Atlas Shrugged

[Stargazer]

They can have my copy.

I have no idea what happened to my copy. I found Atlas Shrugged to be fraught with meaning, filled with intriguing ideas, and well worth the read. HOWEVER, it was also quite tedious, extremely boring in too many spots, and for some reason I just could not buy into the idea that the heroine would simply dump whoever was her lover upon the appearance of someone "better". I'm pretty sure Rand intended Dagny Taggart as her alter ego; Rand behaved much like Taggart anyway.

I'll probably see the movie, just to see what they did with it.

[Stargazer]

But isn't that "taken the good and ignore the rest" counter to what Christ taught about bitter fountains or a good trees?

Not really. Try Paul:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

1 Thess 5:21

Peter denied the Christ three times. Thomas doubted the resurrection. Paul persecuted the saints. Yet we do not reject any of them, only hold fast to the truths that each of them taught, and ignore their personal shortcomings.

Just because Hitler is credited with having built them originally doesn't mean that we reject Freeways and take only back roads.

Rand was a steadfast proponent of individual liberty. That is the part of her that I choose to embrace.

[Stargazer]

Ps Ayn Rand was a closet socialist.

I'd like to see you back up that claim, tss. Not a formal CFR, but I'd find it interesting to see how you come to it.

[Stargazer]

One of the things that strikes me as highly interesting about the book is that when it was first published it was definitely not received very well, but over time gained ground and has remained in print for a half century. I do not believe that it is the tiny ranks of Objectivists who are responsible.

I read that:

Atlas Shrugged received largely negative reviews after its 1957 publication,[7] but achieved enduring popularity and consistent sales in the following decades. In the wake of the late 2000s recession, sales of Atlas Shrugged have sharply increased, according to The Economist magazine and The New York Times. The Economist reported that the novel ranked #33 among Amazon.com's top-selling books on January 13, 2009.

I'd guess that the movie is going to continue the trend.

I'm not displeased by this, for the simple reason that despite my negative reactions to some of Rand's positions and the book's tendentiousness, the country would benefit from these ideas, arrayed as they are in opposition to the "government is good", "nanny state" and nascent socialist tendencies that have crept into our society over the past half century and more.

Edited to say: Oh, yeah, the quote above is from the Wikipedia article about the book.

[ERayR]

I really enjoyed his books. I'm sad that the Seeker series of books ended.

I hear that there may be more. The two worlds come back together. Not certain but I heard it. What I didn't like is what the TV series did to it.

Edited to add: I just looked on Google and he does have a 12th book. It is called The Omen Machine. Well another book to read this summer.

[The Nehor]

I really enjoyed his books. I'm sad that the Seeker series of books ended.

I loved them too. When I reread them last though I found them creepier then I remember with the hero and his lover and their loyal BDSM dominatrix followers.

[frankenstein]

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

1 Thess 5:21

That verse is referring to prophecies.

The Book of Mormon provides how know if something is of God or not.

Just because Hitler is credited with having built them originally doesn't mean that we reject Freeways and take only back roads.

that is a good point to the bitter fountain.

[Deborah]

I've been curious about Goodkind but never read any books. Glad to know they are enjoyable.

BTW, I agree with Atlas Shrugged sometimes being tedious. On subsequent readings I've skipped over the long monologues and just enjoyed the story. The movie just moves the story along without the monologues.

[Deborah]

It may or may not be a good movie, but I don't take Rand's philosophy as "gospel truth."

Nor do I. But it is amazing how true to life the story is now with our current economy and trend in government.

[WalkerW]

But isn't that "taken the good and ignore the rest" counter to what Christ taught about bitter fountains or a good trees?

Since no one is good but God according to Christ, I guess I shouldn't take anything into account that anyone else says.

I don't see anything anti-Christian about mining for the good in people or their views and applying those attributes.

[ERayR]

But isn't that "taken the good and ignore the rest" counter to what Christ taught about bitter fountains or a good trees?

Article of Faith # 13 "... If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

[frankenstein]

Article of Faith # 13 "... If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

the southpark creators, have a musical about the Church, according to reports there is a very good message in the musical.

In a southpark, titled "All about the Mormons" the episode covered the beginnings of the Church.

And I hear Playboy has good articles, and a particular restaurant named for owls has good chicken wings.

