No sugar-coating it: Atlas Shrugged makes my skin crawl. I find its central philosophy mean-spirited, naïve, narrow-minded, and hypocritical. Although it tries to pass itself as liberation from common thought, its methodology is terrifyingly close to the government oppression Rand experienced in her youth. Philosophy aside, Rand is a so-so writer. When she sticks to philosophy, or even setting description, she’s not bad. Her philosophy is convincing, passionately argued, and her descriptions hit notes of beauty, especially those of cities and their ties to her characters’ psyches. Yet when she tries to develop three-dimensional characters whose speech, thoughts, and actions represent a reality outside of her political machinations, she fails miserably. I realize overtly political novels sometimes sacrifice character development to make their points. But does the reader need a seventy-page speech to understand Rand’s intentions when her characters, plot, and themes should speak for themselves? In the last third of the book, I felt I was being hit over the head with a hammer page-after-page. If Rand’s skills as a writer matched hers as a philosopher, I would have enjoyed Atlas Shrugged. I can disagree with a book’s themes and still find them interesting, but here, when Rand constantly tells instead of shows, she treats her reader with the same self-absorbed patronizing her Objectivist characters do to those “inhibiting the motor of the world.”
Atlas Shrugged sets up a wonderful mystery: “Who is John Galt?” Is he myth? Is he Savior? What has he to do with the declining state of the nation? You see, the United States is passing laws so that the private business sector is slowly being eaten by an undeserving collective. The heads of these successful private businesses, such as steel baron Hank Reardon, can only watch as their creations fall into the hands of legislative leeches. Some business leaders, like Reardon and Dagny Taggert, fight these laws, while others mysteriously disappear. Companies on which the USA depend seem to dry up over night, their CEOs and founders gone by morning. Where are they? Who has taken them? As these blatantly totalitarian laws are passed and ratified, a large portion of the working class riots, not for better working conditions, fair pay, or benefits, but so that CEOs will leave the factories, laboratories, and mills under the control of average people. Finally, after the government controls even the sciences, John Galt swings in to the rescue. The creative minds of America haven’t disappeared. They now live in Galt’s Gulch in the Colorado Rockies where they have formed a community for those they feel deserve it (although the number one rule of this “community” is that no man is to work for anyone but himself). With most of the creative minds gone from mainstream America, Galt believes it’s only a matter of time before they stop “the motor of the world” and reclaim the government.
Rand must be commended for her novel’s unique premise. I was hooked from page one. I wanted to know the identity of John Galt, the reasons for the disappearance of so many able-bodied men and women, and what made such successful characters achieve so much in their lines of work. I wanted to know what all the fuss was about. I didn’t want a good read. I wanted an experience. I got one. There were times when I was thrilled, moved, and polarized. Many times I had to close the book and ponder what exactly Rand meant. Each time I did I learned something. I must admit parts of Rand’s philosophy coexist with my own, like her tenets of everything in life having to be earned, questioning the status quo, and embodying your beliefs and standing by them no matter the circumstances. What terrified me, however, was that if you do not measure up to Rand’s yardstick of mental, personal and material progresses, then society is better off without you. Yes, there are a lot of undeserving people in the world. There are leeches. But the world is not black-and-white. You cannot divide it into the Brains and Backs.
Rand does. Her protagonists are the Brains, beautiful, well-spoken, rich, and always right. Their integrity never fails. The novel’s antagonists, the Backs, are ugly, stupid sheep following one another to oblivion. They represent almost all of American society. Apparently, nurture never trumps nature in Rand’s world. Though she spends time documenting her protagonists’ successes, she offers no real explanations of how it has changed them. It seems they’ve always been smart and driven, like all Brains. While railing against organizations and institutions she finds immoral, she acts like a dictator, giving passage only to those who worship her philosophy. She does not forgive. If Galt’s Gulch’s motto is every man for himself, what room is there for children, parents, or learning curves? And if there’s no room for those, how can Rand expect her characters to form any sort of governing body except the one in which they ultimately replace?
Rand also fails as a writer. This book is long, long, long. Why state what I mean in a sentence, she seems to say, when I can do it in several paragraphs? Her dialogue is absurd. Characters sermonize for paragraphs on end. They aren’t alive. They’re echoes of Rand.
