To me, the appeal of “objectivism” is that it’s very internally logically consistent. It’s hard to find a contradiction within the structure, or at least it was for me when I read it and thought about it some time ago.
The issue is that the whole structure rests on a tiny set of simple assumptions which are themselves entirely baseless. It’s basically a beautiful structure floating in mid air.
It’s sort of an intellectual trap, in my view. People who are good at finding contradictions in ideologies bungie into the middle of this one, look around and can’t find any contradictions. So they think, this one must be better than the others. Just don’t look down!
Axioms are arbitrary, but must be agreed upon. It's a good point to make. Most ethical theories suffer from this meta-ethical problem that people really just won't agree on the axioms at the end of the day.
I find this nicely captures the difference between "rationality" and "reasonableness". A system can be rational but rest on unreasonable assumptions; a system may not be entirely rational but at least can have reasonable assumptions.
That's a very good description. I enjoyed most of the book but it was also tremendously theoretical, never tried anywhere before, and I just don't see how it would ever perform in civil society. Objectivitists are never wrong, and some of the political ideologies that have formed around it have that superiority mindset - the theory is perfect, it's everyone else who does not understand.
Indeed, all sufficiently mature ideologies evolve towards self consistency. Also, most ideologies have no internal epistemology, so their interpretation is anything you want.
It’s also the hallmark of successful cults. Internally consistent is not a virtue. It helps, but it’s insufficient on its own. And kind of dangerous in isolation of other positive qualities.
The Ambrahamic faiths are arguably some of the most "mature" ideologies in existence, and I don't think any (secular) religious scholar would describe them as self-consistent.
(This isn't a slight: responsa are a normal thing in every world religion. But the idea that self-consistency happens when an ideology becomes mature doesn't seem especially borne out.)
I agree with you, but I think the parent idea still stands because most of the Abrahamic faiths are self-consistent when the interpreter is sufficiently liberal enough to explain away and reconcile contradictions (i.e. not take a strictly literal interpretation).
For non-believers (I'm in that category) we see a load of inconsistencies. IMHO many of them are so clearly contradictory I wouldn't think there was even debate (i.e. which day did Jesus die? Was it on the day of Passover (Good Friday) as in the Gospel of Mark? Or was it just after noon on the day before the Passover meal is celebrated as in the Gospel of John?), but there is extensive literature written by people bending over backwards to reconcile these things. So, I think the Abrahamic faiths do follow the pattern of converging toward self-consistency.
Those are inconsistencies but are they reasonable inconsistencies when someone is memorializing an event a couple of decades prior? I think yes. Small inconsistencies like that don’t bother me. Eyewitnesses perspectives are often different even minutes after an event.
Larger inconsistencies and contractions should be the focus and if you can articulate why those are significantly problematic to a belief system, a scholarly believer is more apt to listen. However if you come at them with “the problem with your belief system is because two people writing about an event mixed up what day it occurred on 20 years later…”, it’s really not impressive evidence to an important contradiction.
You're describing inconsistencies in the lore, not the ideology. Such inconsistencies in the lore can rise to inconsistencies in the ideology when part or all of the lore itself is held to be inerrant as part of the ideology, but this is not necessarily the case.
The classic (and hardly the only) inconsistency in the ideology in Christianity is the lex talionis of Exodus 21 and Jesus' repudiation of it in the Sermon on the Mount.
This is more along the lines of what I'm thinking, which is that the doctrines evolve to include a protective wrapper of auxiliary doctrines which answer the apologetic questions. I know someone who can rattle off answers to your questions, relative to his sect, though he's no longer a believer.
At least for me, I think most non-religious people have larger issues with the seeming ideological contradictions rather than historical ones. For example, many cases where God seems to approve of ethnic genocide, infanticide, etc., and yet one of the fundamental Ten Commandments is "thou shalt not commit murder".
To expand on this, in case there are folks unfamiliar with Ayn Rands works. The consistent structure of her philosophy depends on
1. Metaphysics: Reality exists independently of consciousness ("A is A"), and humans can perceive it directly
2. Epistemology: Reason and logic are the only valid means of understanding reality
3. Ethics: Rational self-interest is the highest moral good
4. Politics: Individual rights (especially property rights) are absolute and capitalism is the only moral system
You can derive some of these from the others. Because reality is objective and we can know it through reason, we should always act only based on reason instead of emotion. Obviously our own happiness and self interest are proper moral aims. Doing that requires individual rights and capitalism.
