on her for tricking everyone into liking selfishness. You miss the point of her novels- she wanted to tell moving stories, not philosophize.

Selfishness - there you go. That's what I got from her. I'm neither left nor right, not communist nor capitalist: I'm a humanist, and I suppose selfishness is antipodal to my personal dogma.

But perhaps I did misunderstand her work, theories, et cetera. I was a kid when I read her, and since then I've really had no interest in following up. But what would be her answer in this situation:

1. Dr. Bob discovers the cure for cancer and stores the formula in a safety deposit box.
2. Dr. Bob is a selfish man and wants all the gold in the world for the cure. The deal is non-negotiable.
3. The world governments will not hand over all their gold.

Do Dr. Bob's individual rights to his knowledge supercede the rights of society to obtain that knowledge?


Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Notice I'm staying out of this one? I was talking about a movie.

I will say this; It's 'Rational Selfishness' that Objectivism promotes. And it is 'Altruism' that Objectivism opposes. It's the difference between FREE CHOICE and GUILT.

Only Dr. Evil would withhold the cure for cancer - hardly a "rational selfish objectivist"! But the answer of course is, YES. An inventor's rights supercede any perceived "rights" of society. Society, of course, is nothing but a group of individuals. A group of individuals who would steal someone else's property for their own purposes is not a society but a mob. That's exactly why we value the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

It's that simple, really.

-dixon "selfish" cannon

 

[Hemingway Jones]

For the record...

...I think this is a great discussion and I am enjoying reading it very much. This clearly points out the difference between a political discussion and a philosophical one, and as long as you fellows are enjoying it, I hope it continues in this spirit.

I always say, debate the issues and not the person.

My only regret is that I have neither read the book nor seen the film, so I have very little to contribute.

 

[Senator Jack]

Aaargh. Is that a parenthetical potshot? Well, I am not in my twenties and I am not a crackpot. At least not an Objectivist crackpot.<sigh>

Didn't mean that to come off as 'any follower of Rand is a crackpot,' just that I think some of her theory is a bit crackpot. As I wrote, I have friends who believe the entire RC Church is crackpot, but they don't think me a crackpot for having faith.

She doesn't 'celebrate individuality', she celebrates the rights of individuals. The first is a touchy-feely concept that everyone is special simply because they are distinct from other equally special little entities, the later is a position which puts the individuals rights ahead of the rights of society. Big difference; now which are you all for, the former or the later?

For the record, the latter, but to a point. As for the former, as a cynic (go figure, a cynic with a heart) 'yeesh' I detest that sort of new age feel-good nonsense.

Stated by Dixon Cannon:
Notice I'm staying out of this one? I was talking about a movie.

No need to stay out of it, Dixon. For me, this is a friendly bar debate - the sort I usually have at two a.m. Now, if you want to tell me that The White Album is superior to A Hard Day's Night, then we may have to put on the gloves. Now on to our ethical dilemma.

YES. An inventor's rights supercede any perceived "rights" of society. Society, of course, is nothing but a group of individuals. A group of individuals who would steal someone else's property for their own purposes is not a society but a mob. That's exactly why we value the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

But isn't the inidividual a product of society? Without all that has come before, all that society has done to prepare for Dr. Bob's arrival, the accumulated knowledge of society handed down for centuries, Dr. Bob would have never discovered that cure in the first place. In fact, he'd be a babbling idiot. He's indebted to society, or rather mankind, for producing him and his intellect. Thanks to society, he didn't have to reinvent the wheel in order come up with that cure. So shouldn't society be able to say, 'Hey, you owe us?'

Posted by HJ:
My only regret is that I have neither read the book nor seen the film, so I have very little to contribute.

I think the dilemma I posed stands outside of Rand. It's just another round of individual and society - how do they co-operate so that both benefit? When is the individual holding society at gunpoint and vice versa? Even without having read the work, an opinion can be given. Please do.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[carebear]

No, he stands on "the back of giants" not society.

The "mass of humanity" didn't make the scientific breakthroughs he used as the basis of his own work, other individuals did and chose freely to make that information available to him through books and such.

One of Rand's careful distinctions is between producers and consumers. Consumers have no "right" to the production of others as they as individuals had nothing to do with the production. For example: Even if they made the raw materials of the MRI, they freely surrendered those rights when they sold the material. The MRI belongs to the man who thought it up. Ideas are possessions of the thinker. Things that spring from those ideas are also solely that person's possession, until they voluntarily give others access to them.

