A lot of good stuff here that will take me some time to digest. But let me put my comment about naivete of Objectivism in a nutshell: Galt’s Gulch. It is clearly a Utopian ideal. Putting aside technological objections (e.g., where did they get the electricity), Galt’s Gulch could not happen in real life because it would be impossible to find 50 or 100 or 500 (or, I believe, even 5 or 10) people who not only are genius movers-and-shakers but also would strictly adhere to Objectivist morality. My point was NOT how capitalism is a corruption of Objectivism, but rather that human beings are inherently corrupt and corruptible and that Objectivism (like Maoism) seems to think humans are perfectible.
Having rephrased the question, let me take a shot at answering it. Comments here and my own ponderings have led me to see a possible solution. I’d like to know what others think of it. Here it is: Objectivism is not expected to be a natural state of being. Rather, it is intended to be an ideal state that democratic institutions would strive to acheive if the public were to accept Objectivism as the ideal. The goal of those on this forum is to educate people to this end. The fact that nobody acheives Objectivist (or Christian or any other moral system) ideals perfectly does not mean that they should not strive to use them as the basis for institutions (i.e., the law, the police and the courts).
I agree, was actually formulating a response based on this very idea, thankfully you happen to be more articulate than I.or eh me.
Swerve, can you please explain to me what you mean when you say human beings are “corruptible?” Because it seems to me that Objectivism accepts that all people are fallible, even to the point of requiring constant focus toward understanding and implementing moral/ethical ideas.
I mean something along the line of the “power corrupts” axiom. When someone achieves great success, they often come to think of it as something that is natural and “owed to them”. Then, even if they were not corrupt originally, they will begin to rationalize corrupt actions to perpetuate their success as rightful: e.g., my industry ought to get special protection from the legislature because it is so important to the country’s well-being - or, more likely in an Objectivist context, my company ought to receive special tax breaks that are not available to others.
My point was NOT how capitalism is a corruption of Objectivism, but rather that human beings are inherently corrupt and corruptible and that Objectivism (like Maoism) seems to think humans are perfectible.
Straw man. There is nothing in Objectivism that even comes close to that statement. There’s nothing in Objectivism that an honest reader could ever interpret as that, by mistake, either.
I mean something along the line of the “power corrupts” axiom. When someone achieves great success, they often come to think of it as something that is natural and “owed to them”. Then, even if they were not corrupt originally, they will begin to rationalize corrupt actions to perpetuate their success as rightful: e.g., my industry ought to get special protection from the legislature because it is so important to the country’s well-being - or, more likely in an Objectivist context, my company ought to receive special tax breaks that are not available to others.
Where are you getting your information about Objectivism from? You don’t even know the Objectivist position on taxes. If you did, you wouldn’t say that there is such a thing as a tax break in an Objectivist context.
No, seriously, where ARE you getting your info about Oism? Here you say, “. . . Putting aside technological objections (e.g., where did they get the electricity), Galt’s Gulch . . .” They answered where the electricity in the gulch came from. It was a rather important feature in the story.
A lot of good stuff here that will take me some time to digest. But let me put my comment about naivete of Objectivism in a nutshell: Galt’s Gulch. It is clearly a Utopian ideal. Putting aside technological objections (e.g., where did they get the electricity), Galt’s Gulch could not happen in real life because it would be impossible to find 50 or 100 or 500 (or, I believe, even 5 or 10) people who not only are genius movers-and-shakers but also would strictly adhere to Objectivist morality.
Oh dear, this is a common problem.
Atlas Shrugged is a novel. I.E. it is art and not a thesis on a philosophy. Rand used it to highlight a philosophy that she developed through the nature of the story she was telling, but it is till a story. A story abstracts the ideas and recreates them in the context of plot, drama, characterization, and a host of other things that are intended for the story, not the philosophy.
Things like the Gulch are simply an example of the books themes and ideas. The point wasn’t mundane unessential points, like how did Midas trade with people on the outside that in turn did not feed the looters, but the fact that men of ability and action can do any job when left in peace, and do it well. It dramatizes the issues. Why didn’t the Government round every man names John Galt to question them? Because it did not serve the plot and ideas Rand wanted to tell.
A great quote from a Sci-Fi writer who was once asked how fast a Starfury flies on the sci-fi show Babylon 5: “It travels at the speed of plot”.
Not to be rude but did you actually read t he book? The electricity is a pretty huge plot point since half the books mystery is based on it.
Anyway, the point is if you want to understand a philosophy then you need to actually read the work on it, not the art.
