ATLAS SHRUGGED: Does it suck or is it better than Mendeleev's Beard??

[Umbriel]

I always hate that there isn't an equal amount of hatred for something like The Communist Manifesto. Communism has pretty easily been the worst thing in history. I guess it is just 'cause communism is ostensibly more compassionate and fair, although in the end it degrades into a kind of Lord of the Flies reality. Atlas Shrugged is like "FUCK THE LAZY PEOPLE." People have a problem with that. I think it is a complicated issue I don't feel like trying to go into right now.

Books like The Communist Manifesto and The Bible and The Koran are non-fiction. Comparing them to novels is daft because they're trying to do completely different stuff.

And why's it been the worst thing ever lol?

 

[Mal12345]

Favourite and best are the same thing. "Best novel" is your opinion, it's not a fact. Why would you think something is the best and not also have it be your favourite?

Who is the best swimmer in the Olympics 400 meter freestyle? Is it your favorite swimmer? Or is it the swimmer who won the race?

 

[AnnaInMoscow]

I try to read this once but give up.

 

[Mal12345]

Short but sweet.

 

[zago]

Books like The Communist Manifesto and The Bible and The Koran are non-fiction. Comparing them to novels is daft because they're trying to do completely different stuff.

And why's it been the worst thing ever lol?

I'll rage against those 3 any day.

Why has communism been the worst thing ever? Where do I begin? I guess the first thing is that communism simply makes no economic sense. Everything else stems from that. The state has to assume absolute control over people's lives and turn them into worthless slaves in order to make such an "economy" turn. Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. Cesescu (sp). North Korea. Whoever wAs in charge of east Germany. Others I can't think of right now. Their brutality was STAGGERING. HORRIFYING. IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTATE.

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

Short but sweet.

Haha.

 

[WALMART]

I was pleased to learn one day of my youth that objectivism exists as a philosophy.

I was saddened upon exploring its contents.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I want to read so I can be justified in my hatred. I can't justify hating something I haven't read.

I hate the effects of it. She is also rejected by most philosophy departments, and I loathe the principles of her philosophy and also don't agree (I agree with some things I loathe). Her ideas on art are basically the same as the fascist dictators of the 20th century. Any images and processes she doesn't understand she dismisses.

Also, her approach is NOT objectivism. It is a process of expanding the ego/Self to encompass the entire concept of reality. It would be more accurate to call it "Subjectivism", but the most accurate term is "Egoism".

 

[SolitaryWalker]

This thread's about the novel by Ayn Rand. So where do you come on the spectrum? I think it sucks myself.

It's a great book to live by if you're a psychopath, but then again, you won't need a philosophical justification for your radical egoism.

 

[Jaguar]

Books like The Bible are non-fiction.

Which version?

 

[Mal12345]

I hate the effects of it. She is also rejected by most philosophy departments, and I loathe the principles of her philosophy and also don't agree (I agree with some things I loathe). Her ideas on art are basically the same as the fascist dictators of the 20th century. Any images and processes she doesn't understand she dismisses.

Also, her approach is NOT objectivism. It is a process of expanding the ego/Self to encompass the entire concept of reality. It would be more accurate to call it "Subjectivism", but the most accurate term is "Egoism".

There's some truth and falsehood to all that. The true part is, Objectivists are admitted solipsists.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I hate the effects of it. She is also rejected by most philosophy departments, and I loathe the principles of her philosophy and also don't agree (I agree with some things I loathe). Her ideas on art are basically the same as the fascist dictators of the 20th century. Any images and processes she doesn't understand she dismisses.

Also, her approach is NOT objectivism. It is a process of expanding the ego/Self to encompass the entire concept of reality. It would be more accurate to call it "Subjectivism", but the most accurate term is "Egoism".

I don't expect my opinion to change upon reading it, but I just think... "well, you haven't read it" is actually a fair criticism. If my own outlook on the world can't survive a doorstopper novel, it isn't strong enough to begin with.

I suspect you are correct, but I suppose I would like to learn why you are correct.

 

[Mal12345]

I hate the effects of it. She is also rejected by most philosophy departments, and I loathe the principles of her philosophy and also don't agree (I agree with some things I loathe). Her ideas on art are basically the same as the fascist dictators of the 20th century. Any images and processes she doesn't understand she dismisses.

