[dubyagee]

Reasoned opinion only, please. All name-callers please proceed to the nearest CREVO thread.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Having heard Atlas Shrugged touted often on Free Republic as one of the greats in literature,

Ask any serious philosophers what they think of Ayn Rand (that is if you are lucky enough to know any...)

[RobRoy]

>>All name-callers please proceed to the nearest CREVO thread.<<

In that case, this'll be a pretty short thread. Other than those of us in the choir patting you on the back, the rest don't really have much to say now. 8^>

[rdb3]

My reason tells me that greatness must come from that which is greater.

Not only that, but it's common sense. That's putting it mildly, trust me. Nice piece.

[yendu bwam]

The last thing that I am doing when I choose to believe in God is abandoning my reason.

Reason can be used for (what most would consider) great good or great evil. Gandhi and Stalin both employed reason in just about everything they did. Similarly, religious believers do not abandon reason. Christ told his followers to be as wise as serpents.

[evolved_rage]

Literature??? I thought it was non-fiction

[Lev]

But if man is only truly alive and good when he is true to himself and his virtue, how can evil exist?

Man is a rational animal. When he is no longer rational he becomes evil.

"To know one's own desires, their meaning and their costs requires the highest human virtue: rationality." - Ayn Rand.

[lelio]

But if man is only truly alive and good when he is true to himself and his virtue, how can evil exist?
Evil exists as it is the opposite of advancing man's life. For example, socialism is evil as it forces me to work for the good of the whole. That came from man's mind and not from a religious standpoint, to answer your question where it came from.
In the words of Francisco D’Anconia (I love this character, btw), “Contradictions cannot exist.” Good and evil contradict one another. The presence of both in this world is clearly a contradiction.
As we are all individuals (you are all individuals! -- MP) you have the ability to be good or evil. I can't see the actions of the individuals being a contradiction.
I think what Francisco was getting at was that you, as a robber, can't pretend to live in a free and virtuous society.

[Brett66]

Rand has some good ideas, but since she's an atheist it lowers my opinion of her. Her personal life was a mess, she really needed God in her life.

Another criticism was how she portrayed that perpetual motion machine in her book. Being a enthusiast of such psuedo-science, I found it laughable Dagny Taggart could just look at Galt's machine and know what it does instantly. It was also laughable such a sophisticated woman as Mrs. Taggart would believe claims of infinite energy without question.

[Barbie Doll]

I have Atlas Shrugged, started reading the first 100 pages of the book. Questions like: Who is John Galt? and the Taggarts situation with regards to the railroad business started to confuse me, as I kept reading it, I eventually put it down. But now I think I'll starting where I left off and try to understand what Ayn Rand is trying to say.

[lelio]

Her denial was for the purpose of pursuing her own code of morality, which she perceived to be superior to that of God.
Could you explain what the "morality of God" is? How are you supposed to know what it is?

[stylin_geek]

First, there are some very serious scientists that question God as he is portrayed in the Bible, however, I must refer you to a quote by Dr. Robert Goddard (I might have this slightly wrong, forgive me if I do) he said "People say that God does not exist, because science has not proved he does, however, must one light a candle in order to see the sun?" Second, see my home page. Third, Ayn got a lot of things right, but she swung and missed when it came to God.

I may be attributing the above quote to the wrong person. Hopefully, if I did, someone can post the correction.

[ken5050]

Can I ask how old you are?...see, either of Rand's two novels can have a stupendous impression on a 16 year old..which was my age when I first read them.....and all my friends were reading "Catcher in the Rye"..which is a much, much shorter book.....Rand makes you think, she overwhelms you, especially at that age..makes you question a lot of what you've been taught to date.......

[Old philosopher]

Indeed many contradictions exist in Ayn Rand's Philosophy.

Having said that, a great deal of what she portrays in her novel has truly come to pass. Remember that this novel was originally published in the mid 1950's, and since that time much of the conditions she portrayed have come to pass. We do have the "looters" today, those that think they are entitled to the fruits of someone elses productivity. Witness the outcry when attempts have been made to eliminate lifetime "Welfare Clients". Witness also the professional "Bleeding Hearts" who would have us provide cradle to grave care for those too lazy to work, or those who offer no productivity to society.

Consider the fact that since Atlas Shrugged was published, our tax burden has increased to a figure approaching 50% of what we earn for the fruits of our labor. I do not have figures handy for the 1950's but if my memory serves me correctly our tax burden then was only about 25%, perhaps less.

Consider also, that in the time since Atlas Shrugged was written and published in the 50's we have lost more of our liberty and feedoms than in any period since this country was founded. Indeed,in the last year and a half we have lost more of our freedoms than in any 10 years in the history of this country.

I, like you, do not agree with Rand as far as religous philosophy is concerned. But if you read the novel for the deep lying philosophy as to the direction this country is taking with it's "Diversity" and PC attitudes, you will realize that Ayn Rand was pretty good at forecasting the future.

The underlying warning as I see it is, as I have said many times, "We have more to fear from our own government than we have to fear from any 'Terrorists' from the outside". Our worst enemies are esconced in Washington, DC, in the White House, The Capitol Building and the SCOTUS Building.
Our freedoms are under attack from all of these sources, and, unless the trend is reversed in the next few years, this country has not long to survive as a World Power.

I make a case for neither the Republicans nor the Democrats, there are a very few politicians in either party whose actions are really determined by what is good for the Country. Most of our current Politicians are dishonest, concerned only in their own power and prestige, and, if scrutinized closely would be considered Traitors according to the Constitutional definition of Treason.

I suggest that you take what is good from Ayn Rand's philosophy and discard the rest. That is what I have done.

That's my opinion

[narby]

It's an awfully hard thing to do, to defend Christianity with logic. The first question I would ask is, do you honestly believe that if you had been born in Islamabad, you would think the same way?

But you took a good shot at it though.

[Lev]

Third, Rand does not believe that men are made up of nothing more than chemical reactions, but that they have a soul. ... If reason overrides all superstition, how can she make the claim that a man is more than what meets the eye?

I believe by soul she meant mind or conscience. I don't think she claimed that a man is more than what meets the eye. Quite the opposite:

The Founding Fathers were neither passive, death-worshiping mystics nor mindless, power-seeking looters; as a political group, they were a phenomenon unprecedented in history: they were thinkers who were also men of action. They had rejected the soul-body dichotomy, with its two corollaries: the impotence of man's mind and the damnation of this earth; they had rejected the doctrine of suffering as man's metaphysical fate, they proclaimed man's right to the pursuit of happiness and were determined to establish on earth the conditions required for man's proper existence, by the 'unaided' power of their intellect.
-- Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual

[tcostell]

The thing I like about Atlas Shrugged is that it does get people who otherwise wouldn't think about it, discussing a more libertarian viewpoint. It opens the eyes of many who would never otherwise take a look around. With that said however, it's a work of fiction, which (IMHO) can be heavy handed in making it's points.

I personally prefer "The Road to Serfdom" by FA Hayek, or even better "Knowledge and Decisions" by Thomas Sowell. Both of these books make the academic points better than Atlas shrugged, but they aren't nearly as entertaining a read.

I loved both of them, and "knowledge and Decisions" changed my life and work more than anything I've ever read, but there is simply no competing with a good story for entertainment value, no matter how heavy handed it may be.

[ChadGore]

In strict acordance with the ann rule on FR, Chapter V, Section II through III, I offer the following image:

damn . . it's Ann Rand?

Who's your favorite Ann ?

[dinasour]

Good post. Thank you.

I enjoy reading Objectivist arguments; at least I find more in common with them than when I try to read say, Noam Chomsky.

Ayn Rand certainly did believe in evil, but she failed because she tried, valiantly, to define it objectively, that is, in the absence of God.

On the purely practical side, she failed, as do all utopian systems, because they are all based on the basic principle:

All you have to do is:

[Insert list of rules here]

And the world will be a perfect place.

The world is just not that simple.

Bureaucratic systems are similar, but differ from utopian systems only in the size of the rulebook.

The United States is currently trying this "rules based" approach, in the guise of a regulatory bureaucracy. It is also failing.

The Taliban tried it, the Marxists tried it, the ISO9600-quality-circle-jerk crowd tried it, many religious cults have tried it.

The problem isn't which rules you pick, or how many. The problem is that the world just isn't so simple (IMHO).

[riley1992]

First, Rand makes the mistake of lumping all believers in with “looters.”

This is absolutely, unoquivocally wrong. She made the distinction in blind faith, be it to a higher power spiritually or to the government, as opposed to what one knows is true as being wrong. The looters were not the Christian believers. The looters were the people in society who expect their happiness to come at others expense. That their well-being is owed to them by those who have truly earned it. If a Christian falls into that category, so be it. He has placed himself there of his own volition.

[galt-jw]

someone probably has pointed this out already, but again,:

the standard of value, the good, according to objectivism, is mans' life. That which is evil is in opposition to mans' life. You would do well to read Peikoffs' book on Objecivism if you want to understand the philosophy as a whole in the proper context.

Also, "For The New Intellectual," "Philosophy: Who Needs It. ", "The Virtue of Selfishness", and "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand are illustrative.