My point was NOT how capitalism is a corruption of Objectivism, but rather that human beings are inherently corrupt and corruptible and that Objectivism (like Maoism) seems to think humans are perfectible.
Having rephrased the question, let me take a shot at answering it. Comments here and my own ponderings have led me to see a possible solution. I’d like to know what others think of it. Here it is: Objectivism is not expected to be a natural state of being. Rather, it is intended to be an ideal state that democratic institutions would strive to acheive if the public were to accept Objectivism as the ideal. The goal of those on this forum is to educate people to this end. The fact that nobody acheives Objectivist (or Christian or any other moral system) ideals perfectly does not mean that they should not strive to use them as the basis for institutions (i.e., the law, the police and the courts).
If you think the purpose of morality is to reach some unattainable goal then you really missed some big principles in the Oist ethics. It says no such thing and presents itself as a philosophy for living as a man here on earth. If it is not real then it is not moral since it is not open to your choices. The goal of life is to live, and by life it means to thrive. What helps you do that is the good and what does not is bad. What is not open to choice simply is and is neutral ethically.
Objectivism is a philosophy that is about recognizing realty and using reason to live as a man, which is about as close to “naturally” as you can get since the nature of things are those points. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed”.
Objectivism is not essentially a political ideology, but a philosophic system that will naturally reach a political conclusion when applied. Politics are a consequence of reason applied to the social application of ethics and ethics are a consequence of reason applied to the nature of man. Oism is a philosophy but if you apply it you end up with a political system that allows man to live naturally to his best ability to achieve his values and thrive.
But those are talking points; I think we really need to just start over from the beginning.
You clearly did not read Atlas Shrugged. Galt’s motor is central to understanding most of the book and not just the part that explains where Galt’s Gultch got its power. Now, this of course, is periphery to your claims, except in informing others about your familiarity with the subject matter.
There’s nothing in Objectivism that an honest reader could ever interpret as that, by mistake, either.
Given that Swerve (as stated in his profile) has only read Atlas Shrugged, there is actually a lot that can be construed as suggesting all sorts of interpretations.
Why did Rand not show Galt’s early development. In The Fountainhead , she shows Roark’s formative years. I wonder why she declined to add any backround to Galt.
Why did Rand not show Galt’s early development. In The Fountainhead , she shows Roark’s formative years. I wonder why she declined to add any backround to Galt.
An educated guess would be that it would not further the story and it might even hinder it since he is the mystery that is not revealed to part three. The only real depth we get in background is Dagny, likely because she is the main character from a narration stand point so it’s her journey were see the ideas play out.
Otherwise it isn’t needed. Notice that the second main character used for narration is Rearden and we get nothing really on his history outside a few essentials. Odd facts, like the fact Midas loaned him money is mentioned later as an almost toss away comment – accept Rand never made toss away comments so even it served a purpose. But he is the only character to have an in depth relationship with his family. This is because it allows the author to use his journey through interacting with his family to present ideas on relationships.
Rand only used what she needed to paint a picture of something then everything else was left “off camera”, or as she would say “omitted” since it was unessential to the story.
Given that Swerve (as stated in his profile) has only read Atlas Shrugged, there is actually a lot that can be construed as suggesting all sorts of interpretations.
What in AS can be construed as suggesting that “human beings are inherently perfectible”?
Yes, bluecherry, that’s right about the electricity. I forgot about the engine. It is the breadth of the technology available in the Gulch with so few hands to implement it that is rather a stretch. But, like I said, I am not hung up on the level of realism in Atlas Shrugged, it is largely a parable more than an intended representation of possible reality. That’s why, I am realizing, the Utopian aspects and naivete about human nature in it are not such a problem.
As for Nicky, he always shows a tendency to throw out judgements without thinking through the context. (Evidence: two posts in a row, rather than consolidating in one, suggests he did not take the time to think carefully about either.) As for whether Objectivism believes in perfectibility, that is the whole point of this post - so, rather more of an on-topic discussion would be more useful than a one-line attack. As for taxes, it is Objectivism’s dislike of most taxes that leads me to say “tax breaks” are where Objectivists are likely to lobby for “special” treatment. Understandable that Nicky would not get my point since I made it in a very abbreviated way here. I expect to do a later post on Capital Gains taxation that will spell out my thinking more clearly.
(Irrelevant sidenote: I prefer to spell out Objectivism instead of using the Oism abbreviation since the latter makes me think of Onanism.)