This is internally consistent. The best part is that the book is fiction and no one comes out and says this in so many words. You need to “work it out” on the basis of the good guys believing this and the bad guys being collectivists. You feel smart when you work it out and you’re also more likely to accept it, because it wasn’t thrust on you. Of course the book throws subtlety to the wind around the end with a 100 page monologue.
As for the assumptions the philosophy rests on:
- Cognitive biases exist. Different people will perceive the same situation differently because of these biases. But objectivists will claim they don’t have any biases. I know at least two who told me they’re completely unbiased. (In fairness both have grown up since they told me this).
- Individual self interest will often conflicts with the interests of others. Game theory shows us that two prisoners pursuing “rational self interest” will lead to a worse collective outcome.
- Markets will often fail, spectacularly. And also, the right intervention can prevent them from failing. There are economics papers that discuss these failures, although in fairness many were published after Rand wrote her books.
I had a couple of friends who insisted that I should read it. I tried, but found it to be very boring.
I think that's the most incredible aspect about this book. As a novel, it is so incredibly boring and flat. As an anti-ideology morals-first treatise, it is so very ideological.
Maybe I'm biased because I never even finished it, I fell asleep every single time.
The idea of hidden figures sacrificing themselves to provide a good foundation for society is quite nice. A book about this idea is kinda dumb, for obvious reasons (you don't talk about fight club).
I liked it, other than the interminable speeches and preaching. I presume Rand's own internal struggle was to protect her artistic integrity from the oppressive editors who wanted her to strip out the 60 page sermon at the end.
But I also liked "Sharknado". "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" were entertaining reading, but their themes, although initially attractive, just don't stand up to scrutiny by anyone who's ever held a job in the real world. The misunderstood genius who explains nothing to anyone and has only contempt for those who don't immediately understand their grand plans may be the potential savior of humanity, but more often than not they're just a pain in the ass with poor communication skills proportional to their unjustified egos.
Interesting. I read The Fountainhead and, while I found the idealogy reprehensible and the moralism patronizing, I was very entertained -- cartoonish characters, plenty of action. I haven't tried Atlas Shrugged; thanks for giving me another reason not to waste time on it.
Heh I read Atlas Shrugged and had the exact same response as you reading Fountainhead. I recall quite enjoying the writing style, but just found the whole thing silly and the idea that anyone could come out of reading it thinking they'd just stumbled across a great life philosophy funny and depressing.
As I mentioned, I haven't finished it, so don't take my comment as a review. It's just a soft opinion.
Your comment reminds me of the Bible (cartoonish characters, plenty of action, etc). Took me some 35 years to learn to appreciate it. However, what made me like it has nothing to do with popular notions of the book (I'm compelled by the history behind its several edits and compilations).
Maybe someday I'll like Atlas Shrugged too. I don't know, maybe there's something else there, but I find it unlikely, given that it lacks this more profound historical background. It tries to fake it, and in some sense it wants to be it (some historical allegory people book thingy).
My dad read Atlas Shrugged when Reagan got elected, then gave it to me, and I read it too. I couldn't see any way that it was relevant to the society that I lived in.
I didn't get through the Speech.
Later on, I met someone who taught college, and used Atlas Shrugged as a required reading for his course. I asked him if he had actually gotten through the Speech, and he admitted that he had not.
Atlas Shrugged should be read the same way as Mein Kampf should be read. As a cautious tale about what evil people believe in. It should be read as a way to get into their disturbed heads see what they are thinking to better protect yourself from them.
Otherwise it is a quite boring book complete devoid of artistic merit.
If you are going to read Atlas Shrugged do not buy it new. I like to rummage around used bookshops and atlas shrugged is by far the most plentiful book there. That is no doubt because a lot of people buy the book because of the hype and then sell it because they are bored out of their skulls after twenty pages. So you can always get a pristine used copy for half price.