She dismisses religion, yet makes John Galt a figure to be worshiped. The ultimate insult to her readers’ intelligence comes when her protagonists, none of them trained in weaponry, break John Galt out of prison at the novel’s end. These businessmen and women waltz into a military prison with small arms and the guards literally drop their guns in awe, as if they are overwhelmed by the supreme intellect before them and, helpless, forget to shoot these entitled, tyrannical mother fuckers.
And so it seems Rand expects the same of her readers. Drop your jaw at her intellect. Or, just drop the book. And if you’re debating if Objectivism is right for you, remember The Who—“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” D
18 comments:
I agree that the book was needlessly long, the characters were underdeveloped, and the prison escape was not believable and seemed forced. Of all the speeches, the one that really hit me was Francisco's money speech.
I don't agree that Rand's philosophy is similar to "government oppression". In what way is that true, either in theory or in practice?
The living standards of society would certainly be higher if everyone were supremely competent - but Rand rejects the whole idea of "society" as a "greater good". Everyone should live his life to the best of his ability, pursuing his own interests and values, and leave others free to do the same.
And for individuals who are unable to sustain themselves - no, not eugenics or forced relocation - just voluntary charity, something which arises more readily in a free society than one in which everyone presumes that the state will provide a safety net.
The critique is not of Objectivist philosophy, but of the implications of it based on Rand's novel. As a writer, she takes what she peddles and turns it into what she fears based on her characterization and plot.
Galt acts as an elitist leader biding his time until the eventual American governmental collapse so that he and his fellow Gulchers can reclaim the government. He is waiting out "the common mob." A select group of entitled individuals taking over the government, judging, and deciding what is good for the populous without their consent--smells like oppression. And all of it because of drastic infringes on their businesses. While the laws hurting their businesses are outrageous, their motives are based in Galt and his followers' gains.
Rand, in turn, sinks the very ship she means to set out to sea because of her over ambition, lack of thematic skill, and failure to balance what she wants to say with what her story needs to be.
I don't believe Galt's group ever intended to "take over the government". Out of all the protagonists, only the judge was even interested in government work (and love for one's work is presented as a key virtue). Given the various speeches throughout, it is clear that they are entirely opposed to non-consensual force.
Why did they leave society? To stop supporting the "looters" and "moochers". What would they do once the economy collapsed? Go back to work, in whatever field or capacity they see fit.
Their motives are based in their own interests and values - and that is the point. Rand's intent is to present an alternative to the false dichotomy of sacrificing oneself to others (altruism), or sacrificing others to oneself (Machiavellianism).
A thorough skewering of AS, more than has been done here, can be found in these links:
http://agonyin8fits.blogspot.com/2011/04/atlas-shrugged-mocking.html
http://agonyin8fits.blogspot.com/2011/05/atlas-shrugged-mocking-part-2.html
http://agonyin8fits.blogspot.com/2011/05/atlas-shrugged-mocking-part-3.html
Also, a debunking of "Anthem" and its many logical fallacies.
http://www.gradesaver.com/anthem/study-guide/section13/
And quotes:
"Ayn Rand was the single most important novelist and philosopher of the 20th century. Or so she admitted with all due modesty, whenever the subject came up."
~ Scott McLemee
Despite all the many errors, obfuscations, sophisms, contradictions and violations of fact with which Rand’s Objectivist system abounds, it would be a mistake to consider everything Rand said to be untrue or her philosophy as entirely worthless. …… many of Rand’s convictions contain an element of truth.
~ Greg S. Nyquist, Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature, Chapter 8
...there ... remains a huge following [of Ayn Rand's philosophy] of those who ignore the indiscretions, infidelities, and moral inconsistencies of the founder and focus instead on the positive aspects of her philosophy. There is much in it to admire, if you do not have to accept the whole package... Criticism of the founder or followers of a philosophy does not, by itself, constitute a negation of any part of the philosophy... Criticism of part of a philosophy does not gainsay the whole.
~Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things
Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, "It's all or nothing." Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don't try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand's philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.