Here's where self-interest comes in. The MRI is worth a lot, it is in his self-interest to eventually sell it. Even if the price is a million bajillion dollars, it is probably worth it to the next guy, who can then license it out for two million bajillion dollars.

Also, the folks who invent things do it because they challenge themselves to excel. To not share their production with others prevents it from being acknowledged by others. Architects don't just want to think of buildings and keep them to themselves, they want to see them built (albeit on their terms).

If they are worthwhile creations, of any kind, others will probably appreciate them as well and voluntarily get on board.

 

[Senator Jack]

No, he stands on "the back of giants" not society.

So let's take a giant like Henry Ford. Would Henry Ford have been the great inventor if it weren't for his farmer parents, or the teacher at the one-room schoolhouse, or the taxpayers of his community that paid for that school? He was one smart individual all right, but without society's nurturing of that intellect, he would have never been able to scale those intellectual heights. Yes, he learned a lot from gleaning the knowledge of giants, but those giants, in turn, were also nurtured by society. There's a symbiotic relationship between the individual and society, and I just feel that Objectivism allows the intellectual to shuffle the deck in the middle of the game.


Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[carebear]

So let's take a giant like Henry Ford. Would Henry Ford have been the great inventor if it weren't for his farmer parents, or the teacher at the one-room schoolhouse, or the taxpayers of his community that paid for that school? He was one smart individual all right, but without society's nurturing of that intellect, he would have never been able to scale those intellectual heights. Yes, he learned a lot from gleaning the knowledge of giants, but those giants, in turn, were also nurtured by society. There's a symbiotic relationship between the individual and society, and I just feel that Objectivism allows the intellectual to shuffle the deck in the middle of the game.


Regards,

Senator Jack

What did he learn in school he couldn't learn from books written by individuals and published by individuals and from teaching from his parents (objectivism doesn't deny good parenting as helpful)? Public school is a recent invention and more and more can be more of a hindrance to a good education than a help, it is hardly a historic necessity. Most of the giants who's shoulders we stand upon didn't go to public school. Most of the greatest achievements in history occured when individuals went against established teachings.

In the end, getting an education of any kind is the responsibility of the individual. Some great (to my mind) individuals chose to create librarys and endow other institutions to make that possible for those without family resources. If a person doesn't educate themself it isn't "society's" fault, it is the fault of the ignorant, learning is available in far greater quality and quantity than "society" can provide.

 

[Senator Jack]

What I mean about school, parents, et cetera, is that society, as a whole, does contribute in many ways to the nurturing of intellect, and therefore an intellectual can't take sole claim for his genius nor simply credit the giants before him. If extracted from society as a baby, would Ford have developed the wheel, forging, and mathematics, all necessary to perfect his invention? Unlikely. Shakespeare was a great writer, but what would he have written about if there wasn't a society for him to study?

'Each man touches so many lives,' says the angel Clarence. And, of course, all those lives touch him. I know, I know. Capra the Commie.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[jamespowers]

So what do we say about people like Lincoln who was 90% self taught and gave back far more as an individual than society had ever given him? Where would be the balance if you figure he owes something to society but the reality is that society owes much more to him as an individual.
There are figures like this throughout history that gave much more than they got in return. So they got ripped off by society? People like Cicero, Plato Socrates and others that were creators of logical schools of thinking and society building itself gave far more than they got back---some were killed for giving it---so goes gratitude. :eusa_doh:
Society in reality is more likely to rip off individuals than the other way around. If you invent something like a cure for cancer, you are helping all of society more than they could possibly have helped you in fifty million years of trying. The advancements built up on this knowledge would benefit everyone in the future perpetually. There you have the Giants that people build on not societies. Any monetary compensation for this advancement would be more than just. Dr. Jarvic's artificial heart is another such invention.
Looking at public education today, it is not exactly a given that were are doing anything great in the order of intellect building. It is more like enforcing something that we already know than encouraging how to think and move forward. Children get the "what to think instead of how to think" classroom. Reason, logic and critical thinking fall by the wayside in favor of mass education.
Each man does touch many lives but there are some that touch all of our lives and they deserve something for it rather than a kick in the behind and a you owe it to me anyway. [huh]

Regards,

J

 

[carebear]

But "society" whatever it's supposed nurturing, did not create the MRI. From the perspective that "society" provides anything, it provides it in equal measure to all individuals, yet from that pool only one individual actually creates a building or the MRI.