>Atlas Shrugged should be read the same way as Mein Kampf should be read.
my thinking is pretty close. For me Atlas Shrugged is the processing of the Ayn Rand's own PTSD resulting from coming of age during Russian Revolution and the following civil war with the bolsheviks coming into full power as a result. Add to that the shock of immigration immediately after that into completely different country/society (and I see similar to Ayn Rand's thinking in many USSR/Russian immigrants, at least in their first 10-20 years here) And so it is boring like a psychologist patient's notes would be.
I see your point, but comparing Mein Kampf to Atlas Shrugged feels misplaced. Mein Kampf is not fiction: it’s a manifesto tied to genocide and historical atrocities. While both provoke strong reactions, the moral and historical weight of Mein Kampf is incomparable, given the real-world consequences it inspired.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a quorum of users on a site devoted to unbridled capitalism and entrepreneurship immediately flagged this article.
Isn't it crazy that these topics show up on HN whose audience is generally aligned with the 1% of highly educated, wealthy or wannabee wealthy people, who believe they should all be CEOs and whose actions in their day to day lives are hyper-capitalist?
Ayn Rand’s books have a cult following, tied closely to a specific political ideology and resonating with aspects of American national identity, particularly its celebration of individualism. However, they present a naive vision of the world, lacking nuance when it comes to morality and human complexity. Human flaws are conveniently absent in her protagonists, while the antagonists are comically incompetent and stupid.
The greatest flaw, to me, is that the triumphs of her characters rely on a world constructed entirely within the books - a world of perfect meritocracy where individual brilliance overcomes all. This creates a circular argument: the virtues the books champion succeed only within the fabricated conditions of Rand's universe, making their application to the real world highly questionable.
Kind of like Marxist books that work in a hypothetical universe?
Marx and Rand exist as reactions to the perceived problems of their days, but they shouldn't be taken as recipes for utopia.
Ironically, both philosophies depend on everyone in the system being perfectly altruistic. Any 'bad' actors poison their systems and turn them into horrible dystopias.
Rand’s philosophy doesn't depend on altruism - in fact it explicitly rejects altruism as a virtue, focusing on rational self-interest as the driving force of progress. This is of course attractive and expedient to certain political forces, especially in the USA.
Marxist systems also don't depend on altruism. Marx was considering how material interests drive behavior, how systemic change can reshape incentives, and was also relying on ideas like class consciousness, and solidarity. He also didn't need to create a fantasy world for his ideas to work, instead he was basing his theories on analysis of the existing economic conditions during his lifetime.
If you're thinking of ideological systems that do rely on altruism, you should look towards religions, like Christianity or Buddhism, or philosophies like Communitarianism. There were fringe utopian socialist thinkers who advocated for altruism-based systems (Fourier, Owen) but they were opposed both by Capitalists and Marxists.
I'm not saying that Rand or Marx themselves said that altruism was a necessary component. I'm saying that it is and that neither was aware of that pre-condition/axiom of their philosophies. To be fair, I think Rand was aware, and that she wrote fantasies around what she viewed as the 'perfect man.' Her stuff is more aspirational than practical (same as Lenin, etc.).
From a game theory point of view, both philosophies, in order to work and be sustained, require that most actors within the system behave honestly within the rules of the game. This means, nobody cheats. And it would only take a small percentage of bad actors to break either system.
In this context, altruism is self policing to abide by the rules even when not abiding by the rules would be better for you.
PS I also disagree with your take on religion, if anything, Christianity's (for example) primary philosophy is built around the explicit imperfection of mankind. Also, I would argue that the Utopian Socialists and Lenin were aligned in their goals. They just had different ideas of how to get there. There have been many attempts at the gentler Utopian Socialist version of communism over the years and AFAIK they all fall apart after a while, because people are not altruistic.
Clearly, this is connected to the political swings, even if the liberalism in Ayn Rand’s philosophy is not identical to what the right (or left) are currently doing. The right, and I focus on the right because it is where the powerful pendulum is now, seems more like a populist right than a liberal right. It is clear that politics exist on a spectrum, except at the widening extremes.