[ERayR]

the southpark creators, have a musical about the Church, according to reports there is a very good message in the musical.

In a southpark, titled "All about the Mormons" the episode covered the beginnings of the Church.

And I hear Playboy has good articles, and a particular restaurant named for owls has good chicken wings.

If that is what you call "...virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy..." then knock yourself out.

[WalkerW]

And I hear Playboy has good articles, and a particular restaurant named for owls has good chicken wings.

They sometimes do, particularly interviews. The ones I have read were reprinted elsewhere. I've never seen an actual Playboy magazine.

If friends brought me good chicken wings from Hooters, I wouldn't feel bad consuming them.

[WalkerW]

If that is what you call "...virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy..." then knock yourself out.

Kind of what I was thinking. Given some of frankenstein's comments elsewhere, I have a suspicion this has little to do with Christian ethics and more to do with political leanings. I'm fine with that. I just wish we would be a bit more forthcoming about it.

[Stargazer]

That verse is referring to prophecies.

And you know about this limitation how?

The Book of Mormon provides how know if something is of God or not.

What, pray about it? Do you honestly expect to receive an answer from God about whether Ayn Rand is an anti-Christ?

that is a good point to the bitter fountain.

I presume this is meant in jest -- unless you're really trying to say that freeways are of the devil.

[frankenstein]

frankenstein, on 17 April 2011 - 09:11 AM, said: But isn't that "taken the good and ignore the rest" counter to what Christ taught about bitter fountains or a good trees?

stargazer: Not really. Try Paul: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thess 5:21

frankenstein, on 17 April 2011 - 01:24 PM, said: That verse is referring to prophecies.

stargazer: And you know about this limitation how?

1 Thes 5:20 - 22 Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil.

-------------

frankenstein, on 17 April 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:The Book of Mormon provides how know if something is of God or not.

stargazer: What, pray about it? Do you honestly expect to receive an answer from God about whether Ayn Rand is an anti-Christ?

I have not stated anything about praying. Moroni 7:17, which I mentioned earlier in the thread, I assumed you had read all the posts.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

Here is my analysis:

Rand persuades to do evil specifically be selfish is the greatest good.

Rand persuades not to believe Christ, using John Gault as the voice against religion.

Rand persuades to serve not God, by way of being selfish and rejecting religion.

--------------

stargazer: Just because Hitler is credited with having built them originally doesn't mean that we reject Freeways and take only back roads

frankenstein, on 17 April 2011 - 01:24 PM, said: that is a good point to the bitter fountain.

stargazer: I presume this is meant in jest -- unless you're really trying to say that freeways are of the devil.

You do not give yourself enough credit, that Hilter, whom many have little qualms saying was evil, is credited with creating the highway system is a good counter to point to a bitter fountain can not bring forth good water; unless we consider the evil that is the traffic jam.

[Stargazer]

frankenstein, on 17 April 2011 - 09:11 AM, said: But isn't that "taken the good and ignore the rest" counter to what Christ taught about bitter fountains or a good trees?

stargazer: Not really. Try Paul: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thess 5:21

frankenstein, on 17 April 2011 - 01:24 PM, said: That verse is referring to prophecies.

stargazer: And you know about this limitation how?

1 Thes 5:20 - 22 Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil.

So, rather than take the scriptures as they are, with four separate exhortations in four separate sentences (and including v19 because it is part and parcel with the others):

19 Quench not the Spirit.

20 Despise not prophesyings.

21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

and you think that you're retaining the original intent by conflating them all together into one sentence, with 20 and 21 joined into one thought, as if they treated the same subject? Good luck with that, but I'm pretty sure that if Paul had meant to write what you are trying to wrench out of it, then he would have said it that way. Since he didn't, then it says to me that he meant what he did say. And he wasn't saying that one should only prove prophecies and retain those that were good.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

Here is my analysis:

1. Rand persuades to do evil specifically be selfish is the greatest good.

2. Rand persuades not to believe Christ, using John Gault as the voice against religion.

3. Rand persuades to serve not God, by way of being selfish and rejecting religion.

OK, fair points, and I'll address them.

