My Review of Atlas Shrugged

OK, really more of a discussion (old HSA) than a review, but anyway (I mildly re-edited a few of my original replies to include more info):

Maece aka Jennifer
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone ever read any Ayn Rand (I've read only Atlas Shrugged)? I find it really interesting that she is both VERY right wing, and also anti-christian/religion. Anyone else have comments on that?

My two main arguments to hers would be:

1) She is equating communism and Christianity in a sense because they both command/suggest that those in need should be served. However, she does not address the fact that communists are vehemently anti-Christian, as God totally defeats the secular materialist mindset necessary to support the whole philosophy behind Marxism. As someone who actually lived under communism, I think she should know better. Since I haven't lived under that, perhaps I shouldn't criticize her. But, my husband has lived under it, and he certainly backs up what I've always heard that they really don't tolerate religion.

2) I agree with her that A=A. A good worker is not the same as a bad worker. Money does not grow on trees. Skyscrapers don't build themselves. Yet, I must then go on to question, did intelligence build itself? Did the intelligence of the human species - which she has so much respect for - merely evolve? ...whereas progress of all other kinds cannot? She doesn't like the evolutionary conclusion that we are just animals, but I haven't seen her explain why or how we could be anything else if there is no God.

I was once debating about this, and he said - supposing I'm right, what does it matter if there is a God? I said because if God created us, then He owns us, and He probably has something to say about how we live. He said, that didn't work because people are free agents and they cannot be owned - citing as an example that parents do not actually own their children. I said that parents do not create their own children, if they did, they should have much more control over how they turn out, even at birth. They merely throw the switch that sets off a natural process, already in place, and that process creates the child. They did not create or invent that process, and even now we can't alter that process very much. Parents don't own their children because the real Creator already does. (Granted, I do believe in free will - but not as anything inherent to humans, rather as something that God gave to us because it served His purposes to do so.)

Another complaint I have against Ayn Rand is that her philosophy results in the obsessive pursuit of money. I agree with her idealized version of what money should represent. But, in a fallen world it doesn't always represent that, and in a perfect world it probably wouldn't have much use.


Nicole
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ayn Rand: I've read her Anthem, and it's really quite good...recognizing that her books do have the problems you pointed out in your post. It's main point is, if I'm remembering correctly, how important the individual is. I need to re-read it b/c it's been several years, but I definitely found it worthwhile the time I read it.

I began "Atlas Shrugged" about a year ago and decided to put it down part way through because of some of the sexual overtones. I didn't feel comfortable, as an unmarried woman, getting into THAT much detail about some desires. Other people may not feel that way... fine with me, I just did not think it the best thing for me at that time. That said, I liked where it was going. I was taking some frustrating classes then that ignored basic rules of capitalism & economics and her book provided a nice contrasting viewpoint, or the part that I read did.

- Nicole


Maece aka Jennifer (Online)
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 10:37 am    

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

Yeah - she does take some things farther than necessary. When I read it I wasn't married, so perhaps I should have waited to read that - but I was determined to find out what this Ayn Rand woman was all about and thus plunged ahead. Though, she was making an interesting point with what she did include. Although she doesn't see anything particularly necessary about marriage, or even devotion to a lifetime partner, she does see sex as something that must be respected, as something inherently good, something that should not involve shame (and the best way to avoid involving shame, IMHO, is to get married, but anyway...). This is very unlike her "looters" who looked upon it as an animal act, and who used it primarily to purposely hurt others. I remember one time she was describing a young couple heading off into the night, and she said the girl looked inebriated and the guy had a look on his face as if he were a school child off to write some graffiti. She is not as private about sex as I think she should be, but she is completely against the way that it tends to be degraded.

I think that was a good point - although marriage IS necessary - and hopefully I've summarized it enough here that people can understand what's she's trying to say without getting into her somewhat graphic descriptions.

That said - I really did like the book, her emphasis on individuality is great! But over time, the thing that bugs me most about her book is not so much her atheism, but how she encourages the pursuit of money above all else. She presents it in such a way that it's hard to to feel any differently - but now that I've put some time between me and the book, I think that it's important to remember that her's is a work of fiction based on her ideals. The pristine ending for those leading such a lifestyle is completely made-up. This is true not only of those who absorb themselves in self-interest and the pursuit of money, but also those who devote themselves to the pursuit of physical pleasure. There are no unplanned pregnancies (in fact, children hardly enter the book at all - which is really saying something for 1100 pages!), no STD's, and each time she finds a better guy to move on to, the old lovers are sad to have lost her but always let her go (wimps!) without any hard feelings. To think that the real world actually works like that is delusional. 

Gwenhwyfar BychanLee 
Thu Dec 29, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was always bugged by the fact that Any Rand's followers considered her to be infallible. She was truly a cult leader in every rotten sense of the word. If you'd like a laugh, look at " The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" by Murray Rothbard. The writers on that site have different opinions about her, but there's some good articles warning about her cult-leader behavior. It's really sad that Ayn Rand has a monopoly on capitalism in the general public. If you try to convince anyone that the free market works, they'll accuse you of promoting her pornographic, atheistic novels. -GB


Prof. Higgins
Thu Dec 29, 2005 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have read it, it has been some years though. I found it very interesting. Some have mentioned the cult like following she has. It is typically termed the philosophy of Objectivism. I have not done enough study to comment on it however. I do suggest a good quick way to understand just some of it, is her article "The Virtue of Selfishness". Very enlightening. She strongly misrepresent's Aristotle in my opinion as do many of her followers.

GB mentioned Rothbard and the Lewrockwell site, you will find that many economists who agree with Rothbard like Rand. Not all, not even the majority, but many.


Gwenhwyfar BychanLee
Thu Dec 29, 2005

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

I think that it's funny that many people who are best described as "socialists" find her work so fascinating. This is one reason why I can't take her seriously. Laypeople read her novels for the smut and remain completely oblivious to her doctrine. Why do free-market economists believe that she's helping them promote liberty? –GB