If Atlas Shrugged is about the role of entrepreneurs (to tie this to the HN main topic) as individuals and their creative power in society, I would say that this idea does not seem to scale in reality. The extent to which individuals embrace some kind of power is more closely correlated with where they were born specifically, the country and family they come from. Exceptions clearly exist, and the U.S. does not compare to any other country in terms of business opportunities. However, this is not the same as saying everyone has the same (or even comparable) opportunities based solely on their individual and creative traits. This is not a comment against the book but a 5 cents warning to not confuse a strong idea (the complexity and freedom of the individual) to the reality posed in real politics.
The "vibe" of Atlas Shrugged (other than "fucking boring") is pretty much "Insecure guy who wears a suit to high-school and is on the debate team" or I guess more simply "Ben Shapiro".
I get a completely different take. To me, it's empowering to young individuals, especially (I would guess) young females because the main character is a very strong self-driven female.
Dagny is the first "Anti-Mary Sue" I can remember in literature. She's ostensibly the protagonist, but is literally worse at everything than her male couterparts.
The problem was that all the people who volunteered that they’d read the book were narcissistic assholes who just became much bigger assholes afterward.
I really wanted to read that book as a young man to understand why it was so toxic. But I didn’t want anyone to ever see me reading it. I went as far as making a plan to glue another book cover over it. Problem was I also didn’t want the Rand estate to profit from my curiosity.
As someone who grew up in a society with rampant corruption (India), Fountainhead (the destruction of buildings at the end of the novel) and Atlas Shrugged (motivated me into leaving India to self-implode while I traveled to US to have a better life) quite a impression on my teenage years. It was only later when I thought about these books more that I realized how crazy they are.
In the meantime, India didn't self-implode, at least not yet.
I love my e-reader. Nobody knows what i am reading. I have heard ebooks are available for free from the shady end of the web, which is great for those who are disadvantaged or from poor nations with little alternative access, but i believe that you should pay if you can afford it (regardless of your thoughts about the author).
Which e-reader? If Kindle, then Amazon knows exactly what you're reading. They even know how long it took you to read each page, when and where you skipped to, and text you searched for, etc.
I don't disagree with you (in fact I very much agree) but I use a Remarkable 2 now to avoid the incredible depth of spying.
Heh. True. The urge has passed but I’m sure there are some college kids who might take you up on the suggestion. I know a guy who is reading romance novels. Voraciously. He must have read a few hundred by now.
There's also just the curiosity type, like a friend i have. similarly, people who aren't pervs read Nabokov's Lolita, because Nabokov writes amazingly, and it's just one of his books.
Curious people are more open to variety in thinking. I can’t answer as to whether this book resonates with curious minds and if it does to what extent. As a curious mind myself this book did not resonate with me much but am aware im not the targeted audience.
Many authors of great works were not wonderful people, and there’s no way to verify their ‘correctness’. For a very current example, see Gaiman, who had a sterling reputation which is now in doubt.
In any case, you are the one most harmed by your own blinders, and you don’t know what you’re missing.
I think that quote technically qualifies as a shallow dismissal of other people's work... from TFA:
> We talk a lot these days about, “how can I be my best self?” That’s what Rand is saying. She's saying, actually, it’s not about earning money, it’s not about being rich. It is about the perfection of the moral life. It's about the pursuit of excellence. It’s about the cultivation of virtue. These are the important things. This is what Dagny is doing. When all the entrepreneurs at the end, they’re in the happy valley, actually, between them, they have not that much money, right?
I tend to agree. It sounds like John Rogers missed the point of the book entirely.
To me, the appeal of “objectivism” is that it’s very internally logically consistent. It’s hard to find a contradiction within the structure, or at least it was for me when I read it and thought about it some time ago.
The issue is that the whole structure rests on a tiny set of simple assumptions which are themselves entirely baseless. It’s basically a beautiful structure floating in mid air.
It’s sort of an intellectual trap, in my view. People who are good at finding contradictions in ideologies bungie into the middle of this one, look around and can’t find any contradictions. So they think, this one must be better than the others. Just don’t look down!
Axioms are arbitrary, but must be agreed upon. It's a good point to make. Most ethical theories suffer from this meta-ethical problem that people really just won't agree on the axioms at the end of the day.
