Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How on Earth is anyone inspired by Atlas Shrugged?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Mr. Odden et al. have been accusing me of having low self esteem, feelings of inadequacy, etc. which color my interpretation of Atlas. I would say that yes, I do feel inadequate - if "inadequate" is taken to mean "not a Randian hero." I would add that anyone who does not feel inadequate in this sense is probably deluded.

I don't think I've earned my way to be thought of like the idealized characters in Atlas Shrugged, as of yet. However I do not feel fundamentally incapable or inadequate to ever improve myself to earn the heroic status that is demonstrated in this book.

You seem to be saying that one has to be delusional to think it is even possible to act morally and think by means of reason.

What is your objection here? Explain.

... and NO I don't think this thread needs to be closed ...

Edited by TeaPartier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read OPAR first...

I found Objectivism to be a great, brilliant, inspiring philosophy...

Then I started reading Atlas...

Needless to say, I am done with this philosophy.

That last line does not follow from what was written before. Your reason for rejecting the philosophy is irrational, and so will be disregarded.

It is also highly unlikely that you seriously considered the philosophy in the first place. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, wait, actually, perhaps if you were fourteen, and stupid, then you could think that this book was about you; that may be why the young find this book inspiring. But most of the people on this forum should be past the point in life where that is a plausible explanation for their liking Atlas.

Since you chose to insult everyone here with your assessment of us I guess you expect a reply in kind, I shall oblige.

I agree with knast's assessment, that you have self-esteem issues, have a malevolent view of the universe and that you identify most closely with the villains in Atlas Shrugged and that is why you have such a negative reaction to it: Ayn Rand nailed you.

That is, if you have actually read Atlas Shrugged since I also think you are a liar and a poser. At one point you had a different view of AS:

Atlas Shrugged, while a very enjoyable book, does not prove the proposition that self esteem drops when a person becomes religious. Nor does presenting a slanted view of Christianity prove that proposition. [emphasis added]

Notice the sympathy you display for Christianity and in nearly every thread you started you posed as a rational person debating the ignorant, I assume now that that ignoramus was you.

So you've been reading Objectivism for years? Well reading and understanding are two different things. Unfortunately you didn't understand any of it as you admit here:

Personally, I barely even get the basics of Objectivism. It is such a hard philosophy that I am going to stay in the center. I don't think I could handle the frontiers, and I doubt many non-philosophers could either.

This also hints at your lack of self-esteem which you then ascribe to everyone else:

Do you think you can be like John Galt? I would wager that you do not.

I certainly would wager that you do not think you can be like John Galt and probably you despise everyone who is or who aspires to be.

Of course to despise John Galt and affiliate with James Taggart you must hold some false premises to anchor your malevolent world view:

Do you think that the message of Atlas is true, and are so strongly committed to the truth that, for the sake of obtaining it, you are willing to sacrifice all self love? I refuse to believe that anyone is capable of such a thing.

On display is pure skepticism which I'm sure fuels your moral cynicism. Also your misunderstanding shows: there is no honest way one could conclude that the message of AS is to "sacrifice all self love" when clearly and explicitly the opposite is propounded.

If you consider life in Galt's Gulch a place where "even if you reach your highest ambitions, you are nothing but a maggot and a parasite on the truly moral", then your life must truly be dark and sad.

Edited by Marc K.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on AS may be somewhat contrary to the official one, since I do see it as more of a social/political exposition than as a personal one.

The heroes in AS must be larger-than-life to personify the conflict between the thinking mind, self-interest, and integrity--attributes of the individual--and the group, as influence, social norms and practices and predjudices, and especially as government corruption. I don't think Rand's story does hold its heroes up as the only worth-while people, rather, they represent the heights of human potential, and it is that potential that she sets out to portray, the potential of the individual as compared to that of the group.

Many people have the same take you have on AS, though it doesn't lead all of them to feel as you do. I say that because so many people, including ones who like AS and those who hate it, think it says exactly what I think you think it means. They think it says, "Some people count more than others." They interpret AS as being, and use Objectivism to sanction or provide a basis for narcissism.