Considering that Galt developed the Gulch over many years, I don’t find it to be much of a utopia. Galt’s Gulch is no Shangri La where there is utter perfection of existence with the finest food and comforts available. As far as anything remotely science fiction, it’s not much of a portrayal of utopia. It has nice people and all, each one carefully told about how to come and many of them extremely savvy individuals. They probably wouldn’t last long eventually as a secluded place, hence the work of Francisco and Ragnar in working towards an end of undoing the damage of an altruistic code of ethics. I do not find working towards big goals like that as utopianism actually. There weren’t any suppositions that the Gulch was what perfection ought to be built out of. It was a place to at least live decently for a time where selectivity is possible.
As for human nature, I don’t know of any portrayals within Atlas Shrugged where there is suggestion that humans ought to be perfected, or that human nature is inherently good or evil. Perhaps you’d say Galt had no flaws and never made errors. But this is impossible to know in the context of the book. He’s just a person pursuing goals, and really doesn’t mind going as far as necessary to reach those goals. Regarding Dagny, we see a huge part of her intellectual development. I don’t know what you mean by naivete about human nature. I explained in an earlier post why there is not a belief that all people will be rational if only evil people would leave them alone. But if a world is to not collapse into total dystopia, the idea is that it can be improved through education and knowledge - if people choose that. I can’t address naivete more than this until you answer FeatherFall’s question on the previous page.
Regarding Objectivism “disliking” taxes, it’s because it’s seen as an initiation of force. Lobbying for tax breaks or special treatment is totally unjust to the extent it’s advocating “oh, it’s an initiation of force for me, but I don’t mind if you initiate force on all those other people”. Lobbying for any special treatment I would find to be a failure to act on principle - a principle of justice. You seemed to suggest that no one would be able to resist temptation and develop a bias that they are “owed” tax breaks that no one else should get. Still, I think it’s overly pessimistic to say “power corrupts”. I can think of bad powerful people, I can think of good powerful people. Perhaps some will rationalize, some won’t. There is no promise either way.
It depends what you mean by perfected. If you mean moral perfection, I think Atlas Shrugged does suggest that that is something humans can achieve and that it’s not only reserved for Rand’s heroes, but for any ordinary person who chooses reason as his sole guide.
Oso, interesting to see that your reading of Atlas Shrugged matches mine. Some interviews with Ayn Rand (sorry, I don’t have cites) suggest she did see people as perfectable in this sense. But, although she is the creator, Rand is not the living embodiment of Objectivist ethics. (Correct?) Spiral Architect, I think you are spot on in your response - “speed of plot” is a great image.
To go back a ways to the comment on the Killing Fields, they are hardly an inevitable result of socialism. There are no Killing Fields in socialist Norway.
And apologies again for the slip of my mind on electricity. It was a horrible example (which I stupidly and unthinkingly repeated from the uncyclopedia entry for John Galt). Spiral Architect has answered my intended point.
To go back a ways to the comment on the Killing Fields, they are hardly an inevitable result of socialism. There are no Killing Fields in socialist Norway.
Norway is not a socialist country. It has a market economy and a democratically elected government.
Morally they can be perfect, yes, but keep in mind all that means is trying your best within your context of knowledge to live your life guided by reason, including not resorting to force or fraud to get things. If you go against this for any reason at any point, admit to it, face whatever consequences that entails, then get back up on that horse. That’s it in a nut shell. Notice some things not included: nothing says you have to be brilliant or omniscient or make discoveries or inventions or have never done something irrational or be the best at anything or never take any assistance from anybody. I’d say I know of at least a handful of people off the top of my head that meet that criteria.
Norway is not a socialist country. It has a market economy and a democratically elected government.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway: “The economy of Norway is a developed mixed economy with heavy state-ownership in strategic areas of the economy. … As socialism became part of the mainstream labor movement, it also became part of the mainstream political discourse.”
It is true that Norway is not a communist country, but its socialist movement and features are among the most pronounced in Europe. Ayn Rand would certainly have considered socialist and, I suspect, most of the Objectivists in this forum would as well. Yes, it is a democracy, but there is a thing called “democratic socialism”. At the very least, Norway’s political and economic system is a “compromise” between capitalism and socialism. The original Killing Fields comment said there could be no compromise with socialism.
I would agree that all totalitarian communist regimes have there own “Killing Fields” to some extent or another: e.g., Stalin and Mao’s purges were not as horrific as Pol Pot’s reign of terror, but were horrific enough in their own right.