I find this nicely captures the difference between "rationality" and "reasonableness". A system can be rational but rest on unreasonable assumptions; a system may not be entirely rational but at least can have reasonable assumptions.
That's a very good description. I enjoyed most of the book but it was also tremendously theoretical, never tried anywhere before, and I just don't see how it would ever perform in civil society. Objectivitists are never wrong, and some of the political ideologies that have formed around it have that superiority mindset - the theory is perfect, it's everyone else who does not understand.
No room for contradiction.
Indeed, all sufficiently mature ideologies evolve towards self consistency. Also, most ideologies have no internal epistemology, so their interpretation is anything you want.
It’s also the hallmark of successful cults. Internally consistent is not a virtue. It helps, but it’s insufficient on its own. And kind of dangerous in isolation of other positive qualities.
The Ambrahamic faiths are arguably some of the most "mature" ideologies in existence, and I don't think any (secular) religious scholar would describe them as self-consistent.
(This isn't a slight: responsa are a normal thing in every world religion. But the idea that self-consistency happens when an ideology becomes mature doesn't seem especially borne out.)
I agree with you, but I think the parent idea still stands because most of the Abrahamic faiths are self-consistent when the interpreter is sufficiently liberal enough to explain away and reconcile contradictions (i.e. not take a strictly literal interpretation).
For non-believers (I'm in that category) we see a load of inconsistencies. IMHO many of them are so clearly contradictory I wouldn't think there was even debate (i.e. which day did Jesus die? Was it on the day of Passover (Good Friday) as in the Gospel of Mark? Or was it just after noon on the day before the Passover meal is celebrated as in the Gospel of John?), but there is extensive literature written by people bending over backwards to reconcile these things. So, I think the Abrahamic faiths do follow the pattern of converging toward self-consistency.
Those are inconsistencies but are they reasonable inconsistencies when someone is memorializing an event a couple of decades prior? I think yes. Small inconsistencies like that don’t bother me. Eyewitnesses perspectives are often different even minutes after an event.
Larger inconsistencies and contractions should be the focus and if you can articulate why those are significantly problematic to a belief system, a scholarly believer is more apt to listen. However if you come at them with “the problem with your belief system is because two people writing about an event mixed up what day it occurred on 20 years later…”, it’s really not impressive evidence to an important contradiction.
You're describing inconsistencies in the lore, not the ideology. Such inconsistencies in the lore can rise to inconsistencies in the ideology when part or all of the lore itself is held to be inerrant as part of the ideology, but this is not necessarily the case.
The classic (and hardly the only) inconsistency in the ideology in Christianity is the lex talionis of Exodus 21 and Jesus' repudiation of it in the Sermon on the Mount.
This is more along the lines of what I'm thinking, which is that the doctrines evolve to include a protective wrapper of auxiliary doctrines which answer the apologetic questions. I know someone who can rattle off answers to your questions, relative to his sect, though he's no longer a believer.
At least for me, I think most non-religious people have larger issues with the seeming ideological contradictions rather than historical ones. For example, many cases where God seems to approve of ethnic genocide, infanticide, etc., and yet one of the fundamental Ten Commandments is "thou shalt not commit murder".
To expand on this, in case there are folks unfamiliar with Ayn Rands works. The consistent structure of her philosophy depends on
1. Metaphysics: Reality exists independently of consciousness ("A is A"), and humans can perceive it directly
2. Epistemology: Reason and logic are the only valid means of understanding reality
3. Ethics: Rational self-interest is the highest moral good
4. Politics: Individual rights (especially property rights) are absolute and capitalism is the only moral system
You can derive some of these from the others. Because reality is objective and we can know it through reason, we should always act only based on reason instead of emotion. Obviously our own happiness and self interest are proper moral aims. Doing that requires individual rights and capitalism.
This is internally consistent. The best part is that the book is fiction and no one comes out and says this in so many words. You need to “work it out” on the basis of the good guys believing this and the bad guys being collectivists. You feel smart when you work it out and you’re also more likely to accept it, because it wasn’t thrust on you. Of course the book throws subtlety to the wind around the end with a 100 page monologue.
