Active Denial System

[Jim]

Hi.

Munk I read your reply more times than I can count on one hand. It's as if you Read a different version of Atlas Shrugged than I did.

Your reference to materialistic views thoughout your reply was Not the Subject of the book. I credit the book for my being able to Retire @ age 50, however I was always an "ever excel" person from birth :wub:

I wish you a Life as Rich as mine my Friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugge...phy_and_writing

The theme of Atlas Shrugged is the role of the mind in man's existence and, consequently, presentation of the morality of rational self-interest.

The main conflicts of the book surrounds the decision of the "individuals of the mind" to go on strike, refusing to contribute their inventions, art, business leadership, scientific research, or new ideas of any kind to the rest of the world. Society, they believe, hampers them by interfering with their work and underpays them by confiscating the profits and dignity they have rightfully earned. The peaceful cohesiveness of the world disintegrates, lacking those individuals whose productive work comes from mental effort. The strikers believe that they are crucial to a society that exploits them, denying them freedom or acknowledging their right to self-interest, and the gradual collapse of civilization triggered by their strike.

The novel's plot is split into three parts. The first two parts, and to some extent the last, follow Dagny Taggart, a no-nonsense railroad executive, and her attempt to keep the company alive despite repeated encroachments by a society moving toward collectivism, altruism, and statism. Throughout the novel people repeat a platitude Dagny greatly resents: "Who is John Galt?" It is a reflection of their helplessness, as the saying means "Don't ask important questions, because we don't have answers."

Rand's heroes must continually fight against the "looters" and "moochers" of the society surrounding them.

The looters are those who confiscate others' earnings "at the point of a gun" (figuratively speaking) —often because they are government officials, and thus their demands are backed by the threat of force.

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:)