Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Half a**ed critique of "Atlas Shrugged"
mine | Mr. PolishHammer

Posted on 10/12/2001 4:02:51 AM PDT by Mr. Polish-hammer

Just read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Here is my take:

I think we all agree on the basic tenet that capitalism is good, and anything else is bad. However, Ayn Rand seems to take this to a whole new level, one which I don't like. She places capitalism into her own moral egoist philosophy; capitalism is not a means to an end, but an end in itself, a moral one. Acting in ones self-interest is moral, altruism is immoral. So donating to charity, in her mind, is immoral. To me, donating to charity is perfectly moral. What is immoral is when the government, or any other third party, forces one to be charitable. Any action done on voluntary terms, or any deal, is perfectly moral, and to call it immoral is non-sensical, if not scary.

To Ayn Rand, the lazy and incompetent, those without ambition, are immoral. Even if they seek no harm, mind their own business, and violate no ones rights, they are still immoral. Their only sin is to not be productive, which only harms society as a whole. It seems that Ayn Rand deems immoral that which does not benefit her, her being part of society.

Another strange aspect to her writing is her animus toward religion. Religion takes a beating in "Atlas Shrugged", being accused of fostering socialist mentality. Paradoxically, she praised the USA, especially its first one hundred years, as being the closest to her ideal. If religion fosters socialism, how does she explain the religous founding, and continuing religous existence of the USA? Moreover, why is it that the strongly socialist countries (USSR, Sweden, etc.) are strongly atheist, or have governments that despise religion?

Many inconsistencies are present in her writing. I'd be interested in hearing her defense. I know there are many fans on this forum.


TOPICS: Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-177 next last
To: Rightwing Conspirator1
Yes, cheese indeed.
61 posted on 10/12/2001 7:10:10 AM PDT by gjenkins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: OWK
But fails to address the question of the origins of God.

Your assertion is a category error. God's essence and act of existence are one. Therefore, He is sui generis, and transcends all categories.

This makes Him different from all created things. All created things are composed, at their most basic level, of essence and act of existence, that is, what a thing is is separate from its existence.

What that means is that God is eternal (outside of time), without beginning or end, omnipotent, perfect, transcendent, all-good, etc. And all of these attributes are derivable through reason.

The problem with Rand is that she is not rational enough. She was not the first to assert that A=A. Aristotle was, 2500 years ago. And he was a much better philosopher. So was Aquinas.

Like a lot of people, I went through a Randian phase in my early twenties. Inasmuch as she introduced me to philosophy, and great philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas, I'm grateful. Inasmuch as I admired her philosophizing for a time, I'm pretty embarrassed.

62 posted on 10/12/2001 7:12:48 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gjenkins
Is that better?

They are hardly interchangeable, and your suggestion that they are is highly ironic.

Objectivism/Randism sounds more like Scientology than anything else. Neither of these was inspired by God, nor will either be around two thousand years from now. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

63 posted on 10/12/2001 7:14:09 AM PDT by Petronski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: semper_libertas
The need for Faith in an embodiment of all that is good (Lord, father/mother) is a fundamental and undeniable construct of human consciousness.

Actually it may be for you and many others but is not for everyone.

I think Rand has more appeal for those who do not share that need.
64 posted on 10/12/2001 7:14:57 AM PDT by cgbg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
"But hey, whatever floats your boat."

Actually, it is what is floating your boat. I have no problem with it, except if you ever try to sink my boat based on your rationalizations.
65 posted on 10/12/2001 7:20:18 AM PDT by gjenkins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Polish-hammer
Atlas Shrugged is an important, thought-provoking book, but from a purely literary perspective, it's not that well written. The book basically consists of cardboard characters regurgitating huge chunks of Rand's philosophy. After the seventh or so 20 page speech about the evils of collectivism, it starts getting a little old. Rand was certainly inconsistent, and her personal life was downright bizarre, but she was one of the 20th Century's most ardent defenders of capitalism, for which we should all be grateful.

If you'd like to know more about Rand, then I suggest you read the books Barbara and Nathaniel Branden wrote. They both had a huge falling out with Rand, but I do think they are able to give a fair assessment of Rand's many faults and virtues. And if there's an immensely entertaining science-fiction novel by Matt Ruff named Sewer, Gas, and Electric, which deals quite heavily with Both Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, that is worth checking out as well.