Narcissism is a closely-held belief in personal superiority of a non-specific kind. Men are not equal except politically, a sentiment Thomas Jeffereson so eloquently and famously expressed. In all other respects men vary hugely. The attitude of a narcissist, however, trumps virtue itself (escapes its requirements, actually) through a doctrine that is as old as man--the doctrine that supports racism and religious hatred and aggressive nationalism and crime at all levels.

How do you elevate yourself above others? How do you claim a greater importance, greater human status, than other human beings? The only way is to demote others. You have to conceive of a status that "means" inferiority, even if that inferiority is undefined. Criminals claim that it is a dog-eat-dog world, and that they are merely "getting theirs," or "getting the other guy before he gets me." Racism and religious dogma are obvious in creating bad guys (sub-humans, demons, heretics, predators, the un-clean, etc.) to oppose and feel superior to. Pure narcissism is the same indefensible dogma of virtue and superiority, but individualized.

Narcissists feel, and/or assume, the pose of being important. Wives who control their husbands and/or children, people in offices of authority who treat others as generally inferior, celebrity athletes or singers who drop opinions about political issues, snobs of every stripe, etc. are using their status in one, specific respect to assume a more general superiority. "Spoiling" parents tend to create narcissistic children, and fame and wealth can do so for lucky others who take the opportunity of the distinction those things offer, to assume a generalized personal significance.

Achievement is virtuous, is important, has significance; but virtue doesn't require such achievements. It takes thinking to get that straight. It requires the philosophical insight, (and its being a philosophical insight doesn't mean it is recognized as being philosophy at all!) that one achieves in order to live, rather than living in order to achieve. (Can't recall where I read that.) It is the living of one's life that deserves respect, only that, and always that.

Rand's philosophic message is to live. To live as the man you biologically are. To live beyond the vegetative requirements you share with potatoes, and beyond the locomotive and manipulative capabilities all animals share. To live AS ONLY A MAN can. Rand tells us that homo sapien sapiens is viable, that life on earth is a workable proposition, that man is, per se, fit to survive and flourish. That fitness means using reason, using it and acting on it--always, intransigently.

Rand wants to portray this potential of mankind, and thus that of individual men, including the values of peaceful co-existence, as compared to the merely destructive potential of altruistic group-living. A big part of that destructive potential comes in controlling, and thus restricting those who do live as men, that is, who think, produce, create, judge, show determination, feel real passion, and value the exaltation possible to man. To portray those contrasting potentials, those differences, she must write a set of heroes of great proportions, of outward achievements and virtue. They must have obvious achievements and virtues in order for the conflicts to be external, public, dramatic in public and governmental affairs.

The Fountainhead was much more internal and psychodynamic in its story. "Howard Roark laughed." He was happy. He was right-thinking, talented, and determined, all internal traits, though he was despised, expelled, rejected, and reduced to manual labor. He set out to "do his thing," knowing that doing that was right, rewarding, and likely to end in achievement, and that it was right even if it didn't. Roark set out to make himself happy, in the face of all manner of opposition, and in the face of the evidence of Cameron's fate, knowing the world at large was against him, but nevertheless with confidence that he would achieve the greatest measure of happiness possible to him. He believed in successful, individual living.

Dominique was rich, beautiful, admired, sought after, socially important, connected, etc. But she was deeply unhappy and set out to destroy even the possibility of her own happiness out of fear that happiness is doomed--that one's living requires that others be worthy--that evil is more powerful than good, and thus that man is not truly independent. Dominique's only flaw is that she denied the viability of selfishness. So, in The Fountainhead, also, Rand is writing about the fundamentality of living life qua man, but there she tells the story as it plays out inside individuals. The most dramatic statement of that is the self-destructive behavior of Dominique, passionately in love with beauty and ability, but marrying Keating, becoming "Mrs. Gail Wynand," smashing her cherished statue, trying to suppress Roark's career, all out of a mistaken fear. Roark, by comparison, met with opposition and defeat and envy, yet maintained his purpose and enjoyed the happiness of being whole, confident, and in pursuit of his desires.

The characters and characterizations are very different between AS and TF because their messages are different. So, the level of achievement of the heroes of AS should not be taken as a portrayal of the norm of, e.g., the sort of people who would be welcomed into, Galt's Gulch. (Rand takes care to exhibit this in her portrayal of the variety of people who do live (or vacation) in Galt's Gulch, and in many other ways, but that gets overlooked a lot.)