As for the assumptions the philosophy rests on:
- Cognitive biases exist. Different people will perceive the same situation differently because of these biases. But objectivists will claim they don’t have any biases. I know at least two who told me they’re completely unbiased. (In fairness both have grown up since they told me this).
- Individual self interest will often conflicts with the interests of others. Game theory shows us that two prisoners pursuing “rational self interest” will lead to a worse collective outcome.
- Markets will often fail, spectacularly. And also, the right intervention can prevent them from failing. There are economics papers that discuss these failures, although in fairness many were published after Rand wrote her books.
I had a couple of friends who insisted that I should read it. I tried, but found it to be very boring.
I think that's the most incredible aspect about this book. As a novel, it is so incredibly boring and flat. As an anti-ideology morals-first treatise, it is so very ideological.
Maybe I'm biased because I never even finished it, I fell asleep every single time.
The idea of hidden figures sacrificing themselves to provide a good foundation for society is quite nice. A book about this idea is kinda dumb, for obvious reasons (you don't talk about fight club).
I liked it, other than the interminable speeches and preaching. I presume Rand's own internal struggle was to protect her artistic integrity from the oppressive editors who wanted her to strip out the 60 page sermon at the end.
But I also liked "Sharknado". "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" were entertaining reading, but their themes, although initially attractive, just don't stand up to scrutiny by anyone who's ever held a job in the real world. The misunderstood genius who explains nothing to anyone and has only contempt for those who don't immediately understand their grand plans may be the potential savior of humanity, but more often than not they're just a pain in the ass with poor communication skills proportional to their unjustified egos.
Interesting. I read The Fountainhead and, while I found the idealogy reprehensible and the moralism patronizing, I was very entertained -- cartoonish characters, plenty of action. I haven't tried Atlas Shrugged; thanks for giving me another reason not to waste time on it.
Heh I read Atlas Shrugged and had the exact same response as you reading Fountainhead. I recall quite enjoying the writing style, but just found the whole thing silly and the idea that anyone could come out of reading it thinking they'd just stumbled across a great life philosophy funny and depressing.
As I mentioned, I haven't finished it, so don't take my comment as a review. It's just a soft opinion.
Your comment reminds me of the Bible (cartoonish characters, plenty of action, etc). Took me some 35 years to learn to appreciate it. However, what made me like it has nothing to do with popular notions of the book (I'm compelled by the history behind its several edits and compilations).
Maybe someday I'll like Atlas Shrugged too. I don't know, maybe there's something else there, but I find it unlikely, given that it lacks this more profound historical background. It tries to fake it, and in some sense it wants to be it (some historical allegory people book thingy).
I found The Fountainhead to be a better book. Atlas Shrugged became tedious to the point of skipping pages at the end.
I grudge-read through that ending slog just to see if there was some grand payoff for perseverance. There isn't. You were wish to skip it.
My dad read Atlas Shrugged when Reagan got elected, then gave it to me, and I read it too. I couldn't see any way that it was relevant to the society that I lived in.
I didn't get through the Speech.
Later on, I met someone who taught college, and used Atlas Shrugged as a required reading for his course. I asked him if he had actually gotten through the Speech, and he admitted that he had not.
Atlas Shrugged should be read the same way as Mein Kampf should be read. As a cautious tale about what evil people believe in. It should be read as a way to get into their disturbed heads see what they are thinking to better protect yourself from them.
Otherwise it is a quite boring book complete devoid of artistic merit.
If you are going to read Atlas Shrugged do not buy it new. I like to rummage around used bookshops and atlas shrugged is by far the most plentiful book there. That is no doubt because a lot of people buy the book because of the hype and then sell it because they are bored out of their skulls after twenty pages. So you can always get a pristine used copy for half price.
It is boring. It's hyper-boring.
It's just more efficient to read her direct works on Objectivism than trying to slog through a narrative form of it.
>Atlas Shrugged should be read the same way as Mein Kampf should be read.
my thinking is pretty close. For me Atlas Shrugged is the processing of the Ayn Rand's own PTSD resulting from coming of age during Russian Revolution and the following civil war with the bolsheviks coming into full power as a result. Add to that the shock of immigration immediately after that into completely different country/society (and I see similar to Ayn Rand's thinking in many USSR/Russian immigrants, at least in their first 10-20 years here) And so it is boring like a psychologist patient's notes would be.
