Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism

[Enclave Supremacy]

With books like Fountainhead, I think a lot of it has to do with where you are in your life when you read it. I don't think my opinion is any more or less valid than the people who hate it, I just read it at the right time for me.

Same for The Catcher In The Rye; after reading that I remember thinking "this is... pretty fucking poor tbh", but it's many peoples favourite book. Perhaps had I read it as a teenager my opinion would've been different?

I suppose comrade. I got really sucked into the mentality of Atlas when I was that age, and the Fountainhead, and now the whole experience is just rather sour. Fountainhead especially is just so hypocritical in some places that I can't take it seriously.

And what's wrong with someone commissioning you to design something and not being happy with the product Rand?

 

[Pope Gregory IX]

I suppose comrade. I got really sucked into the mentality of Atlas when I was that age, and the Fountainhead, and now the whole experience is just rather sour. Fountainhead especially is just so hypocritical in some places that I can't take it seriously

What's interesting for me is where peoples focus goes when critiquing these books - people focus on the big business aspect, or the ownership of ideas aspect, or the rather hokey rape scene - none of these things were really my bag. Personally, it was Roark's drive - that overwhelming desire to do. When you are lying on your best mates couch covered in cheetos dust and smelling of bong hits, wondering why you're not rich and successful yet, it brings it home in a rather jarring (and motivating) fashion. Get. The fuck. Up.

If I'm honest, I found a number of scenes in the book rather true to life - Keatings mums/nans schadenfreude on discovering Roark has been expelled, the utterly chilling scene where Keating shows Roark his artwork ("I'm sorry Peter. It's too late") - I remember these vividly. Given that the dialogue throughout the book can be charitably described as 'stilted', the fact so much of it resonated with me is pretty impressive.

I do find the characterisation of Randians ITT very interesting though - I've only ever known one other person read Fountainhead and enjoy it as much as I did, and we both have a pretty hardcore work ethic. Reading the descriptions above of layabouts doing bugger-all spouting Rand seems unreal to me. I would've thought they were the last people who would subscribe to an Objectivist viewpoint tbh.

 

[Enclave Supremacy]

What's interesting for me is where peoples focus goes when critiquing these books - people focus on the big business aspect, or the ownership of ideas aspect, or the rather hokey rape scene - none of these things were really my bag. Personally, it was Roark's drive - that overwhelming desire to do. When you are lying on your best mates couch covered in cheetos dust and smelling of bong hits, wondering why you're not rich and successful yet, it brings it home in a rather jarring (and motivating) fashion. Get. The fuck. Up.

If I'm honest, I found a number of scenes in the book rather true to life - Keatings mums/nans schadenfreude on discovering Roark has been expelled, the utterly chilling scene where Keating shows Roark his artwork ("I'm sorry Peter. It's too late") - I remember these vividly. Given that the dialogue throughout the book can be charitably described as 'stilted', the fact so much of it resonated with me is pretty impressive.

I do find the characterisation of Randians ITT very interesting though - I've only ever known one other person read Fountainhead and enjoy it as much as I did, and we both have a pretty hardcore work ethic. Reading the descriptions above of layabouts doing bugger-all spouting Rand seems unreal to me. I would've thought they were the last people who would subscribe to an Objectivist viewpoint tbh.

I'll be fair, with Peter actually trying to do what he wants to do in life was a little sad since he was just manipulated his whole life (for lacking pure Objectivist willpower but what-ever).

But where Roark blows up those buildings at the end because his design was altered, or something IIRC, do the people who actually built it, designed the electrics and plumbing not have a say in the matter? Where is there work being protected or what-ever from this lunatic? And apparently everyone and his dog reads the Architect Critique column in the newspaper.

 

[AnOminous]

When you are lying on your best mates couch covered in cheetos dust and smelling of bong hits, wondering why you're not rich and successful yet, it brings it home in a rather jarring (and motivating) fashion. Get. The fuck. Up.

That describes most of the Randroids I know pretty well, minus the get the fuck up part.

 

[Pope Gregory IX]

That describes most of the Randroids I know pretty well, minus the get the fuck up part.

I've got to ask - how do they marry up being a layabout with a philosophy that basically says they're not worth a damn?*

*as I typed that, I realised it's undoubtedly the same as every narcissistic defense ever - "it's different for me". Shame. I think they missed the one lesson worth getting from Rand.

