03-21-2008, 03:36 PM
Quote:Hi,
I'm Sorry Munkay that it did not work for you. I read it 40 years ago [I was your age] when times were kinder, it changed my life for the better.
Do me a favor read it again and see if it works better, you have Nothing to loss & ALL to Gain, IMHO...did you read any of Rands other novels ?
During my undergrad there was plenty of arguing about Ayn Rand. I found Rand to be a merger of ancient Greek ideals and modern materialism. As a double major in ancient Greek and Philosophy, I agreed with the ideas Rand learned from the Greeks, but found the rest unconvincing.
With that said, Rand isn't all bad. But I think of her good points, others said it before her, and put it better. Homer's Achilles declares he was put on the earth to 'ever excel' and to be 'the best amongst all other men'. As a personal ethic, always pushing to be the best you can be is a great goal. Its a theme I saw in Rand, and agree with from a personal standpoint.
But my problems with Rand start when it comes to the direction to take that drive and passion. Its in these materialistic views that Rand loses my audience. In one of her character's speeches (it may be the famous John Galt speech?), they argue that money is inherently good because it is the end result of the positive hard work of man.
Now, I'm not arguing about the value of money. Good or bad, the value isn't whats important here. What matters to me is Rand believes we should act virtuously for the sake of something else. And in Rand, this something else is often a material object (money or otherwise).
The converse view is the Aristotelean one. Aristotle also believes we should 'ever excel' and thus maximize our potential. But for Aristotle the act itself is where the virtue lies, not in the material results. Being virtuous is about the act of striving itself, not for the sake of attaining money and objects.
And that is the problem I've always had with Rand. There's nothing wrong with attaining objects as a result of your hard work and labor, but they shouldn't be the reason or the goal from the start.
With that said, I'm we live in a society where 'do work for the sake of x' is an everyday assumption. Most of us work a 9-5 for the sake of providing dinner, a vacation, or a bigger house. That's how society works, and there's nothing wrong with that.
But when it comes to where you find the value in life, what you set as your personal ethic, the goal in life isn't about flashy cars and a vacation house in Fiji. We can all agree the value is in being a good person, a mentor, a father to look up to, a pillar in the community.
And I'm not saying you can't believe in Rand's ethic and still attain true virtues of life. Of course you can. But for me personally, I find it a bunch of hogwash, and not a personal ethic for my own life.
Cheers,
Munk
PS. Just to clarify, this post isn't an attack against believing in Rand. I'm still responding to the headline "Will "Atlas Shrugged" Change your Life Forever?", and trying to explain how Rand just didn't cut the mustard for me. Your mileage may vary, and if Rand betters your life then more power to you:)