66 posted on 10/12/2001 7:36:25 AM PDT by Slayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Your assertion is a category error. God's essence and act of existence are one. Therefore, He is sui generis, and transcends all categories.

Convenient, but remarkably unsatisfying.

If the spontaneous genesis of the universe is a practical impossibility, then so also is the spontaneous genesis of God.

Quite frankly, I remain unsatisfied by current explanations of the origins of the universe. But I am content to say that I simply don't know the answer to that question. I feel no compulsion to suggest "God" as the answer to that question, and dismiss all questions as to "God's" origins with a wave of the "transcendant magic wand".

67 posted on 10/12/2001 7:38:12 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Libertarian revisionist history holds that the United States was actually founded by hemp-smoking Judeo-Christian-despising athiests and deists on the principle that Judeo-Christianity is a collection of detestable superstitions that are anathema to liberty.

ROFL! You pegged that right. These are regular weekly postings on FR. I think the idea is if they repeat it enough it will be true (or perhaps if we fail to correct it). Not only the founders of the country, but the Bible as well is a target for revisionists (see the "Jesus is a hemp-smoking deist libertarian" thread).

68 posted on 10/12/2001 7:59:58 AM PDT by Rightwing Conspiratr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: OWK
If the spontaneous genesis of the universe is a practical impossibility, then so also is the spontaneous genesis of God.

I'm not asserting that God arose spontaneously. I'm asserting that God never arose. God simply is. He is the great "I AM" of the Bible. He is eternal. God is existence itself. All other things participate in existence, because existence is not an inherent part of their essence.

But God's essence and act of existence are the same. His essence is to be.

An infinite chain of causes cannot exist, because although the idea of an infinite series can exist, an actual infinite series cannot. Because for the series to become actual, it becomes finite.

69 posted on 10/12/2001 8:02:59 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
you have to admit that Rand had the left pegged

Agreed. IMHO her heroes represent idealized, abstract virtues, but her villains are based on observation. I can't remember the exact quote, but there's a lawyer who 'represented pickpockets, or the sort of people who stage accidents in front of rich corporations' (or words to that effect)

70 posted on 10/12/2001 8:07:58 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
I'm not asserting that God arose spontaneously. I'm asserting that God never arose. God simply is. He is the great "I AM" of the Bible. He is eternal. God is existence itself. All other things participate in existence, because existence is not an inherent part of their essence.

I'm not asserting that the universe arose spontaneously. I'm asserting that the universe never arose. The universe simply is. It is the great "I AM" of the Bible. It is eternal. The universe is existence itself. All other things participate in existence, because existence is not an inherent part of their essence.

As I said, I find both paragraphs equally unsatisfying.

71 posted on 10/12/2001 8:09:11 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: semper_libertas
I think a major philosophical omission, which does have a direct bearing on Rands' approach to religion, is the relationship between parent and child.

It wasn't important to her plot, so she didn't much deal with it, but there was a woman in Galt's Gultch who was "only" a mother and housewife, and Rand was very positive about her.

72 posted on 10/12/2001 8:13:19 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Polish-hammer
One of my problems with it was that if Reason is so important, why does she have to use ad hominem attacks to defend it, basically calling everyone who doesn't agree with her stupid?
73 posted on 10/12/2001 8:19:40 AM PDT by Styria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Later in her non-fiction, she explicitly agreed that full-time motherhood was a rational choice for a woman. Her only caveate was that it wouldn't occupy her entire life (They do tend to leave the nest).
74 posted on 10/12/2001 8:23:52 AM PDT by gjenkins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
Good points. Atlas Shrugged is an important book,and as you pointed out,an enduring one. Rand indeed made some good arguments,and as a fairly hard core libertarian,I find myself agreeing with her,most of the time.(Note:I haven't read anything but Atlas Shrugged,so I can't claim to be anything of an authority on her work.)