We have a problem, first of all, and that is the question: What is selfishness? You'd think that "everyone knows" what it is, but I think it is different things to different people. One person might say selfishness is: you have something, and I want some, but you refuse to share, and that makes you selfish. This is the kind of thing you might see in household with young children. Tommy has a toy, but Bobby wants to play with it, too. Mommy makes Tommy share with Bobby, saying "Don't be selfish!" If the toy was given to Tommy as a gift, to be his, then forcing him to share with Bobby on pain of being declared selfish teaches Bobby that there is no private property, and if he wants someone else's property, all he has to do is demand they share with him. This behavior continues until Bobby reaches voting age, when he discovers that if he wants Tommy's property, all he has to do is vote for Politician X who promises to pass a law taking Tommy's property (after first calling it "taxes" in order to legitimize the theft), and he can have at least some of it, or if he can't have any of it, at least that stinking filthy rich Tommy doesn't have it any more, either. A little schadenfreude, there.

Now, is the selfishness described above, that of Tommy refusing to share his own property upon demand, evil? If it is, then private property itself is evil. And if you're drving a better car than I am, well, then I want it. Don't be selfish, Frank. As it happens, those people who tend to label others as selfish are themselves guilty of something that is actually condemned in scripture, and that is covetousness. In fact, in my reading of the Ten Commandments I do not recall seeing anything about selfishness. There's no "Thou shalt not be selfish". There is however the 10th commandment: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." Don't be selfish, indeed.

In Game Theory, it is said that given two actors, oneself and someone else, there are four types of possible behavior; Selfishness, Altruism, Spite, and Cooperation. These are the definitions of these words:

Selfishness is harming someone else in order to help oneself;

Altruism is harming oneself in order to help someone else;

Spite is harming oneself in order to harm someone else;

Cooperation is helping oneself and helping someone else.

As far as selfishness is concerned, there was a collection of essays written by Rand and Nathaniel Branden that appeared in 1964, entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness". While "selfishness" has a negative connotation, the authors had a problem, and that was to come up with a word that meant what they wanted it to mean, but no convenient word existed in English. So rather than coin a new term, they used "selfishness" and defined it as "concern with one's own interests." Another term that Rand frequently used, "ethical egoism" might have come closer to what she and Branden meant, but if you're like most people, seeing the word "egoism" you confuse it with "egotism" (which doesn't mean at all the same thing), and things are even worse. Most people thing egotism is worse than selfishness, after all. But let's use the word the way Rand intended.

"Egoism" is most frequently defined as the ethical position that "moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest". Is this selfishness? Far from it. In fact, Rand and Rand's philosophy was entirely moral in this regard, because her philosophy held that the rights of the individual were sacred. Selfishness is harming someone else in order to help oneself; Rand considered this to be immoral. In fact, <i>demanding</i> that another person "share" is immoral or unethical. Rand happened to believe that altruism (helping others while damaging oneself) was also a bad thing, but there is no law of human nature saying you have to kill yourself to help others -- that happens to be voluntary. As a Vulcan would say, "morally praiseworthy, but not morally obligatory."

As far as your other points, sure, Rand was an atheist and had little or no respect for religion, but what do you expect a person raised as an atheist (she was born in Soviet Russia, after all) to do?

I am out of time. I cannot add much more.

stargazer: Just because Hitler is credited with having built them originally doesn't mean that we reject Freeways and take only back roads

frankenstein, on 17 April 2011 - 01:24 PM, said: that is a good point to the bitter fountain.

stargazer: I presume this is meant in jest -- unless you're really trying to say that freeways are of the devil.

You do not give yourself enough credit, that Hilter, whom many have little qualms saying was evil, is credited with creating the highway system is a good counter to point to a bitter fountain can not bring forth good water; unless we consider the evil that is the traffic jam.

OK, you are being funny, then.

But I wasn't. Just because Hitler was a vegetarian (and he was), does not make vegetarianism evil. Just because he advocated kindness to animals doesn't make the SPCA an evil organization. Just because he was opposed to both smoking and drinking doesn't make the Word of Wisdom an evil principle.

Just because Ayn Rand was an atheist and took pains to preach atheism as a philosophy, does not mean that everything she had to say was evil or wrong.

What you're trying to do, by the way, is a logical fallacy called "Poisoning the Well."

Edited it to fix the text after the forum software barfed all over it.

[USU78]

I've always thought that anybody who advocates for more or equal government control over the GDP than that exercised by King Noah in the BoM, they're in AntiChrist country.