~Nathaniel Branden, The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement
However, although it is easy to dismiss the very mention of Rand in a "serious" theoretical article as an obscene extravaganza — artistically, she is of course, worthless — the properly subversive dimension of her ideological procedure is not to be underestimated: Rand fits into the line of over-conformist authors who undermine the ruling ideological edifice by their very excessive identification with it.
Her over-orthodoxy was directed at capitalism itself, as the title of one of her books Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal tells us; according to her, the truly heretic thing today is to embrace the basic premise of capitalism without its communitarian, collectivist, welfare, etc., sugarcoating. So what Pascal and Racine were to Jansenism, what Kleist was to German nationalist militarism, what Brecht was to Communism, Rand is to American capitalism.
~Slavoj Zizek
I don't mean to go overboard in opposition, but Rand rubs me the wrong way all over (insert joke).
Again, I critique AS as a novel--the Superior go to Gult's Gulch, the Inferior are left to rot. So, when the Inferior finally rots, why would the Superior go back to a defunct system they already had problems with if not to run it in some capacity?
If every man works for himself and not others, why form a community when that flies in the face of the very definition of the word? Say the guy who owns the water suddenly says, "You know what Reardon, screw you. Get your own water." Or the policeman, "You know what Reardon, I think I'll skip investigating the theft of your car." But aren't these people duty-bound? No, they're interest bound and within the philosophy have the right to do what they see fit based on their own self-interests.
Another example is The Fountainhead. Howard Roark commits an act of terrorism and gets away with it because the building was his original idea? Talk about stretching your metaphor to the extreme--and her inflated sense of self-importance.
"why would the Superior go back to a defunct system they already had problems with if not to run it in some capacity?"
As I previously stated, that is precisely the point, to present an alternative to the two choices that most people would expect in such a situation. To leave Galt's Gulch and start running people's lives would not merely bring us back to where we started, but according to Rand's philosophy, such an action is morally wrong - i.e., it is never the right choice for a person to make.
"If every man works for himself and not others, why form a community when that flies in the face of the very definition of the word?"
Working for oneself is not equivalent to living in isolation. It simply means that you get to keep the fruit of your labor, and do with it as you please. Naturally, people will want to trade their excess production, with other people in similar situations. Both trade to mutual benefit, and the standard of living improves. Nowhere in this description does mooching/looting or the "social contract" enter.
Regarding the hypothetical "man who owns the water" - how did this situation arise that one person owns all the water? What prevents Rearden from dropping a well? What prevents other people from reselling excess water to Rearden? This "man with the water" certainly has the right to deny sales, but it is certainly not in his long-term self-interest to do so. If he builds a reputation for denying people access to water, people will be more likely to move elsewhere, reducing the living standards of his area.
Regarding the policeman - if he did not do his job, he would be fired. Is that in his long-term interest?
One last point regarding "self-interest". Rand is not a hedonist - her philosophy advocates for "rational self-interest", i.e. what is in the long-term self-interest of an individual, both in terms of the values he chooses, and in terms of the actions he takes to further those values.
You are stating Rand's philosophy correctly. What I am criticizing is that philosophy as is presented by the book--which shows Rand's inherent weakness as a writer. We can debate philosophy--in which there is going to be no right or wrong, no true answer--but let's use Rand's characters and plots as examples of her philosophy as per AS. I'll not trying to prove I am right from a philosophical standpoint (okay, I am a bit), but rather trying to present Rand's views through her own twisted world.
Of course running people's lives is wrong. Rand is right in saying so. Yet, if Gult has gathered the movers of the world in his Gulch, and the American/government system collapses as he predicts, those movers do have a choice to pursue government work afterward. If they don't fine, if they do okay. I infer they would since they would leave the governing up to the rest of the population who wasn't included in the Gulch--the Inferior--and the same outrageous business laws/moral actions would continue. As Rand describes her characters, the Superior have always been so from the word go as has the Inferior. So, if the Superior do not change how the government oversees its citizens according to their standards (Rand's philosophy) wouldn't the cycle of irrationality and "mooching" repeat itself? If all men have a choice to do what they feel is right or wrong without thinking of a greater good, then how can Rand hold the Inferior responsible for their actions if they chose another path? This is the problem with Rand--her philosophy is so easily picked apart and is inconsistent as a whole--and as I've quoted, Rand's view is all or nothing. She said you cannot pick and chose her philosophy, but must follow it as a whole without question because it is philosophically, rationally, and morally sound. If there is no room for questioning, how can there be room for a free state or progress? How can take yourself seriously as a mover of the world if you won't let yourself or your views change within the unforeseeable future?