I see your point, but comparing Mein Kampf to Atlas Shrugged feels misplaced. Mein Kampf is not fiction: it’s a manifesto tied to genocide and historical atrocities. While both provoke strong reactions, the moral and historical weight of Mein Kampf is incomparable, given the real-world consequences it inspired.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a quorum of users on a site devoted to unbridled capitalism and entrepreneurship immediately flagged this article.
What would Ayn Rand think about the podcast economy? All these little boys wanting to grow up to be podcasters. Go create something.
Isn't it crazy that these topics show up on HN whose audience is generally aligned with the 1% of highly educated, wealthy or wannabee wealthy people, who believe they should all be CEOs and whose actions in their day to day lives are hyper-capitalist?
Ironic.
The libertarian right has been supplanted by the authoritarian right. It’s a bit too late to try to bring Ayn Rand back.
I say this as a foot voting libertarian - it’s getting more lonely in this ideology not less.
Ayn Rand’s books have a cult following, tied closely to a specific political ideology and resonating with aspects of American national identity, particularly its celebration of individualism. However, they present a naive vision of the world, lacking nuance when it comes to morality and human complexity. Human flaws are conveniently absent in her protagonists, while the antagonists are comically incompetent and stupid.
The greatest flaw, to me, is that the triumphs of her characters rely on a world constructed entirely within the books - a world of perfect meritocracy where individual brilliance overcomes all. This creates a circular argument: the virtues the books champion succeed only within the fabricated conditions of Rand's universe, making their application to the real world highly questionable.
Kind of like Marxist books that work in a hypothetical universe?
Marx and Rand exist as reactions to the perceived problems of their days, but they shouldn't be taken as recipes for utopia.
Ironically, both philosophies depend on everyone in the system being perfectly altruistic. Any 'bad' actors poison their systems and turn them into horrible dystopias.
This is a misunderstanding of both Rand and Marx:
Rand’s philosophy doesn't depend on altruism - in fact it explicitly rejects altruism as a virtue, focusing on rational self-interest as the driving force of progress. This is of course attractive and expedient to certain political forces, especially in the USA.
Marxist systems also don't depend on altruism. Marx was considering how material interests drive behavior, how systemic change can reshape incentives, and was also relying on ideas like class consciousness, and solidarity. He also didn't need to create a fantasy world for his ideas to work, instead he was basing his theories on analysis of the existing economic conditions during his lifetime.
If you're thinking of ideological systems that do rely on altruism, you should look towards religions, like Christianity or Buddhism, or philosophies like Communitarianism. There were fringe utopian socialist thinkers who advocated for altruism-based systems (Fourier, Owen) but they were opposed both by Capitalists and Marxists.
I'm not saying that Rand or Marx themselves said that altruism was a necessary component. I'm saying that it is and that neither was aware of that pre-condition/axiom of their philosophies. To be fair, I think Rand was aware, and that she wrote fantasies around what she viewed as the 'perfect man.' Her stuff is more aspirational than practical (same as Lenin, etc.).
From a game theory point of view, both philosophies, in order to work and be sustained, require that most actors within the system behave honestly within the rules of the game. This means, nobody cheats. And it would only take a small percentage of bad actors to break either system.
In this context, altruism is self policing to abide by the rules even when not abiding by the rules would be better for you.
PS I also disagree with your take on religion, if anything, Christianity's (for example) primary philosophy is built around the explicit imperfection of mankind. Also, I would argue that the Utopian Socialists and Lenin were aligned in their goals. They just had different ideas of how to get there. There have been many attempts at the gentler Utopian Socialist version of communism over the years and AFAIK they all fall apart after a while, because people are not altruistic.
Clearly, this is connected to the political swings, even if the liberalism in Ayn Rand’s philosophy is not identical to what the right (or left) are currently doing. The right, and I focus on the right because it is where the powerful pendulum is now, seems more like a populist right than a liberal right. It is clear that politics exist on a spectrum, except at the widening extremes.