Also, her approach is NOT objectivism. It is a process of expanding the ego/Self to encompass the entire concept of reality. It would be more accurate to call it "Subjectivism", but the most accurate term is "Egoism".

"Objectivism" is just an answer to the problem of Universals. And that answer is: the so-called problem of Universals is falsely premised. The real world is objective because you can't prove otherwise without self-contradiction.

 

[Umbriel]

Which version?

Haha well, they're meant to be anyway. If the Bible was marketed as a book of ancient stories it would be ok.

 

[Umbriel]

I'll rage against those 3 any day.

Why has communism been the worst thing ever? Where do I begin? I guess the first thing is that communism simply makes no economic sense. Everything else stems from that. The state has to assume absolute control over people's lives and turn them into worthless slaves in order to make such an "economy" turn. Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. Cesescu (sp). North Korea. Whoever wAs in charge of east Germany. Others I can't think of right now. Their brutality was STAGGERING. HORRIFYING. IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTATE.

Then don't you mean "pain" and "stupidity" are the worst things ever? It's not just communism that makes those.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

"Objectivism" is just an answer to the problem of Universals. And that answer is: the so-called problem of Universals is falsely premised. The real world is objective because you can't prove otherwise without self-contradiction.

The activities of the human, mind, however, is not. I have witnessed people destroy their lives due in part (and only in part), to a poor understanding of the different facets of the relationship between the activities of their mind and the facts of the outside world. The emotional reactions of others are facts as well, as much as gold mines, oil wells, shipping, or real estate. We can measure the success or failure of things by their effects. The effects are hard to dispute by anyone with enough experience and understanding regarding humans.

I suspect that, once I read Ayn Rand, I will continue to find Mindfullness to be far more useful than Objectivism. But I would like to know for certain. I think my framework can stand up. If it can't, then I need to build a better one, anyway.

 

[Mal12345]

The activities of the human, mind, however, is not. I have witnessed people destroy their lives due in part (and only in part), to a poor understanding of the different facets of the relationship between the activities of their mind and the facts of the outside world. The emotional reactions of others are facts as well, as much as gold mines, oil wells, shipping, or real estate. We can measure the success or failure of things by their effects. The effects are hard to dispute by anyone with enough experience and understanding regarding humans.

I suspect that, once I read Ayn Rand, I will continue to find Mindfullness to be far more useful than Objectivism. But I would like to know for certain. I think my framework can stand up. If it can't, then I need to build a better one, anyway.

Objectivist theory of emotions:

Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don't reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted. But one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotions—which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values. If you programmed your computer by conscious thinking, you know the nature of your values and emotions. If you didn't, you don't.

The Ayn Rand Letter
Vol. III, No. 7 December 31, 1973
Philosophy: Who Needs It

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Objectivist theory of emotions:

Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don't reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted. But one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotions—which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values. If you programmed your computer by conscious thinking, you know the nature of your values and emotions. If you didn't, you don't.

Computers require input. A device that creates output, and refuses to accept input, is a device of limited utility indeed. What is being described makes me think of a program stuck in an infinite loop. It's certainly immovable, and I suppose that could be considered strength. But how useful is it?

Convictions are praiseworthy only if the results of those convictions are praiseworthy. I'm sure the Stalinists that caused her family to leave Russia had lots of firm convictions, but I don't consider that grounds to applaud them, and I doubt you do, either.

 

[Mal12345]

Computers require input. A device that creates output, and refuses to accept input, is a device of limited utility indeed. What is being described makes me think of a program stuck in an infinite loop. It's certainly immovable, and I suppose that could be considered strength. But how useful is it?

Convictions are praiseworthy only if the results of those convictions are praiseworthy. I'm sure the Stalinists that caused her family to leave Russia had lots of firm convictions, but I don't consider that grounds to applaud them, and I doubt you do, either.

The quotation isn't taking it that far. It's only discussing emotions, not the rightness or wrongness of the subconscious premises that create them. It says these premises are created consciously or unconsciously, i.e., either you programmed your subconscious or it was programmed by chance.

 

[Tellenbach]

Good read, but a bit repetitive and long. She tends to make the same point over and over again.

I suspect the John Galt speech might be the longest rant in literature. Someone told me that the audio version of the rant was 2 hours long.