Who collects the trash in Galt's Gulch?

[BrainGlutton]

@Lobohan

I think that it’s surprising she wasn’t better off at the end of her life. That’s all.

How many public intellectuals did better?

[BrainGlutton]

@XT

Well, let me admit that, contrary to what seems to be the popular opinion, I haven’t read the book in quite a while (nor did I see the movie that came out a couple of years back). But you should read it if you are going to comment on it, as I think you are losing a lot in the translation. You don’t have to like the book, or even agree with the central premise, but if you are going to debate about it there is no substitute for actually reading the thing yourself instead of picking up stuff second hand.

Actually, I think the Cliff’s Notes would serve just as well for our purposes here.

[BrainGlutton]

@XT

The people who went to the Gulch (a couple of times a year until the very end) were those who were sick of seeing their abilities taken for granted by society or turned around so that society got the credit for their accomplishments.

Society deserves credit for their accomplishments. “You didn’t build that.” Not alone.

[BrainGlutton]

@elucidator

Why would there ever be any problem? Galt is a visionary master of high energy physics, make Heisenberg look like a dunce. The real Heisenberg, the physicist with the ambivalently existential cat.

I think that was Schrodinger.

But, I’m not certain.

[BrainGlutton]

@John_Mace

You don’t understand what Rand’s philosophy is . . .

Here’s a very good summary.

[BrainGlutton]

@John_Mace

But at any rate, the OP offers a silly proposition, based on a false assumption that everyone in GG was a high powered multi-millionaire genius who would never stoop so low as to collect garbage. The key to being accepted into GG had nothing to with personal wealth, status or any other superficial measure of societal worth. If you agreed with the philosophy, it didn’t matter if you were a house keeper or a hot shot banker.

So, if I’m a lazy moocher with no marketable skills or talents, but I accept Objectivism in principle, I can join; but, since the rules prohibit anyone from giving me a handout, I probably won’t stay long. Is that correct?

[BrainGlutton]

@XT

This is a work of fiction. Trying to score points off of it (especially when it’s clear you haven’t bothered to read it) is kind of silly. It’s just a story . . .

No, it is an Author Tract. Those are always fair game for this kind of criticism.

[BrainGlutton]

@Gangster_Octopus

There are some people who claim they want to “Go Galt”, based on this idealization presented by Rand. So what does that mean in all practical terms.

Independence Park, where your daily life will be closely regulated by local ordinances.

[BrainGlutton]

@ThisUsernameIsForbidden

I think some neocons got their hands on Rands book and created an expanded, revised, abridges version.

One where Galt gives all credit to the Lord?

[BrainGlutton]

@elucidator

Kinda like Hermann Hesse in a way, the notions of a special breed of superior people, avatars of excellence who pass amongst we of the grubbenproles. But unlike racism, its not localized in a particular branch of humanity…not white people, more like smart people, but more than just smart, more alive, more assertive, more engaged.…

There is such a breed of superior people, except that intelligence is not what distinguishes them.

[BrainGlutton]

@Little_Nemo

This sidetrack about whether or not Rand embodied her philosophy is pretty pointless. Because Rand herself would have been the first to tell you she didn’t have the opportunity to do so. She didn’t live in the objectivist utopia she called for. She lived in what she viewed as the flawed American political and economic system. So the issue of whether she died rich or poor is moot as far as it reflects on her philosophy.

By the same token, there is no hypocrisy in a greedy socialist. One has to make the best of the society one happens to live in, after all.

[sitchensis]

@CannyDan

But it may require more than just laws. Laws may prevent (or reduce the incidence of) my dumping my trash on your property, or even perhaps from just piling it up on mine until the rats and the runoff impact you next door. But laws won’t prevent me from living too far (by whatever profitability model) from all competing trash haulers to be picked up. I may be part of that unserved subset.

Do you feel that society should kowtow to the people who would blackmail it into providing trash service under the threat of letting their trash build up?

Because that’s kind of the whole idea of the book. They wouldn’t invite someone to the Gulch who would let their trash build up and then blackmail the rest of the people to pay for it. It creates a system where the person who does nothing, is more important than the person who actually collects their own trash. Common sense tells us that the person who handles their own trash should be more valuable to society, but in your “gotcha” you seem to be saying that the person who doesn’t handle their trash is more powerful through extortion.

[BrainGlutton]

@bldysabba

I think it’s remarkable how many people criticise (and viciously so) Rand and her philosophy but have neither read any of her books nor have any intention of doing so.

The same has always been true of Marx, hasn’t it?

