Has Anyone Read Atlas Shrugged?

[timbot]

Or The Fountainhead, even?
Two of my favorite books, and I'm dying to talk about them with somebody. Rand just amazes me. Her philosophy is great, and her writing is superb. Really, I just want to go back in time and make babies with her.

[abbey]

I'm about 100 pages in to Atlas Shrugged. Unfortunately because of English class and the book club I'm not going to be able to keep reading it for some time. I've got like 3 books I need to finish right now other than Atlas Shrugged.

I love it so far though, and I wish I had the time to continue.

[INTUNEevolution]

We can talk about Anthem if you're up for it, but I haven't gotten around to Atlas Shrugged. Objectivism is not as compelling to me as it is to some people. I'm more of an existentialist :D

OH LET'S ARGUE PHILOSOPHY PLEASE

[timbot]

There's not much to talk about with Anthem....it's so short. If Anthem is all you've read, I'd personally suggest reading The Fountainhead next. I think it's easier to enjoy that story without being as interested in the philosophy. Though, I really think Atlas Shrugged has a great story too.

[INTUNEevolution]

Rand comes in two sizes, too short and too long.

Maybe if I have time. But if I do, you have to read the Stranger or some Kafka for the existentialism.

[timbot]

Anthem is definitely too short. And I'd say that Atlas Shrugged is too long for just your average person to enjoy. It requires more devotion to Literature or philosophy to get through. But The Fountainhead really isn't terribly long. Certainly not short, but it's got a pretty dynamic plot. One of the things I really admire about her is that even though her writing is very obviously supposed to be a vehicle for her philosophy--she's not just writing to entertain--she doesn't get bogged down with lots of musing and rambling about her philosophy. She does a great job of bringing her point to life through a compelling plot. I think it may have something to do with her experience in the film industry.
I just read The Metamorphosis the other day. It was really interesting. Of course, I knew a little about it when I picked it up, but I'm glad I finally read it. It definitely got me thinking. Of course, like so many other shorter stories, I got to the end and just felt a little puzzled. I'd definitely be willing to bounce some ideas off of you about that story.
Have you read Woman in the Dunes by Kobo Abe? It's the only other existentialist work I'm sure I've read. It was intriguing, but I'm really not sure I get the point...

[INTUNEevolution]

Existentialist philosophy is always a little confusing. I haven't got around to reading the more obscure works. I'll read Fountainhead, unless you have a philosophy you find more compelling than objectivism, and then you do more Kafka, and the Stranger by Camus.
But I get the feeling we'll just agree with eachother.

[timbot]

No, objectivism is definitely my preferred philosophy, so I don't have one I find more compelling. I'll read this other Kafka that came with The Metamorphosis, I forget the title, but it sounded interesting.
I don't know if we will agree with each other. After all, you're an existentialist, and I'm an objectivist, if I may pigeon-hole us at least for a moment. So, we could come up with some very different thoughts.

[Abiss]

I've read anthem, i'm actually re-reading Fountainhead right now lol, but i have never read atlas shrugged. Isn't that one supposably her best work?

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/bankamp/)
Reason: AOLism. Also: *supposedly.

[INTUNEevolution]

Well I have this conversation with my Randian classmates, and that is, objectivists and existentialists are not directly opposed (objectivists v. irrationalists, existentialists v. collectivists). We would not disagree with eachother except on one topic: the collective. The objectivist believes the collective inhibits the individual. The existentialist would agree with that, except it contradicts one basic tenet of existentialism, there is no such thing as the collective. Every individual's action is directed towards some kind of achievement or gain or fulfillment, etcetera. So, how can there be any such thing as a collective if every individual serves him- or herself? A group mentality is formed by those that want strength in numbers, therefore a group is in fact a vessel for serving all of the single individuals' needs.

I'll let you rebut that before continuing. This is actually enjoyable, I present a compelling argument, now your turn.

[timbot]

Abiss, yeah, if you like The Fountainhead enough to re-read it, I would definitely suggest Atlas Shrugged it is amazing. I think it's a better work, over all, but has perhaps a more narrow appeal than The Fountainhead. Also, if you feel like talking about The Fountainhead at all, please do.