If Atlas Shrugged is about the role of entrepreneurs (to tie this to the HN main topic) as individuals and their creative power in society, I would say that this idea does not seem to scale in reality. The extent to which individuals embrace some kind of power is more closely correlated with where they were born specifically, the country and family they come from. Exceptions clearly exist, and the U.S. does not compare to any other country in terms of business opportunities. However, this is not the same as saying everyone has the same (or even comparable) opportunities based solely on their individual and creative traits. This is not a comment against the book but a 5 cents warning to not confuse a strong idea (the complexity and freedom of the individual) to the reality posed in real politics.
The "vibe" of Atlas Shrugged (other than "fucking boring") is pretty much "Insecure guy who wears a suit to high-school and is on the debate team" or I guess more simply "Ben Shapiro".
So yeah, I guess so.
[dead]
[flagged]
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/366635-there-are-two-novels...
I get a completely different take. To me, it's empowering to young individuals, especially (I would guess) young females because the main character is a very strong self-driven female.
The self-driven female arrives in utopia by accident, when her plane crashes there. It hardly seems empowering, but does say a lot about utopia.
Dagny is the first "Anti-Mary Sue" I can remember in literature. She's ostensibly the protagonist, but is literally worse at everything than her male couterparts.
The problem was that all the people who volunteered that they’d read the book were narcissistic assholes who just became much bigger assholes afterward.
I really wanted to read that book as a young man to understand why it was so toxic. But I didn’t want anyone to ever see me reading it. I went as far as making a plan to glue another book cover over it. Problem was I also didn’t want the Rand estate to profit from my curiosity.
As someone who grew up in a society with rampant corruption (India), Fountainhead (the destruction of buildings at the end of the novel) and Atlas Shrugged (motivated me into leaving India to self-implode while I traveled to US to have a better life) quite a impression on my teenage years. It was only later when I thought about these books more that I realized how crazy they are.
In the meantime, India didn't self-implode, at least not yet.
I love my e-reader. Nobody knows what i am reading. I have heard ebooks are available for free from the shady end of the web, which is great for those who are disadvantaged or from poor nations with little alternative access, but i believe that you should pay if you can afford it (regardless of your thoughts about the author).
Which e-reader? If Kindle, then Amazon knows exactly what you're reading. They even know how long it took you to read each page, when and where you skipped to, and text you searched for, etc.
I don't disagree with you (in fact I very much agree) but I use a Remarkable 2 now to avoid the incredible depth of spying.
Heh. True. The urge has passed but I’m sure there are some college kids who might take you up on the suggestion. I know a guy who is reading romance novels. Voraciously. He must have read a few hundred by now.
I’ve seen a certain type of person gravitate towards this book, that is usually more of a selfish goal driven type.
There's also just the curiosity type, like a friend i have. similarly, people who aren't pervs read Nabokov's Lolita, because Nabokov writes amazingly, and it's just one of his books.
Curious people are more open to variety in thinking. I can’t answer as to whether this book resonates with curious minds and if it does to what extent. As a curious mind myself this book did not resonate with me much but am aware im not the targeted audience.
Biased take probably...
I have yet to meet a person that isn't primarily self interested. They must exist, but they are exceedingly rare.
Many authors of great works were not wonderful people, and there’s no way to verify their ‘correctness’. For a very current example, see Gaiman, who had a sterling reputation which is now in doubt.
In any case, you are the one most harmed by your own blinders, and you don’t know what you’re missing.
It seems like you might not understand that a person can read a book without necessarily agreeing with everything the author writes about.
Are you refering to others as narcissistic for reading it, and saying narcissism prevented you from reading it?
What part of “became bigger assholes after” makes you think that’s a categorization comment rather than an observational one?
Hinkley's on point.
I think that quote technically qualifies as a shallow dismissal of other people's work... from TFA:
> We talk a lot these days about, “how can I be my best self?” That’s what Rand is saying. She's saying, actually, it’s not about earning money, it’s not about being rich. It is about the perfection of the moral life. It's about the pursuit of excellence. It’s about the cultivation of virtue. These are the important things. This is what Dagny is doing. When all the entrepreneurs at the end, they’re in the happy valley, actually, between them, they have not that much money, right?
I tend to agree. It sounds like John Rogers missed the point of the book entirely.