If one doesn't grasp this difference of literary purpose between the two, or just how its literary purpose structures the heroes of AS, and, especially in light of our culturally ubiquitous penchant towards narcissism in the form of racism, religious aggressiveness, etc.; and, also, in light of the not infrequent manifestations of narcissism on Objectivist blog sights, etc., it is not surprising that AS would seem as it did.

Alternatively, you might think the extremes of determination and self-confidence, etc. of AS's heroes is what is unrealistic, which would be a whole different matter. See if my reflections on it don't make a difference in how you view the book. I'll look forward to hearing if it changes your opinion any.

-- Mindy

Edited by Mindy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clarify. Many of you take offense to this:

No, wait, actually, perhaps if you were fourteen, and stupid, then you could think that this book was about you; that may be why the young find this book inspiring. But most of the people on this forum should be past the point in life where that is a plausible explanation for their liking Atlas.

It should be obvious that "this book was about you" above means that you are or will be a Randian hero. I was not saying that everyone who likes the book is necessarily a fourteen year old ("stupid" was used affectionately, btw, as I have nothing against fourteen year olds). I just could not, at that time, come up with another explanation for someone's liking the book than extreme youth.

I'm impressed by Marc's energy. He evidently went through every single post I made during my time here to find evidence against my having any self esteem. In spite of that, most of Marc's post does not require response from me. But, he does point out that "at one point had a different view of AS." Yes, I took it on testimony that this was a very uplifting book, and greatly looked forward to reading it. I was disappointed.

His thesis is corroded, in any event. A person of low self esteem does not defend Objectivism to outsiders, his baseless denial that I ever did so notwithstanding. Disliking Atlas Shrugged is not, in and of itself, evidence supporting the claim that I weave elaborate webs of lies to make other people think I debate against non-Objectivists, to no apparent end.

Edited by ctrl y
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceble spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desire can be won. It exists, it is real, it is possible, it is yours.--Ayn Rand

That's what I got out of AS. I don't see how that coincides with the OP's view of the book at all.

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loved the entire book, but one very small part always stood out to me, and really made me realize that this book and philosophy could be for everyone, not just the "intellectually superior." It was the part where Dagny eats at a diner where one of the strikers has become the chef, and realizes she has just had the best burger she has ever tasted.

What I got out of that, and AS as a whole, is that it doesn't really matter what you do, or how much money you make. It only matters that you do the best job you can do at whatever it is you like doing. If you like tinkering with cars, try to become the best mechanic you possibly can. If you like cooking, be the best chef you can, even if the only job you can find is at a roadside diner. Not everyone can be the next Bill Gates.

Also, beyond whatever career you choose, the point is to do the best job you can at everything in life, not just one job. As Heinlein said, "Specialization is for insects." Don't just do the one thing well, do everything well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That last line does not follow from what was written before. Your reason for rejecting the philosophy is irrational, and so will be disregarded.

It is also highly unlikely that you seriously considered the philosophy in the first place. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

Did you not read The Romantic Manifesto? Atlas concretized Objectivism, and in so doing, showed me what it actually means. I cannot embrace this philosophy, though I do still think that some of its ideas are good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you not read The Romantic Manifesto? Atlas concretized Objectivism, and in so doing, showed me what it actually means. I cannot embrace this philosophy, though I do still think that some of its ideas are good.

All it showed is that you have a pretty negative sense of life, or you didn't understand the book. I don't think the latter is the case. You haven't provided any examples from Atlas Shrugged of what in particular gave you such a negative viewpoint on what Objectivism means or stands for, so there's really nothing to respond to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ctrl y, perhaps you should read Fountainhead. I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, but Fountainhead i found to be very inspiring and the speech that Howard Roark (the hero in the novel) gives in the end was moving. I did have some minor issues with it, however i always find something 'wrong' with any novel i read. "Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A complete and utter lack of specificity in ctrl y's criticism so far, despite being asked by several members to clarify whatever it is he's talking about.

When or if he's ready to do that the thread will be re-opened.

Closed.. for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...