[BrainGlutton]

@John_Mace

Are those meant to be works of fiction? No.

Neither is AS, strictly speaking. It’s like her Das Kapital, just in narrative form.

[BrainGlutton]

@Robert163

Libertarianism is a meritocracy where the most talented rise to the top, correct?

No, libertarianism is a system with minimal government; everything else is incidental.

[BrainGlutton]

@Robert163

name another 20th century philosopher that is more name recognizable to the “average” person…

Sartre.

[BrainGlutton]

@Robert163

I don’t know who beery swine is

This is the way to Enlightenment.

[BrainGlutton]

@Robert163

what? seriously, what?

the point on the table is:

1- Rand had an incredibly high opinion of her writings. whereas academics, universally, pan her writings as far as their literary (not philosophical) value.
2- Nobody much defends her but her fans. She is not a noted philosopher among academics. Her impact maybe but not her actual ideas.

She was actually rather ignorant of philosophy, for philosopher. E.g.:

The other problem Rand’s writings focused on a lot is the Problem of Universals. The Problem of Universals is a very old problem that dates back to a lot of Epileptic Trees-level academic wank between a number of Catholic theologians about the Holy Trinity. Basically, the Problem of Universals deals with why we put slightly different things into the same categories.

You are currently reading this article on a computer (if you aren’t, pretend that you are). In virtue of what is it a computer? It may not have the same CPU as other computers. It may look different. It may have a different graphics card. Yet all these different devices are placed into the same category. Why?

There are four answers to this question. The first is Platonic (or Transcendent) Realism, which says that there is a “form of computer-ness” that resides in a perfect, heaven-like realm, and we automatically recognize that the objects we call computers participate in the form of the computer. Plato originated this theory, unsurprisingly.

The second answer is Moderate (or Aristotelian) Realism, also called Essentialism, which argues that a substance or essence of “computer-ness” exists within the computer. Aristotle advanced this theory, and given Rand’s reverence of Aristotle, some people interpret Rand as being a Moderate Realist. This, however, is a mistake.
The key thing about both of these theories is that the universal, or category, exists entirely outside our consciousness. It is completely independent of our consciousness, just like reality.

The third answer is Nominalism, which argues that the universal is merely a name that people assign to the object. As Roscelin (one of the theologians in the original theological wankfest) described Nominalism; these names are just ‘the blowing of the voice’ and are assigned for reasons that may have no relationship to external reality at all.

The key thing about Nominalism is that, wheras Realism makes the category exist independently of our consciousness, Nominalism makes the category exist independently of reality and dependent exclusively on our consciousness.

There is however a fourth answer to the Problem of Universals, and it is this fourth answer that Objectivism subscribes to (and it is critically important to grasp this answer in order to make sense of Rand’s meta-ethics). This answer is Conceptualism, which states that universals are dependent on both consciousness and reality; the human mind makes abstractions from empirical data. Reality provides the data, the human mind provides the process of abstraction (which is a learned process that must be performed by a specific method).

Note that Rand herself denied she was a Conceptualist. However, as Saint-Andre ((2002), Conceptualism in Abelard and Rand, Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Volume 4, Number 1 (Fall 2002), pp. 123-140) argues, this was because she misunderstood Conceptualism. Objectivist philosopher Dr. Carolyn Ray also identifies Objectivism as Conceptualist in her own doctoral dissertation (see chapter 3) (1998), ‘‘Identity and Universals: a Conceptualist Approach’’, Electronically published by Enlightenment.

Regardless, Objectivist epistemology can generally be categorized as a form of Empiricism that supports direct realism and conceptualism.

[BrainGlutton]

@XT

Agreed. And the fact that the Gulch is only a plot device to give some color and back drop to the overall theme of the book. Perhaps if some of the folks commenting or tearing on the book would bother to read the thing they would see how silly their comments are.

I’ve read Anthem. I’ve read The Fountainhead. To read AS would be far too great a sacrifice to demand for the cause.

[BrainGlutton]

@elucidator

Even the most callow sophomore filling out his requirements with Philosophy 101 will tell you why: the sheer and inescapable necessity of an assumption, some ground level bottom upon which all the turtles may be reliably stacked. Both Marxism and Objectivism claim that Reality itself is that assumption, that they have the facts, and anyone who does not accept their assumption is provably wrong. Even the very name trades on that presumption, that Objectivists are objective rationalists and that such objective rationalism can dissolve any and all philosophical questions.

I read once that she would have preferred to call her system “Existentialism,” but that name was already taken.