Naturally, people would want to trade and sell their excess production--wait, I don't. I want to keep it because that's what I've earned and know how to do. Gulch picks his Gulchers because they each have a special business or skill that will help run his community. So, based on her description of how the community is run, each man/woman has a job they do well. So, one man/woman owns the water. Nothing prevents Reardon from learning how to sink a well, do through water production, etc. He can do that. But while he takes the time to do so, he's going to get awfully thirsty. As far as the water man's reputation--if you lived in a community where only one man sold water and refused to give it to a select few because of whatever reasons--his right--yet still sold it to you at a reasonable price, would you join those he's marginalized or would you still keep getting his water? And if one is opposed to a "social contract", how would you eliminate it and set up something different while maintaining the same properties--without assuming a majority of the world will be like Rand's Superior?
As far as the policeman--how many people don't do their jobs based in self-interest and never get fired?
Again, I am criticizing her novel and how it creates it fictional world through Rand's Philosophy through its application to that world. It's not a philosophical review (it is in some ways), but a lit review. I think we're arguing the same points, but taking different roads to get there.
It's been a great discussion though.
It's impossible in a novel with so many speeches to try to separate out and ignore the philosophy. Much of Rand's philosophy is expounded in Galt's speech. From that speech (and others) it is clear, as you state, that it would be wrong for the folks at the Gulch to start oppressing people and controlling their lives.
Rand's moral standard in a social context is freedom from force. People should be free to make errors of judgment, but they should not be free from the consequences of those errors. In a society, that means that if someone initiates force against another, he has violated their rights and must be brought to justice - even if he believes otherwise.
Rand's philosophy certainly is a whole system, although there are plenty of people (e.g. conservatives) who cherrypick what they like. But her philosophy should not be accepted "without question" - that would be to accept it on faith, which is contrary to reason. According to Rand's own philosophy, it would be wrong to accept her philosophy without being convinced of its validity.
If your moral compass changes, it changes according to some standard. For example, if you say to yourself (explicitly, or implicitly through your actions), "I will act one way 95% of the time, except when it is inconvenient to me", then your standard is convenience. People even consider it a sign of "maturity" - accepting one standard until a situation arises in which it is too difficult or inconvenient to follow that standard, and then choosing to compromise.
"I want to keep it because that's what I've earned and know how to do."
That's your choice. If you'd rather let your excess crops rot than to sell them to someone else, feel free to do so. It's not a rational choice to make, obviously, but you should be free to make that choice.
"But while he takes the time to do so, he's going to get awfully thirsty."
How did Rearden suddenly get into the position of having no water? Again, this is a contrived scenario, disconnected from reality - not a foundation for a philosophy. If you throw two guys on a life boat in the middle of the ocean, and only give them enough food for one to survive (also, throw in some guns, and sharks!), there is no morality that can guide them. The concept of morality is only valid in the context of a life with the potential of reason and freedom from force. In other words, morality ends where force begins.
"would you join those he's marginalized or would you still keep getting his water?"
I would look to the future, and realize that I might be next on his blacklist. I would also look at the value that our community could have gained from the people he blacklisted. Then I would either join others in protest/boycott, setup my own competing water supply service (or help finance such an alternative), or just move elsewhere.
Re: social contract: Well, the social contract doesn't exist, except as an idea - an invalid concept used to justify basically anything. To eliminate it requires changing people's minds. You cannot have a free society without the effort involved in making it free - i.e. convincing people to live for their rational self-interest, to not initiate force or advocate for the initiation of force, etc. In Atlas Shrugged, they attempt to convince people by allowing society the opportunity to realize the end-result of the rules they follow (and in case that doesn't work, by giving a 3+ hour radio speech...)
"how many people don't do their jobs based in self-interest and never get fired?"
Plenty. Why? To not do your job, yet claim to be doing so, is dishonest and not in your rational self-interest. Such actions have consequences, both externally (e.g. getting fired, making enemies, etc) and internally (anxiety about being caught, maintaining false stories, lying to loved ones), and those consequences will impact all of your emotions, self-esteem, and future decisions.
Well, since these comments seem to be geared toward water and self-interest, I'll just keep it going…
"Regarding the hypothetical "man who owns the water" - how did this situation arise that one person owns all the water?"
Well, this situation could arise anywhere really - as long as the 'owner of the water' is upstream of anyone who wants a drink, and has the know-how and desire to dam the river.
Brian's solution to anyone downstream is 'Well, just move!'… Simply put, but who would buy the dry, desolate property downstream of a dam? Is the owner downstream supposed to 'absorbe the cost' of the land he purchased and just pack up and go - leaving their land and all they've worked for?
Or would it be better if there was someway to prevent this from happening? Riparian Water Rights, perhaps? But this isn't in any one person's self interest (especially if I own the land at the source of water), so why should this be law!?!?
As I've stated before, I'm not ignoring the philosophy. I am not arguing philosophy. I am arguing literature and how the novel represents that philosophy. If she was a decent fiction writer, she wouldn't need so many speeches, especially a 70 page one that expounds everything her novel is expected to show. Read Philip Roth, Cormac McCarthy, e.g. any great author and you will not find such blatant undercooking of plot and characters. You can read "The Human Stain," "The Road," "Blood Meridian," "Portnoy's Complaint," etc. without feeling as if the author is belittling you by having to shout their philosophies at you (although Roth shouts--he does so through characters who would shout).
So Gult gives the rest of America the opportunity to realize their mistakes and choose another form of intellect/reason/values--who would do such a thing in "rational self-interest?" What if it fails? Wouldn't it be more rational to work within the system to change it instead of working from without? And by Rand's depictions of almost everyone not included in the Gulch, they will never change, never see reason, because they are the Inferior. You seem to be arguing the world as it should be in Rand's mind--and I agree with much of it. I am arguing the world she presents based on her novel.
But speaking of choice and my policeman--you know, that guy you went to high school with who pulls you over and you go, 'Oh, God, not him'--it may be fully in his rational self-interest to lie, cheat, and steal. If he will feel no remorse, no guilt, then all he must worry about is external dangers. Yet, when he overcomes those and his lies because habit and he gets away with them, isn't it in his rational self-interest to keep doing it?
And if we can't cherrypick her philosophy, as Rand states, and if to believe her whole philosophy without question (also like Rand states) is taking her philosophy on faith--the opposite of reason, how does that paint Objectivism as a whole? Doesn't it become, as per Rand's command, a dogmatic religion? And why follow such a belief system since such following is not based in reason?
And since when did we get so hung up about having faith? I'm not talking about revelation or angels or carriages in the sky. Everyday we operate on faith that our actions will not hurt others, ourself, will be the right thing to do. As someone in a long term relationship as well, I'd be quite hard for me to say to my wife, "Well, I didn't cook you a great birthday dinner or treat you so well, etc., just for you. I did it because it was firstly in my self-interest to do so, since you would in turn to the same for me." Wholly giving to someone without thought of yourself is one of the best parts of having a longterm relationship. It is charity day-in and day-out.
Obviously Rand's philosophy is to be applied to businesses and governing systems, but as we've see in our country today, cutting the personal relationship out of business systems (and they're doing so with education by turning it into private corporations) and government dulls one to one of the most important parts of those system, or at least one of its benefits--"a greater good."
I'd love those Wallstreet and Big Corp CEOs who get 500 million dollar bonuses to give back to the economy to more readily get it on its feet. This is a time period in our country when all we should be thinking about is our greater good, not purely rational self-interest, so that we can each get back that sense of self we seem to have lost in the last ten years.