Had I done what she did-escaping a country in the grip of statist monsters that I can't even begin to comprehend,I'd probably be on every soapbox in sight. As a short treatise on a personal philosophy,Galt's speech is a good one. One thing that I wish Rand had done-and she might have,come to think-is to have written more work that's shorter,focused on specific positions. I understand that she was employed as a screenwriter for a fair amount of time;if this is true,is there anywhere that her out-of-print stuff is archived? My comp skills are limited,at best.

75 posted on 10/12/2001 8:24:13 AM PDT by sawsalimb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mcashman
It appears Ayn Rand's negative idea of altruism stands in direct opposition to Jesus' knowledge of love. When a poor woman gave all she had to the Temple, thereby to "deprive ..." herself "...of a higher value" Jesus commended her far above those who gave merely out of their excess. (Matt. 12:41-43) Also Jesus defined "greater love has no man than this, that he give up his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

This is reflected in the highest honor we give (usually posthumously) to winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor--men in battle who voluntarily place a higher value on other's lives than to themselves. Courage defined as love in action.

I personally don't see much to admire on Ayn (rhymes with "mine") Rand's ethic on altruism. When it come to Jesus' ethic or Ayn Rand's, there's no contest.

76 posted on 10/12/2001 8:33:08 AM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Polish-hammer
She places capitalism into her own moral egoist philosophy; capitalism is not a means to an end, but an end in itself, a moral one.

Go back and re read the book. Capitalism is the result of free people in the pursuit of happiness. Trading value for value, by mutual agreement to mutual profit.

So donating to charity, in her mind, is immoral. To me, donating to charity is perfectly moral.

Atlas Shrugged may not be the best on this subject, Read The Fountainhead, Roark says that when you come upon suffering, you want to help and provide assistance, it is only natural. But to make the relief of suffering your prime goal, is to elevate suffering to a value.

Another strange aspect to her writing is her animus toward religion

True, my only problem with her. In The Fountainhead, she definitely makes the case for a spirit in each man, and what is right and proper that emenates from that spirit. IMHO the reason that she couldn't associate this spirit with God, was because she looked at every availlable religion, and all of their teachings. She found too many inconsistencies, which led her to believe that they were all wrong.

God has to be found within oneself, he cannot be found in other people. Some may light the way, but you must take the road yourself. I encourage you to read The Fountainhead, for her description of the "spirit of man", and then Read The Book of Matthew, specially Chapters 5 thru 8, (including the Sermon on the Mount). The case for Individualism was put forth first by Christ.

77 posted on 10/12/2001 8:41:35 AM PDT by morque2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OWK
I'm not asserting that the universe arose spontaneously. I'm asserting that the universe never arose. The universe simply is. It is the great "I AM" of the Bible. It is eternal. The universe is existence itself. All other things participate in existence, because existence is not an inherent part of their essence.

This statement flies in the face of virtually all evidence accepted by science for the origin of the universe...which states that it indeed did have an origin, in time. It's very hard to find any astrophysicist who believes in such a "steady state" universe anymore.

78 posted on 10/12/2001 8:42:07 AM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Polish-hammer
For a full-scale review of the book, read Big Sister is Watching You, Whittaker Chambers' devastating dismantlement of Rand's philosophy. (The actual review is about half-way down the page....)
79 posted on 10/12/2001 8:42:25 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
This is reflected in the highest honor we give (usually posthumously) to winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor--men in battle who voluntarily place a higher value on other's lives than to themselves. Courage defined as love in action.

You seem to be missing the point. Rand does not condemn the choice to act in advancement of one's values. The point is that such an action (in order to be virtuous) must be a choice on the part of the actor.

If an individual should choose the advancement of his own values even over the value of his own life, his choice is a virtuous one. Her point, is that the choice must belong to the actor.

If the choice did in fact belong to the actor, then the act was NOT a sacrifice, but an act promulgated in advancement of that which was valued higher.

There is no such thing as a willing sacrifice. If the rational individual actor chooses to surrender value, he does so in deferenece to greater percieved value. If he jumps on a live hand grenade to prevent a terrorist attack, he does so because he values the lives of those he saved, even greater than he values his own.

Rand's philosophy does not condemn this action. It simply defines the action properly (as a choice on the part of the actor, to act in advancement of his own values, even at great cost).

80 posted on 10/12/2001 8:59:38 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-177 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson