Yes. It is, of course, entirely risible that a group of religious fanatics could seize control of a country in chaos, treat females as chattel, forbid educated professional women to work, impose strict dress codes, and execute the dissidents in a public venue intended for sports.
:rolleyes:
In Atlas Shrugged, I was always puzzled why the author assumed that trains would be the main transportation vehicles of the future, not airplanes. She wrote the book in the 40s, right? And even then, airlines had regular schedules and a growing costumer base. How could anyone delegate them to such a minor transportation role?
Does your knee always jerk this much?
I said “conservatives” and I meant it as such. I was very specific in what I said.
Or are you arguing that I, as a conservative am no different than The Taliban?
And it’s still a dull literary technique, whether it’s Rand or Atwood.
:rolleyes: indeed
Fenris
Where, exactly, does Atwood refer to these characters as “conservatives”? They are, as far as I remember, portrayed specifically as extreme religious fundamentalists.
No, they don’t bear much resemblance to your average moderate Republican, but it’s absurd to argue that they bear no relationship to reality. Quite frankly, I find that book eerily prescient (and not at all dull, but there’s no arguing matters of taste).
I suppose you’re right-more kink-DISTURBING KINK, but more kink than misogyny.
Still, I’m finding it really cold. There is no mention of WHY the people go on strike. I mean, Rand seems to assume it’s greed and envy, but it’s more likely that they’re working for very little pay, dangerous conditions, long hours, etc etc.
And as someone pointed out on the Amazon reviews, that the reason the liberals screw everyone is that they are hypocrites and liars. Not because they’re liberals.
And she doesn’t seem to realize WHY some of us are liberals. It’s not that I hate money, or even-gasp-capitalism. I’m against laissez faire capitalism-or capitalism in excess, as I’m against anything in excess. It’s because I basically am a bleeding heart in every sense of the word-or better to say, a blubbering idiot. I see someone who’s going through a rough time, or in pain, or being treated unfairly, and I automatically see red. I see someone crying and I start crying, because it just upsets me. I’ve always been this way. Call me pretentious, but I’ve just always felt people’s pain. (Hehehe…I’m Clinton!) No, seriously, I see someone in pain, and I think, gee, they must feel so awful-I don’t know what I would do if I felt that way. I’m not being snotty or better than thou-that’s just how I always feel. That I wouldn’t want that to happen to me-so I want to help them.
I also think that while yes, individuals are important, that no man is an island. Like it or not, our actions do have an effect on those around us-like ripples in a pond. So we DO need to be aware of others.
I also think her philosophy is, in the end, incredibly shallow-Objectivism is the baby pool of philosophy. It’s too concentrated on materialism, not on the soul, and on feeling and humanity. That’s why I don’t like Marx-it’s too cold, sterile, and concentrated on materialism, rather than on the humanity aspect.
So while I think I’m gonna finish it, right after it, I’m going back to Kerensky.
bagkitty wrote:
I’ve never read Atwood, but that “ravishment” scene between Howard Roark and Dominique Francon in The Fountainhead disturbed me. It reminded me of a Rosemary Rogers novel.
Incidentally, after that scene, I went back and noticed several descriptions of Howard Roark that were loaded with phallic imagery, which I hadn’t noticed the first time through. Check out Ayn Rand’s description of Howard Roark on his mining job, drilling into the rock face, and you’ll see what I mean.
<channeling a full-blown Randite>
Of course she realizes why you’re a liberal. You’re either stupid and duped, or evil…Or, I suppose, both. Plus you don’t understand “romantic” love.
**
We have to be aware of others, insofar as we want to. No one should ever, EVER make us do ANYTHING we don’t want to do.
Ever.
</channeling a full-blown Randite>
**
<me, for real this time>
I don’t know that I agree, Guin. From what you’ve described of yourself, it’s certainly not a philosophy that would appeal to you, but I think there’s more to it than you’re giving credit.
There’s a core of decent philosophy underneath all of Rand’s weirdness that appeals to me. The idea that we need to focus on the real and measurable not (pardon me) highfalutin’ ideals, the basic A is A concept appeals to me, especially my skeptical side. I also like the focus on rationality.
I think if you take that philosophy to an extreme it becomes useless, but doesn’t that apply to most philosophies?
Fenris
Of course. Suggesting that everyone be given the same salary no matter what the job, pie in the sky ideals won’t work.
BUT…a lot of people don’t realize that some things that sound like nice liberal clap trap make sense. For example-treat your workers well. They’ll produce better. They’ll work harder. You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.
It’s interesting to read, but I have to say I learned more about philosophy and logic from my Intro to Phil course from Dr. Brannigan.
And she says contradictions don’t exist-but in some ways, they do. She herself was full of contradictions.
I guess I like the parts of life that are a mystery. That can’t be explained rationally. It’s fun and mysterious and dammit, I LIKE it!
“QUESTION THE MESSENGER, NOT THE MESSAGE”
—J. Krishnamurti
“My take on Ayn Rand”—
Ayn Rand was bilaterally asymmetrical either from her
genetic makeup, or from being attacked by pathogens
during her development (or both).
Being rejected by males, because of her lack of
beauty, she reworked the philosophy of Elitism and
created the novel “Atlas Shrugged” with the help of
Dexamyl (dexedrine + amobarbital) and certain comic
book super hero characters.
Reasoning that “John Galt’s” were a limited
commodity and would not be attracted to her anyway,
she proceeded to create a John Galt reasonalble
facsimile in the name of Nanthaniel Branden.
Trying to live up to Ms. Rand’s expectations,
Nathaniel reworks “Think and Grow Rich”, and comes
up with the scam operation, “Nathaniel Branden Institute”.
After awhile Nathaniel grows weary of Ms. Rand’s
S/M rape fantasy games and searches and finds a female
submissive that is bilaterally symmetrical and weak of
mind.
Feeling that rejected females should stick together,
Nathaniels’s wife Barbara tells Ms. Rand about
Nathaniel’s new girl friend.
Ms. Rand’s illusion of being the personification of
Dagny Taggert vanishes, leaving her with the reality
that it takes more than brains to “keep her man”.
“Famous quotes by Ayn Rand”
“Don’t you think my legs are pretty?”
“Do you always have to ask for my permission?”
SUGGESTED READING:
<sings>
You are a leftie
I am a righty
You like mystery
It gives me misery
Leftie/righty
myst’ry/mis’ry
Let’s call the whole thing off
</sings>
:: looks at the preceeding ::
That was remarkably lame, wasn’t it?
Anyway, kidding aside, I agree that mystery is fun and mysterious at points, but I prefer to focus on the real and rational, using the occasional mystery as a counterpoint.
But hey! If a commie and a (what the hell am I? I can’t think of a one-word pejorative ;)) um…facist? (no…I don’t care if the trains run on time)…rightie? (no, no-one ever uses the term)…libertarian (not a pejoritive)…um Bushie? (Not great, but let’s go with it), can have a fun, meaningful discussion like this, without shrieking at each other, isn’t there hope for all the little childr… ::Pie flies in from off-stage left and whacks Fenris in the face::. I suppose I deserved that.
Anyway, I’m enjoying this discussion.
But I’m in a weird mood right now.
Could you tell?
Fenris
jesse morrison I think I loves yer take on Rand, nah, I knows I do.
We prefer to be called “Randy Bastards” actually. We have a mother figure, but no father figures, so it fits.
J/K I was actually a fan of Objectivism until I learned a little more about human nature and decided that human beings are, in my experience, non-deterministic. Two human beings can process the exact same input, both in what they consider a logical manner, and come out with different output. In other words, A is not A. Kind of rips the guts out of Objectivism.
I still feel the philosophy has many redeeming qualities, not the least of which is the AMAZING work ethic of Objectivists. Having a strong work ethic myself, I really sympathize with this aspect of the characters.
That’s the whole flaw in the Objectivist system. There are no contradictions allowed. If you think being dominated sexually is great and someone else doesn’t, one of the two of you is wrong. The most ironic fallacy in her philosophy is that it does not allow for individual tastes. A is A.
Two things for you to keep in mind.
Her original definition of Objectivism was pretty much a reaction to Marx. It will address many of the same issues. Marx had no strong stance on how to handle humanitarian issues, neither did Rand.
She is dead, but the philosophy continues to grow and become more well-defined. Many of the questions we see upon reading the novels have been addressed by Rand’s successors. I think if you read a modern-day Objectivist treatise you’ll find it more understanding of the human side of the equation. I wish I could provide a cite, but I stopped following this stuff some time ago, but I did see some hope in it, especially in the IOS(the Institute for Objectivist Studies, a splinter group. The ARI(Ayn Rand Institute, the official group) is, in my experience, too damn bent on hero-worship to actually ever question or re-define anything. 
)
:rolleyes:
I see some signs of this discussion going the way of the classical debate about Objectivism. Generally they start talking about the philosophy, then they go into how Ayn was so wierd, then they start quoting the Brandens and eventually it’s all written off as a nutcase cult of charisma. Ayn was fucked up. Period. That doesn’t mean she was wrong. I will not say any more on this right now because this isn’t Great Debates, but if you, or anyone really, ever tried posting something like that in GD, you would be ripped to shreds, and deservedly so.
Steven
Again, which is why I like Kerensky so much. He attacks the problems of humanity and human suffering.
No doubt Ayn was strange, but wasn’t she said to suffer from Narcisstic Personality Disorder? That was why she saw everything so black and white?
Again, what bothers me is that selfishness will LEAD to destruction-it’s a narrow minded, tunnel vision, short term problem. If we do not look at what is going on, and only concentrate on ourselves, we will fail-which is probably why Ayn ended up bitter and alone in her last years. (Which I think is very sad.)
I still feel the philosophy has many redeeming qualities, not the least of which is the AMAZING work ethic of Objectivists. Having a strong work ethic myself, I really sympathize with this aspect of the characters.
:rolleyes:
I see some signs of this discussion going the way of the classical debate about Objectivism. Generally they start talking about the philosophy, then they go into how Ayn was so wierd, then they start quoting the Brandens and eventually it’s all written off as a nutcase cult of charisma. Ayn was fucked up. Period. That doesn’t mean she was wrong. I will not say any more on this right now because this isn’t Great Debates, but if you, or anyone really, ever tried posting something like that in GD, you would be ripped to shreds, and deservedly so.
Steven **
[/QUOTE]
Hi Steven,
Sounds like you may be a graduate of the “Nathaniel
Branden Institute”, or working yourself up the Amway
Pyramid.
So after all the good guys and Dagny fly into Atlantis
with John Galt’s perpetual motion motor, did that
create a non-zero sum commune? If not, and since you
have been studying human nature, what is your speculation
on how they handled the universal emotion of Envy?
Someone once asked William James how he handled the
emotion of Envy.
“I handle envy by being the Best Psychologist”
—William James
jesse (former Swipe salesman)
p.s. Start a thread in GD on gurus and their message,
I will keep score on how we do.
Okay, now I’m in the second part, after Hank’s trial. And the complete lack of plausibility or credibility-EVEN in a sci fi work-is becoming painful.
I was reading an old interview with Rand today, where states that her opposition to communism was NOT because of the bloodshed, but because it said that “man was made for the state.” or something like that. While I disagree with that statement, I have to say, to ignore the bloodshed? She seemed to get off on portraying herself as a victim of Marxism…but she really wasn’t.
Anyhoo, enough about RAND. About the book…did Rand know any liberals? Because these people really are NOT liberals, the same as Lenin and Stalin were not liberals. I mean, what’s the whole thing-this is unfair for this, and that is unfair for that.
Now, where is the mention of CONDITIONS in the factories and industries? I mean the working conditions…so far, it seems that the “looters” want new fancy houses and movies during work. Silly me, I thought the union movement was about safe working conditions and decent pay. I don’t see any mention of black skies at noon (as Pittsburgh used to have), or people losing limbs in dangerous machinery-and then fired for not being able to work, or people starving, etc etc. I mean, that’s why the workers movements really started-because the conditions were hell on earth.
And for all the screwing that goes on, no one gets pregnant-or mentions birth control.
It’s the little things that get to ya…I may have to go and read a Star Wars novel after this. Hell, V.C. Andrews would be down right plausible after this!
When I read the book, I didn’t see any sign that Rand was against unions per se. Hank Rearden runs a union shop, and seems to get along pretty well with the head of the union. Even Fred Kinnan is a lot more honest and portrayed more sympathetically than Rand’s other villains.
Your impressions of my character are unfounded, and unappreciated.
For the record I am generally seen as an anti-Objectivist and have rarely, if ever, defended the ridiculous situations penned by Ayn Rand. I have already stated that I believe her philosophy unapplicable to human beings, due to traits such as the emotion of envy which ruin her epistimelogical/metaphysical tenets(she proposed that the way we know things is by using logic and reason to derive facts from perception of a objective reality), and I am not interested in speculating further. I do not believe that one flaw means there is no useful information in her teachings though. In the end every human being has a unique philosophy gleaned from experience or adopted piecemeal from many philosophies they have been exposed to.
I see no purpose to a thread about gurus and their messages. Beliving that a person must be the perfect representation of what they profess to believe is naieve at best and connections between the actions of the individual and the ideas they present are straw men.
Steven
Trust me: The Dispossessed. Ursula K. LeGuin. You can take comfort in knowing that, should you use that as a follow-up book, Rand will be known by the other corpses in her cemetary as “Whirligig Ayn”
Fenris, who really wants to see your take on it. (Ok. I’m nagging. I’ll shut up about it now)
As soon as I can get my hands on a copy, and after I finish the other fifty books I have checked out of the library.
jesse morrison, insults are inappropriate in this and all other forums, except for the Pit. Also, do not quote whole articles, even if you give credit to the author.
Lynn Bodoni
For the Straight Dope