Joe: "Well, this situation could arise anywhere really - as long as the 'owner of the water' is upstream of anyone who wants a drink"
Hmm, I'm not sure you understand how property rights work with regard to rivers, lakes, and open water. You can read up on how they have been historically applied in courts for the last few centuries. A person who owns the property which is downstream has an expectation of continuing to receive water of similar quality on that property. So the person upstream could not simply dam it, or dump their waste in it, without violating the property rights of those downstream.
Unfortunately, in the US, privatizing water ways is unheard of. Because of the lack of incentive that private property would provide, nobody personally cares about maintaining water quality - that's assumed to be the government's job. But when the government doesn't do its job, and turns a blind eye to blatant pollution - we get the "mistake by the lake".
James: if you love and value your wife, you certainly would want to promote and support her. So it certainly makes sense - assuming you're a decent cook - to make her a great birthday dinner. This is not at all contrary to Rand's philosophy or one's rational self-interest. Now, if you hated your wife, but still continued to put in the effort to make her happy, you would be maintaining a bad relationship. This would be considered sacrifice, and contrary to Rand's philosophy. You shouldn't stay in such a relationship.
Regarding the cop - if he feels no negative effects from the false reality he leads, then he is a sociopath and likely to exhibit similar behavior in other situations. It is certainly not in one's interest to continue lying to loved ones. And one cannot simply predefine that he will never be caught - the future is never that certain, and the variables and unknowns are always too many. There will always be a degree of uncertainty, and from that will grow anxiety and other emotional conflicts.
Again, Rand's philosophy should not be taken without question, let alone on faith. One should examine it thoroughly, ask lots of question (as I have), and come to their own conclusions. When I say that Rand's system is a "complete whole", I mean it like mathematics is a "complete whole" - all the parts are interconnected and interdependent, but you should not accept any part on faith (even that 1+1=2). You could easily reject any part and decide to redefine pi as 3 (as people have in the past), but that redefinition will invalidate and break the rest of the system.
It is tempting to want to take the money of the rich, and certainly there are plenty of rich people who got that way through government-granted monopolies and partnerships, but the key ethical point in Rand's philosophy can be stated as, "do not want for the unearned."
If you want to get the economy back on its feet, remove the artificially-created incentives that inflated the various bubbles that are now bursting. Don't bail out banks that should rightly fail, and let those corporate execs go bankrupt. The fact that the government has bailed out bank execs does not mean we should now be able to control their actions - two wrongs don't make a right. Stop propping up their system, let them fail, and let the economy heal. The economy cannot possibly go back to the highs that it was experiencing; the recession is not the disease, but the cure.
James:
Regarding faith: blind faith is not equivalent to the "faith" that you describe - what you describe is "trust". You trust that your brakes will work when you press them, because you have maintained the brakepads, and you know the amount of research and work that went into the design. That is not blind faith.
Contrary to that annoying song, nobody ever lets "Jesus take the wheel" when they're going 75 mph on the highway. *That* would be blind faith.
Brian, Joe understands Riparian Water Rights and property rights. He said the same thing you say--that those rights protect those downstream from the water source and prevents the actions you and he describe. His "why should this be law?!" is sarcastic. His point is why pass such a law when it benefits the greater good and not merely the individual? Yes, you cannot privatize water in the US in situations such as this, but as a government representative, legislator, businessman, or human being, the thought of a greater good must always exist somewhere in mind, even if you will most benefit. Isn't that what Rand thought of when she sat down to write AS? How she could change people's minds for the greater good?
And yes, we are talking of contrived scenarios, but that is precisely what Rand gives us again and again. How else are we supposed to interpret the literature of it? I'd love for this discussion for veer right back to where it began: a lit review, not a philosophical debate.
Speaking of her writing in AS, take the Ragar character who attempts to debunk the Robin Hood myth. He is right in that the rob from the rich and give to the poor is wrong--yet Rand needs to define the general misinterpretation of that myth. Robin Hood didn't merely rob the rich to give to the poor. He robbed money aristocratic leaders unfairly taxed, stole, and coerced from commoners, leaders who claimed to have that authority by mere bloodlines or divine right. But as a writer Rand doesn't tread that road because it would break her metaphor and in turn cause Ragnar to have to paint the world a deeper gray shade than to keep it black and white in order to better peddle her views. If she would have clarified this Robin Hood myth, Ragnar's speech would become something more than it is. Instead, she commits a folly similar to misinterpretations and bad retelling of Robin Hood's story. It's like the myth that Jesus was all love and forgiveness--bullshit. In the NT, Jesus was a badass, judgmental, moody, whip smart individual. If you don't want to believe he existed in some form, than at least admit he existed as a character and you'll get the same results.