 

[XYZpdq]

Reading the descriptions above of layabouts doing bugger-all spouting Rand seems unreal to me. I would've thought they were the last people who would subscribe to an Objectivist viewpoint tbh.

Armchair philosophy is great when you never have to leave your armchair to go work for a living.

 

[An Ounce of Vagina]

I've got to ask - how do they marry up being a layabout with a philosophy that basically says they're not worth a damn?*

*as I typed that, I realised it's undoubtedly the same as every narcissistic defense ever - "it's different for me". Shame. I think they missed the one lesson worth getting from Rand.

Either that, or they think they've already done all the work they needed to do. This is common in Randroids who were born rich. They fail to see that they didn't earn it, either their parents or grandparents or someone even further down the line did (often with help from things that they rail against like the New Deal or the G.I. Bill). But because they lack perspective they assume that things like cleaning their room or doing the dishes earns them their easy lives (which they always complain about anyway), and that anyone who is poor is just lazy or didn't even try and therefore deserves it. At the risk of sounding like a SJW, they can't imagine that not everyone has the advantages they do.

 

[chimpburgers]

I never finished Atlas Shrugged, but watched the first movie when I was younger and also read The Fountainhead and Anthem. I thought of them differently when I was younger and didn't really have the perspective on issues that I have now. Those books made it more palatable at the time to go in that direction for a while, until I found a blog that took the time to go through a ton of Ayn Rand's objectivist writings and debunking them and I learned a bit about Leonard Peikoff too.

 

[Too Many Crooks]

In my personal opinion, I think Rand's philisophy and her fiction is a nothing more than childish nonsense based on hubris & selfishness.

 

[TowinKarz]

Objectivism would be a great philosophy, if there were only 5 people on the planet, and they agreedbeforehand that any two of them would never be on the same continent at the same time..... it's appealing to layabouts and pseudo intellectuals looking for a way to justify their failures in life by blaming society for not following the one true and honest ideology that has all the answers, because it boils down to "I got mine, that vindicates me, screw you"

 

[autisticdragonkin]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objectivism#Wacky_positions

 

[Adamska]

I do find the characterisation of Randians ITT very interesting though - I've only ever known one other person read Fountainhead and enjoy it as much as I did, and we both have a pretty hardcore work ethic. Reading the descriptions above of layabouts doing bugger-all spouting Rand seems unreal to me. I would've thought they were the last people who would subscribe to an Objectivist viewpoint tbh.

It might be because Rand herself advocated taking advantage of any charity you are given. Other hilarious outlooks she espoused included supporting what we did to the indigenous peoples of the Americas because they weren't using the land right, and claiming that you needed to act while sitting on her ass and collecting welfare herself.

My big issue with Objectivism is its essentially an attempt to defend acting like a sociopathic fuck. It mainly stresses that it's perfectly okay for you to fuck over others if it benefits you, and that you should be enraged when you are forced to account for others at all; all while ignoring how realistically this should apply to all of the other people that the "protagonist" steps on who should also have the same ability to dick punch them back. But no, Rand states, they are too whipped/subservient to be worth your time if you are enlightened. It utterly falls apart the moment you have to interact with other people because of that.

I mean shit, if you want a philosophy that demands action and actually did do stuff rather than sob about how you should do whatever you want, try Fascism. At least those guys got off their asses and did stuff. It was all horrible, and the current crop is somehow more laughable than Mussolini the missing stooge, but they at least preached what they taught to some degree at some point.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I mean shit, if you want a philosophy that demands action and actually did do stuff rather than sob about how you should do whatever you want, try Fascism. At least those guys got off their asses and did stuff. It was all horrible, and the current crop is somehow more laughable than Mussolini the missing stooge, but they at least preached what they taught to some degree at some point.

That is missing the point of objectivism. The point is to sit around not doing anything while thinking that you are doing something and leeching off of society.

 

[Enclave Supremacy]

It might be because Rand herself advocated taking advantage of any charity you are given. Other hilarious outlooks she espoused included supporting what we did to the indigenous peoples of the Americas because they weren't using the land right, and claiming that you needed to act while sitting on her ass and collecting welfare herself.

