I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in succession when I was a rather lost, flailing 23 year old. At the time, they served an important purpose in my development as a (I hope) person of reason and substance: they helped cure me of self-pity, self-deception, and wishful thinking. They almost certainly sped my exit from religion. They were the equivalent of a mental smallpox vaccination.
But to keep reading Ayn Rand, or try to model my life after her ideas any further than that, would be like taking daily smallpox shots: unpleasant, pointless, possibly harmful.
And perhaps your discolored view of libertarian ideas is doing them a disservice?
In earnest: I’m sure you’re an excellent teacher and I applaud you for dedicating your life to education. It is my philosophy that part of educating is presenting objectionable views and letting young minds vet them out. Rand has, in my opinion, no shortage of quality debate fodder, though her writing is over-wraught and at times insufferable.
I don’t know who this is directed to, but if it’s directed to anyone on here, it’s a bit out of line. Don’t make posts like these about other posters again.
I also thought they were good stories. Atlas Shrugged and its ‘mystery’ pulled me in. The speech of course, I still haven’t read.
Why do you think she went overboard? Every socialist/communist economic system employed anywhere has failed miserably, and largely for the reasons she presents. This doesn’t validate everything she says of course, but it should get her some credit, which, of course, it doesn’t.
That’s certainly not the impression I get from the people who show up to heap bile upon her in every thread that mentions her name. The only informed opinions come from those who are not spewing hatred. Go ahead, take a gander at the threads I linked to if you don’t believe me.
Compadre! I also liked The Fountainhead. Okay, it had problems. Ellsworth Toohey was a cardboard caricature. But I think that Rand outgrew that kind of straw-man cartoonish writing, and was wise enough to do much less of it in Atlas Shrugged. In AS, it is the whole altruistic system of government that she attacks, and not some absurd “master villain” who is secretly behind it all.
And…in fact…I even managed to read John Galt’s 100 page speech without any real problems. I kept paper and pencil with me, and jotted down notes on the principal logical errors. It was entertaining, in a sad kind of way.
But AS, taken as a soap-opera novel, with big, flamboyant characters doing and saying dramatic things – well, it was really kind of fun!
And it contains next to nothing about motorcycle maintenance! Good thing he rode a BMW.
So now the eternal question will not be answered, Who is John Galt? Because a bumper sticker I’ll read, but not a 200-page soliloquy. Anthem was bad enough.
“I am Galticus.”
“I am Galticus.”
“I am Galticus.”
“I am Galticus.”
“I am Galticus.”
“I am Galticus.”
“I am Galticus.”
“I am Galticus.”
“I am Galticus.”
“I am Galticus.”
“I am Galticus.”
“I am Galticus.”
“I am Galticus.”
“I am Galticus.”
I’ve never said one thing about libertarian ideas. It’s just that to read Atlas Shrugged in a way that made sure the kids had a deep enough understanding that their discussions weren’t facile, I’d have to give up like All the Pretty Horses, The Tempest, and “Benito Cereno”. The argument is not “Can Rand spark discussion?” The question is “Is it worth more than any of the other available options?” And I will tell you, I think any of the three works above can spark as deep and nuanced a discussion as Rand, and you have time to do all three of them–and so have a much wider range of discussion.
This is a woman who deliberately wrote books promoting evil in a way that is very influential on troubled young people. It would be akin to modeling your life after Holden Caulfield of Catcher in the Rye and seeing everyone in the world as a phoney. Young people should be warned that this is dangerous bullshit that can stunt your emotional and intellectual growth if taken seriously, and turn one into a raging asshole. Libertarianism, by comparison, is harmless. So yeah, I pounce on the carcass of the Medicare and Social Security recipient hypocrite that was Ayn Rand whenever the occasion necessitates.
I think Rand is often misunderstood. The writing is pretty bad, but the ideas are interesting enough to make for some enjoyable reading. The philosophy is incomplete, and probably most of the people who read her stuff are what she would call “second handers.” I don’t think her philosophy promotes evil or anti-social behavior, but narcissists find her works very appealing. I’ve found that people who are very against Rand don’t really understand some of the basics of her philosophy. Basically, the worst thing about Rand for me is talking about Rand - it just makes me irritated and not liking anyone involved in the conversation - I end up thinking everyone is either stupid or a narcissist. But maybe that was her plan, like some sort of joker-like villain sent by the Russians to make Americans irritated with each other.
I just needed to get that off my chest. Don’t even get me started on Malthus . . .
Well, please just know that if Galticus ate your planet, it was the result of a voluntary trade of value for value, with no external coercion. The invisible hand of the free market lifted your planet into Galticus’ gaping maw.
Im going to defend Ayn Rand here, since she is the little guy in this context.
She presents a view, or a way of viewing the world. This way is not correct and does not have any nuance. But this also has a quality. If you want to consider and investigate a specific way of thinking, it’s better to do it in the concentrated, extreme mode. It’s clearer that way. And while she is not correct in her way of thinking, since obviously the world is way more nuanced than her abstract presentation, she does have a direction from which to critique other viewpoints in a meaningful manner.
It seems to me Locke & Jefferson understood this but argued there was immediate and instant access to true market information for everyone, plus a healthy dose of benevolence and honesty, all balancing each other out to make things okay. Meanwhile, Marx understood it to be true and realized there was no benevolence and greed was reason enough to lie. I don’t remember if he believed true information was available to everyone, either, but certainly in modern times the ubiquity of advertising and PR and blatant disinformation does a lot to prevent any consumer from getting an accurate view of the market.
YOu mean like private schools, boarding schools, and the like? :dubious:
You mean like BlackWater (and whatever they’ve renamed themselves now)?:eek:
Maybe, but does that view need to be taught in high school? We don’t teach ways of looking at the world in high school - we have a hard enough time teaching them how to use proper English, get them through two years of Algebra, and give them rudimentary Science and History. If we wanted to teach ways of thinking, Rand wouldn’t be the starting point.
Rand’s a little like Thoreau - some students will get exposed to Walden, most won’t. Thoreau is definitely worth reading, but not necessarily at the expense of other things and probably isn’t worth a forced slog through for high schoolers.
The teachers in these schools, were they raised in a Randian world? Or did they come from one of the societies that teach some form of altruism? Like pretty much, all of them?