USU "This is silly -- Claiming Rand is the/an AntiChrist? Nervy political advocacy of the worst kind on this here board, if you ask me" 78

[Deborah]

Stargazer brings up an interesting point on defining selfishness. I think it means something different to Rand than it does to the person demanding the right to something that doesn't belong to him or he hasn't earned. To me it is more selfish to be in this latter category than to be the person who has the ability to be successful and then share that success by creating jobs for others, while not allowing the others the right to take his profits so that he can't create the jobs that help others.

Little children are innately selfish beings but we don't consider them evil.

[Deborah]

Here is my analysis:

Rand persuades to do evil specifically be selfish is the greatest good.

Rand persuades not to believe Christ, using John Gault as the voice against religion.

Rand persuades to serve not God, by way of being selfish and rejecting religion.

First of all as stated above we need to define selfishness. I think in this regard it is interesting that the church encourages us to become educated so that we can be successful and support ourselves and our families. In this regard self-interest is very important. The church realizes we can be of greater service if we have more to offer others and that means taking care of ourselves so that we can take care of others.

Secondly, I quite frankly don't blame anyone for being skeptical of religion when you look at some of the TV evangelists, or acts in the name of religion.

Thirdly, one serves God by doing what is right. I consider it right to not take something that isn't yours or you haven't earned. I consider it right to work hard to earn what you get. I consider it right to want to grow your business and by so doing enable others to become successful in their own families by working and earning a living. Funny but these are things Rand advocates and something the Church teaches.

[WalkerW]

Stargazer brings up an interesting point on defining selfishness. I think it means something different to Rand than it does to the person demanding the right to something that doesn't belong to him or he hasn't earned. To me it is more selfish to be in this latter category than to be the person who has the ability to be successful and then share that success by creating jobs for others, while not allowing the others the right to take his profits so that he can't create the jobs that help others.

Little children are innately selfish beings but we don't consider them evil.

There are some disheartening things in Rand's philosophy. But you are correct: she in a sense

(though not entirely). She explains how self-interest is involved in

.

It is much like Walter Williams when he defends

. They redefine it mean self-interest.

While data and logic (to an extent) support their arguments, I find the "greed is good" mantra rhetorically irresponsible. I think it is mainly used for shock value.

EDIT:

[Stargazer]

There are some disheartening things in Rand's philosophy. But you are correct: she in a sense

(though not entirely). She explains how self-interest is involved in

.

It is much like Walter Williams when he defends

. They redefine it mean self-interest.

While data and logic (to an extent) support their arguments, I find the "greed is good" mantra rhetorically irresponsible. I think it is mainly used for shock value.

As far as "shock value" is concerned, I think Rand intended the word "selfishness" in the title of the book for its shock value, but she was hardly the first person ever to use this kind of argumentation. She was preceded by Adam Smith, in fact. I think that her contributions were mere refinements, though perhaps valuable ones.

Sorry, but I don't know the following quote is from Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments" or "Wealth of Nations", but it serves to illustrate what I am trying to say:

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestick industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestiek to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the publick good.

I gather that some modern economists believe that Smith did not provide a valid "proof" for his "invisible hand" argument, but I think he had a very valid point.

[frankenstein]

OK, you are being funny, then.

nope wrong again, I was being serious that hitler - that many are willing to admit was evil - helped in the developed of the a good system of transportation is a very good counter point and a point to ponder against the statement something evil can not bring forth good; it is a conundrum.

What you're trying to do, by the way, is a logical fallacy called "Poisoning the Well."

I am quoting LDS Scripture. There is no fallacy.

[frankenstein]

First of all as stated above we need to define selfishness. I think in this regard it is interesting that the church encourages us to become educated so that we can be successful and support ourselves and our families. In this regard self-interest is very important. The church realizes we can be of greater service if we have more to offer others and that means taking care of ourselves so that we can take care of others.

Thirdly, one serves God by doing what is right. I consider it right to not take something that isn't yours or you haven't earned. I consider it right to work hard to earn what you get. I consider it right to want to grow your business and by so doing enable others to become successful in their own families by working and earning a living. Funny but these are things Rand advocates and something the Church teaches.

"I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,' that is not exaclty someone who is willing to live with "all things in common" who convenants to live in such a way that there be "no poor among" him.

"To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous.If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free."

that is an afront to almost all religions including the LDS Church.