My big issue with Objectivism is its essentially an attempt to defend acting like a sociopathic fuck. It mainly stresses that it's perfectly okay for you to fuck over others if it benefits you, and that you should be enraged when you are forced to account for others at all; all while ignoring how realistically this should apply to all of the other people that the "protagonist" steps on who should also have the same ability to dick punch them back. But no, Rand states, they are too whipped/subservient to be worth your time if you are enlightened. It utterly falls apart the moment you have to interact with other people because of that.

I mean shit, if you want a philosophy that demands action and actually did do stuff rather than sob about how you should do whatever you want, try Fascism. At least those guys got off their asses and did stuff. It was all horrible, and the current crop is somehow more laughable than Mussolini the missing stooge, but they at least preached what they taught to some degree at some point.

To be fair dude, the Randians in Atlas come off as Fascists. If you just cede all control, especially from committees like the Board of Directors, to Dagny she'll make the trains run on time.

 

[Pope Gregory IX]

It might be because Rand herself advocated taking advantage of any charity you are given. Other hilarious outlooks she espoused included supporting what we did to the indigenous peoples of the Americas because they weren't using the land right, and claiming that you needed to act while sitting on her ass and collecting welfare herself.

Really? Holy shit that's pretty deplorable.

I mean shit, if you want a philosophy that demands action and actually did do stuff rather than sob about how you should do whatever you want, try Fascism. At least those guys got off their asses and did stuff. It was all horrible, and the current crop is somehow more laughable than Mussolini the missing stooge, but they at least preached what they taught to some degree at some point.

In philosophical terms, I found the Stoics resonated the most with me. I've tried to read various philosophers (unsuccessfully), but in terms of 'action over introspection', Stoics take the prize. I don't think Fascism would sit well with my liberal bias . You do make a good point - the ideas in Rands novels aren't exclusive to Rand, and can be found in other texts and philosophies, for sure.

I've stuck Anthem in my Amazon list off of this thread, and had a brief look at Nathaniel Branden (a Philosophers Notes brief look). His 6 Pillars of Self-Esteem gets bandied about quite a bit, and seems to involve less fuckery (had a look at Piekoff, as he was mentioned ITT, but nothing really grabbed me).

 

[autisticdragonkin]

What people never realize is that Objectivism isn't philosophy (an analytical systematic worldview) but rather an ideology (a group of ideas about what is correct for the world) and a terrible one at that

 

[PeteyCoffee]

Spoiler: Quoting a bunch of people

Objectivists are retarded neckbeards that don't know how the real world works. They're susceptible to the same failings as communist sympathizers and other people that think they can build a utopian society. See also: http://www.vice.com/read/atlas-mugged-922-v21n10

I read Anthem. It was okay. I started reading Atlas Shrugged. It wasn't okay enough for the eight billion pages.

I don't know any Rand cultists who actually work for a living.

The main problem with Randians in general is that when you get past all the rhetoric they are simply selfish assholes who believe that everyone owes them everything while they owe others nothing, and the state should serve them and them alone. It's why so many are on disability or other state assistance, even when perfectly capable of working. They see work as beneath a genius intellect like theirs and expect success and riches to fall into their laps just like a certain autistic we know. That the success they think they are owed hasn't found them yet is said to be the fault of "the little people", "takers", and "parasites" IE anyone less well-off then they are. Naturally this leads them to vote for every "Fuck the poor and unfortunate!" law that comes up.

I had two friends who both read atlas shrugged. One of them loved it and started wearing fedoras and otherwise imitating the 50s in grade 10-12 and has now disappeared but is thought to have not left his room since graduation. The other became a socialist and works for a living now

That describes most of the Randroids I know pretty well, minus the get the fuck up part.

Armchair philosophy is great when you never have to leave your armchair to go work for a living.

Either that, or they think they've already done all the work they needed to do. This is common in Randroids who were born rich. They fail to see that they didn't earn it, either their parents or grandparents or someone even further down the line did (often with help from things that they rail against like the New Deal or the G.I. Bill). But because they lack perspective they assume that things like cleaning their room or doing the dishes earns them their easy lives (which they always complain about anyway), and that anyone who is poor is just lazy or didn't even try and therefore deserves it. At the risk of sounding like a SJW, they can't imagine that not everyone has the advantages they do.

In my personal opinion, I think Rand's philisophy and her fiction is a nothing more than childish nonsense based on hubris & selfishness.

