Atlas Shrugged
December 18th, 2004I finally finished reading Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (except for one 50+ page monologue - just too much of one thing). I started reading it way back in August and got about half way through its 1100+ pages on a vacation trip. But once we got back home and life returned to normal (meaning too busy) my reading rate dropped off considerably.
Like many of my favorite books (George Orwell’s 1984, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World) Atlas Shrugged carries a strong political message, or at least acts as a commentary on the state of politics, freedoms, and economics in our age. The book is really a vehicle for Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism (a philosophy that some say often influences the American Libertarian Party platform). That said, it is still quite a good story. However, if you are looking for a more concise presentation of Rand’s ideas, or maybe a piece of work that develops story and plot better, many people suggest The Fountainhead.
I don’t agree completely with Rand’s philosophy. However, much of it does line up very well with my own. For instance, I do believe in the objective absolute - facts are facts, regardless of our feelings and wishes about them. But the point I agree most with Rand on is her economic philosophy of laissez-faire capitalism. Basically, men deal with each other as equals, not as victims and executioners, or as masters and slaves. In a true capitalist system there is a complete separation of the state and economics. The only purpose of the government in economic things should be to protect the rights of men. Traditionally though, economics has been an impossible cookie jar for government to keep its hands out of, most often because government has so much to gain (taxes, protectionist rackets, etc.).
A point I disagree with Rand’s Objectivism on is its claim that reason is the only way we have to perceive reality. Although I do believe reason is our most powerful and most frequently used way of perceiving reality, it is not the only tool we have. We also possess spirit, emotion, and intuition - all of which occasionally disagree with reason (and sometimes rightly so). However, we have to use all of the tools together in order to get the whole picture about our reality. Even Dagny, Atlas Shrugged’s hero, uses her emotions and intense love for Hank Rearden, and later John Galt, to help shape her perception of reality, and Rand never condemns her for it. And because I disagree with Rand on this point I also have to disagree with her claim that man exists only for himself and should never sacrifice for another. Because I believe spirit, emotion, and intuition are valid tools in evaluating reality I cannot ignore the intensity of love and the self sacrifice it sometimes requires.
Although I don’t completely agree with Rand’s philosophy it is still a very attractive one. I’m drawn to its simplicity. However, the reason it just isn’t practical is because it, like all philosophies, pertains to the ideal, not reality - it is just too unrealistically optimistic about man’s nature. This is not a hurdle I’ve seen any philosophy overcome. That said, I believe Rand’s philosophy makes some good contributions to my own philosophy (which doesn’t hold up to the reality test always either), and could make a good framework for building your own. The trick, like when evaluating any other philosophy, is to take things with a grain of salt - evaluate the points and claims through your own perception of reality and through the philosophy you live your life through. Take what you can from it to make your own philosophy stronger, but don’t follow it blindly.
January 5th, 2005 at 1/5/2005 4:10 pm
First off, I really like your blog design. Did you do this yourself or base it on a template?
I know this is a big question but if you believe ‘facts are facts’ or objective absolutes there has to be some philosophy that is right. I think the challenge is we narrow into the reality too quickly. We take reality as a series of assumptions. What I mean is prior to discussing philosophy governing living, it would be valuable to understand some of the ‘big’ questions. Who are we? How did we get here? Is there some purpose to our existence? These questions determine the other questions and how we approach them.
January 8th, 2005 at 1/8/2005 3:42 pm
D Goodmanson,
Thanks for the compliment. Yes, I did design it largely by myself. The header is from a photo I found on Flickr (of some sort of fungus no less). What remains is the CSS which is mostly my own work - with some inspirations from various other designers.
As for the ‘big’ questions - are those questions we can ever know the answers to with any degree of certainty? To believe an answer to those questions means we have to ignore at leat part of several contrary arguments.
January 9th, 2005 at 1/9/2005 10:24 am
Ray,
Regardless of our certainty we bring persuppositions into these other meaningful questions. For example, if we are here as a result of nothing plus time and chance, this shapes how we view morality, ethics, and all other branches of philosophy. If we believed there is no truth, this too would totaly shape these questions. If there is objective truth, objective morality and ethics, I would argue that there must be an objective truth giver to establish these things. There must be a higher power than man.
June 26th, 2005 at 6/26/2005 5:25 pm
Funny, I think I know which monologue you are talking about. I skipped it too
Atlas Shrugged really upset me because of the methodical way in which the “overachievers” were overwhelmed by the morons around them.
February 26th, 2006 at 2/26/2006 11:31 pm
I think the main reason you do not agree with Rand’s philosophy, is that you failed to read John Galt’s fabulous monologue. The entire book leads up to that one particular moment and every hint or trace of philosophy found elsewhere is established in those 70 pages. In fact, I am surprised (being a philosopher yourself) you read the other 1,100 pages without even touching Galt’s speech when his speech IS the philosophy. I highly suggest going back and reading that monologue!
March 27th, 2006 at 3/27/2006 12:43 am
I think it is ridiculous to demand an answer to the ‘big questions’ before we can do anything else with a philosophy. Does who we are affect what actions we should take? Does how we got here affect whether or not I have rights? Does the purpose of our existence affect what we decide to do in the here and now?
The answer is yes, but only because what actions we should take tells us who we are. Whether or not I have intrinsic rights tells me something about how I got here. What I should do now tells me the purpose of my existence. In short, it is the small questions - which can be answered in ignorance of the big picture - that tell us what the answers to the big questions are.
December 5th, 2008 at 12/5/2008 11:16 am
I’ve read Galt’s monologue many times.
It is my favorite book.
and it’s my opinion, that if you don’t understand the philisophical view that rand is espousing by the time you get to the monologue, then you certainly won’t understand it here.
the question of which philosophy to follow really begs the question.
for many of the big questions there will be no final answers this side of the grave and possbily not even there
and so
we are left with
some of this
and some of that
imperfect philosophies for an imperfect world
the big contribution of atlas shrugged
and, in my opinion,
the biggest demon in american society today
is the issue of personal accountability
how many of the problems that we face as a nation and as a family and as an individual
could we solve if we simply
took responsibility for our own actions
good and bad
as easily as we assign them to others?