INTUNE:
I'll have to read up on existentialism a bit before I get into this too deeply, but I can respond a little bit here. An existentialist would say the collective doesn't exist, an objectivist would say the collective mind doesn't exist.
"Every individual's action is directed towards some kind of achievement or gain or fulfillment, etcetera. So, how can there be any such thing as a collective if every individual serves him- or herself?" This is true, and I think an objectivist would agree with you. If all are serving themselves, then there is no collective. However--and this is a very challenging tenant when you get into it, but also one I think is true--individuals do not work for their own fulfillment by default and without exception. People very often work against their own true fulfillment. Instead of reaching real fulfillment, they follow emotions and whims, and call that brief moment of pleasure, fulfillment. But really it does nothing for them. It's the amorality of hedonism. Whether that be the hedonism of doing whatever you feel when you feel it or doing "the greatest good for the greatest number." Which brings me to your next point, "A group mentality is formed by those that want strength in numbers, therefore a group is in fact a vessel for serving all of the single individuals' needs." Not always. Sure, a number of individuals can join together for strength in numbers to serve a common goal. That does not go against objectivist philosophy. But simply because there is a group, doesn't mean that all the individual's needs are being served. Objectivists aren't opposed to a group of people getting together at work to say "we deserve higher wages." What they oppose is someone saying "you must pay taxes for the good of the people." What is the good of the people, and who are the people? If that tax money is being taken from someone who can barely make ends meet to help build a space ship, how is the good of the tax payer being served? There is no true "mind" or "will" of "the people." There are simply individuals with minds and wills of their own. In the case of a collective, the "will of the people" simply becomes the "will of whoever has power."

[INTUNEevolution]

I really cannot find fault with any of your statements, except that you touched on distinguishing immediate happiness from fulfillment. You are right in that respect, except people will always work for immediate satisfaction over eventual fulfillment. And on the will of the one who has power point, you have to consider that all of the people the powerful use for gain have their own agendas. They aren't glamorous. It mostly boils down to the fact that people want security, or a sense of belonging. Ultimately, no one does something that completely contradicts their own agenda. One can say that altruism exists, but does it really? Does one work for a charity for something other than self-satisfaction? It would be difficult to convince me otherwise. But besides that good on you.

This is actually how an argument between two non-conflicting viewpoints should go. If I were to say that the only universal laws can be pulled from chaos and that there are cases where 2+2 equals anything other than 4, we would have a problem.
But I don't and we don't.

[timbot]

"One can say that altruism exists, but does it really? Does one work for a charity for something other than self-satisfaction?"
Good point. Rand actually addresses that exact point in one of her philosophy books. I might have to look it up to get a good argument on you. Being the founder of the philosophy, she has a little better handle on it than I do.
I was gonna try to get into it a little here, but it's near my bed time and I can feel my brain slowing down. So, I'll get back to you later.
I will say, though, that this is a good argument. I'm not sure that I would say, yet, that we have non-conflicting viewpoints. However, this is still a good argument in the old philosophical sense where we both present our cases and rebut etc. Not in the sense in which we both just yell at each other and don't think at all.

[INTUNEevolution]

Although we can start that thread should the need arise.

[INTUNEevolution]

So I'm like 3/5 of the way through the Fountainhead, and it's really good, but I'm having trouble with the characters. Does Ellsworth represent collectivist thought? Then it might make sense. Which side is Dominique on? I'm also having trouble with some situations. Some scenes I can feel are important, but I have no idea how to analyze them. When the newspaper flies over to Dominique and she bends to pick it up, but Roark crumbles and throws it away. What does that mean? IT MUST MEAN SOMETHING!

All in all, it is thoroughly exhausting to read. It is one of the slowest books I've read, others of equal length I've completed in a day. I am powering through it though, I demand respect!

[timbot]

It is kind of difficult to analyze everything. I felt the same way the first time I read it, and also the second time, but not as much the second time. But it wasn't frustrating, it was good. And I think, perhaps, you feel the same way. Sometimes I read a book or a story and I get that feeling that I'm missing the symbolism, and it just annoys me. But with her writing, I feel like I can't quite put the pieces together all the time, but I usually felt like I would figure it out. It felt more like exercising my brain than just being totally confused.
You'll just have to keep reading to figure out what's going on with Dominique and Ellsworth, it will become clearer.
It took me forever to read, too. Partly because I'm a slow reader, partly because I was busy with work, and partly because it's just kind of dense. It's exciting, I think, but it's not a "page-turner" like some books where it's so easy to just burn through it. I really got engrossed in it, but still, it took time.
I'm glad you're enjoying it.