It might be because Rand herself advocated taking advantage of any charity you are given. Other hilarious outlooks she espoused included supporting what we did to the indigenous peoples of the Americas because they weren't using the land right, and claiming that you needed to act while sitting on her ass and collecting welfare herself.

My big issue with Objectivism is its essentially an attempt to defend acting like a sociopathic fuck. It mainly stresses that it's perfectly okay for you to fuck over others if it benefits you, and that you should be enraged when you are forced to account for others at all; all while ignoring how realistically this should apply to all of the other people that the "protagonist" steps on who should also have the same ability to dick punch them back. But no, Rand states, they are too whipped/subservient to be worth your time if you are enlightened. It utterly falls apart the moment you have to interact with other people because of that.

I mean shit, if you want a philosophy that demands action and actually did do stuff rather than sob about how you should do whatever you want, try Fascism. At least those guys got off their asses and did stuff. It was all horrible, and the current crop is somehow more laughable than Mussolini the missing stooge, but they at least preached what they taught to some degree at some point.

That is missing the point of objectivism. The point is to sit around not doing anything while thinking that you are doing something and leeching off of society.

Everyone I've ever heard of who spent their life promoting an ideology was pathetic personally and accomplished nothing good.

I never finished Atlas Shrugged, but watched the first movie when I was younger and also read The Fountainhead and Anthem. I thought of them differently when I was younger and didn't really have the perspective on issues that I have now. Those books made it more palatable at the time to go in that direction for a while, until I found a blog that took the time to go through a ton of Ayn Rand's objectivist writings and debunking them and I learned a bit about Leonard Peikoff too.

Will you send this to me?

Objectivism would be a great philosophy, if there were only 5 people on the planet, and they agreedbeforehand that any two of them would never be on the same continent at the same time..... it's appealing to layabouts and pseudo intellectuals looking for a way to justify their failures in life by blaming society for not following the one true and honest ideology that has all the answers, because it boils down to "I got mine, that vindicates me, screw you"

I currently consider myself an anarcho-capitalist, and I approve of this message. Objectivism never did interest me. Although some of the kooks who promote it do.

 

[Datiko]

I've read all of her works. Her ideology is interesting but nowhere near complete. It makes sense in the book because she created adversaries so terrible that nearly any protagonist would elicit sympathy from the reader. There are pearls to be found in her longer works to be sure, but I don't think most people will bother reading to find them. Anthem is probably the only of her works you really need to understand her style.

What I find interesting is that the "moochers" of Atlas Shrugged were almost prophetic in a way. The counterpoint to John Galt's objectivism was the world's current of subjectivity. In the book the antagonists are constantly saying "nobody can know" "its the fault of nobody" "nothing is clear" and other things. Emotion is what powers them and shields them from the any accountability. The thoughts behind modern identity politics and the arguments used are almost verbatim what you see in Atlas Shrugged.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I've read all of her works. Her ideology is interesting but nowhere near complete. It makes sense in the book because she created adversaries so terrible that nearly any protagonist would elicit sympathy from the reader. There are pearls to be found in her longer works to be sure, but I don't think most people will bother reading to find them. Anthem is probably the only of her works you really need to understand her style.

What I find interesting is that the "moochers" of Atlas Shrugged were almost prophetic in a way. The counterpoint to John Galt's objectivism was the world's current of subjectivity. In the book the antagonists are constantly saying "nobody can know" "its the fault of nobody" "nothing is clear" and other things. Emotion is what powers them and shields them from the any accountability. The thoughts behind modern identity politics and the arguments used are almost verbatim what you see in Atlas Shrugged.

I don't know whether you are advocating for Ayn Rand but you made the best point that I have ever heard for her

 

[Hummingbird]

My first question is now that Roark is cleared of those charges, (other than that one guy) who in their right mind would hire him? What if he tries to destroy their buildings just because he doesn't totally get his way or do what he wants. It wouldn't be fun if of their plans and dreams have to squished to avoid destruction.

Say, have you ever seen the works of other Objectivists like Terry Goodkind, Jay Naylor or Andrew Zarr? While Zarr is the nicest of the three (the other two are douchebags), these writers tend to love putting rape, abuse scenes and edginess in their work as possible. Goodkind and Naylor especially love spewing out their political beliefs (Zarr won't do it).