"And one cannot simply predefine that he will never be caught - the future is never that certain, and the variables and unknowns are always too many."
Well, then why suppose he will be caught? Why presuppose he will lie in other aspects of his life? Why suppose this uncertainty will affect him in the ways you deem? Are you deciding for him what is rational? Obviously, what is rational to you is not always rational to others. To try and have a yardstick of rationality in which to measure human beings is an exercise in futility.
Also, "faith" should not be tacked on to "blind faith" as I was not using it in that sense. Although I agree with much of the Four Horsemen's rhetoric (Hitchens, Harris, etc.), they've twisted faith's definition to suit their agenda's. In our time, "faith" has been corrupted. Besides religion, faith's definition is: trust or confidence in someone or something; a strongly held belief or theory. Faith, trust, call it whatever you want in my scenario, we're talking about the same thing. Except in this scenario--when you meet a girl soon to become you girlfriend, or one you like, want to date, whatever--you treat her nicely and have faith/trust she will do the same and the relationship will grow. You have been given no evidence thus far, you have been given no inkling or idea to her true character. And when you get married and discuss having children, you take it on faith your partner will be a good parent--not person, you can observe those personal qualities and say oh yeah, they'll be great--but when you're seriously considering it, because you have no children, because you've never raised a child (and playing with others' children does not count--raising/rearing is much different)--you take it on faith. Such a faith is not a bad thing and is certainly not based on empirical, observable evidence.
As I've stated with my Ragnar example, it's time to get back to the full, actual definition of whatever it is your talking about, instead of twisting it to suit your personal beliefs or agendas. I look forward to hear what you have to say about my religious/spiritual posts I'll be starting next week--I'm working with the same principal.
I have to end with this quote as it fits how so many read AS and take the novel as a representaion of Rand's philosophy instead of reading the philosophy itself and putting it all under scrutiny before making a decision:
Nobel Prize winning economist and liberal commentator Paul Krugman: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Brian, your definition of "trust" and mine of "faith" are very similar--I just wanted to show a scenario where blind faith occurs and is not necessarily a bad thing as some make "blind faith" out to be.
Also, none of this has been meant to be antagonistic. I'm not calling you a twister of words or anything. I realize blog postings can have a different thrust in tone than would a face-to-face convo.
I don't want to thread on anyone's feelings.
Brian,
You missed my point entirely, as James has already pointed out…
Nevertheless, on the note of:
"Because of the lack of incentive that private property would provide, nobody personally cares about maintaining water quality - that's assumed to be the government's job. But when the government doesn't do its job, and turns a blind eye to blatant pollution - we get the 'mistake by the lake'."
I'm glad you brought up that point. The EPA was formed because of 'the mistake by the lake' you cited. The steel industry (among others) had tons of 'by-product' it needed to unload - and didn't want to pay the disposal fees. Their 'self-interest' is to make $. Disposing of waste costs $. Dumping it in the river saves $. Solution: dump the waste in Erie. I love laissez-faire, don't you?
The point I was trying to make with my 'dam the river' scenario, and the all too real scenario described above, was laissez-faire isn't the be all end all. Does it have its good points? Well, maybe. Though it certainly needs some 'additions' - i.e. 'check and balance'. These government agencies are NECESSARY to protect everyone from the one dummy. Instead of you blaming 'the government' for the 'mistake by the lake' I'd think you'd use that example as Objectivism's reductio ad absurdum…
Remember the one screw-off in elementary school who canceled gym class because of his poor decision making? Or the loud-mouth that made you run extra sprints at football practice? The teachers and coaches were preparing us for the same scenario - just much bigger/more serious scale - one idiot can screw it up for everyone.
Post a Comment