Each individual, drawing from the pool of prior other's knowledge, voluntarily given, deserve all of the results of their individual production expanding on that pool with their own particular talents and effort.

Their individual production is not automatically the right of their peers, who had the same pool yet produced something different or, in many cases, nothing at all. If you say the producer owes society, they owe the society that made them, the society of individuals of yesterday, not the group of individuals making up society today, who gave nothing at all and in fact had the same pool to draw from as they did.

Those productive individuals deserve to keep what they developed even if it was formented in some unnameable way by information recieved, voluntarily given, from those preceding them, call them "society" or "giants" or what have you.

(substitute "widget" or "Oreck vacuum cleaner" for "MRI", the generic invention or innovation)

 

[griffer]

Senator Jack is referring to social capital.

The reality, and the basic reason behind social contract, republican democracy, economics and currency, capitalism, etc, is that a society of man that interracts and commerces together is more stable, productive and secure than an anarchy.

Rand doesn't discount this, but if you think about the shared captial that contributes to invention or production, that captial is not actually 'shared' but purchased and consumed.

To say Dr. Bob is indebted to society is to use exactly the guilt politics that seek to grab his invention for the 'greater good'. He has paid his debts- tax bills, utility bills, medical scchool loans, etc. He had access to and purchased the same raw materials for life and creativity that any widower, veteran, or shaman have access to.

The proposal to 'take' more from him- to take his invention- simply because he has more to take is Marxist. He would be punished for the crime of doing more.

But, your hypo-test fails rational self interest at condition 2. A rational individual would negotiate compensation, but you cast Dr. Bob in the role of an extortionist. And the hyperbole of demanding 'all the gold in the world' is not self interested, it purely greed. Profit taking and greed are very different. His demand would elimate market forces.

A rational business man would let the market negotiate the value of his work through trade. Predatory pricing and gouging are short lived aberrations in a market and are self corrected in the long run.

 

[Senator Jack]

So what do we say about people like Lincoln who was 90% self taught and gave back far more as an individual than society had ever given him? Where would be the balance if you figure he owes something to society but the reality is that society owes much more to him as an individual.
There are figures like this throughout history that gave much more than they got in return. So they got ripped off by society? People like Cicero, Plato Socrates and others that were creators of logical schools of thinking and society building itself gave far more than they got back---some were killed for giving it---so goes gratitude.

Yeah, what did Lincoln get except a lousy paycheck and bullet in the head? Objectivists (if I get this right) would say his altruism shouldn't be condoned. Why was Lincoln a truly great man? Because he gave more to society than he took.

I guess I haven't been giving good examples about the education/learning angle. What I'm trying to say is that it's not about the schoolhouse, books, et cetera, it's about the collected achievement of society. Did any one man invent the English language? No, but Shakespeare, whether he learned it on his own, or at school, or from Bazooka Joe comics, used this language, invented by society, to write great plays.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that an inventor, scientist, writer, whatever, shouldn't be compensated for his work. What I am saying is that I find most of them to be a little short on ethics. My example about the cancer cure is certainly extreme, but certainly valid. Again, does society have a right to that discovery?

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[griffer]

...Objectivists (if I get this right) would say his altruism shouldn't be condoned...
...Again, does society have a right to that discovery?

How was Lincoln altruistic? He did a job-waged war on his country changed history, and got paid! He chose to be President, he chose his path. He sure ended up materialy a lot better off then where he started.

Getting murdered doesn't make you an altruist, it just makes you dead.

No, society does not have a right to that discovery. Semantically, because 'society' is not an entity endowed with rights, but mostly becasue Dr. Bob's rights superscede any demands of society.

And your autosignature speaks volumes....

 

[griffer]

I guess I haven't been giving good examples about the education/learning angle.

Us the wiki article i posted on Social Capital.

 

[carebear]

A rational business man would let the market negotiate the value of his work through trade. Predatory pricing and gouging are short lived aberrations in a market and are self corrected in the long run.

To head off protests of "that's not how it really works" the market referred to is a free market, free from goverment supported monopolies and subsidies. Allow the government to support private interests in restricting entry into the marketplace and the correction process becomes much more difficult and time consuming.

And so philosophy begins to head toward the rocky shores of politics...

So I'll stop talking on this tangent.