Who is John Galt?

[SubtleSilence97]

A few weeks ago, I found myself browsing the internet in search of a book to read. My search finally ended (20 google searches later) when I arrived at a website that contained a list comprised of 'the greatest works of literature of all time.' At first I merely scanned through it, to see if anything caught my eye, but I saw only the usual. But then, I looked through it more thoroughly and immediately saw a title that caught my eye. 'Atlas Shrugged' was the name of the book, and it was written by Ayn Rand. So, out of pure curiosity I clicked on the title in hopes of unearthing more information concerning the topic of the book.

What I read was as follows: What Moves the world? Who is John Galt? Is he a destroyer or a liberator? Why does he have to fight his battle not against his enemies but against those who need him most? Why does he fight his hardest battle against a woman he loves? ... You will discover why a productive genius becomes a worthless playboy. Why a great steel industrialist is working for his own destruction... etc.

At once, I felt intrigued. So, thinking no more of the matter, I went out to our local Hastings and bought the book for $14.95. It would be a couple of days before I finally sat down to read the book, but when I did, my excitement was at it's pinnacle. So I sat down on my front porch and commenced reading the book. And 30 pages in, I was bored to death. For all the hype that I had read about this book, none of it had been transmitted to me in any of the 30 pages. Now, I don't know if the fact that I'm 14 has anything to do with it, maybe I'm not mature enough to fully comprehend the message of the book, I don't know. But what I do know is that the book bored me immensely, and I could not for the life of me find the greatness that so many others before me had. Has anyone else had this problem? Or is it just that I am an illiterate with insufficient intellect to understand the book?

[OrphanPip]

Don't worry about it Subtle, the book is trash, one part boring polemics and one part trite bodice ripper.
Ayn Rand pops up on these "best of" lists because she has a devoted fanatical following driven by their sympathy for her politics.

[SubtleSilence97]

Whew, thanks. I had begun to worry. Glad to know that somebody else out there shares my perspective.

[Summer M]

You read 30 pages of a book that is approximately 1,000 pages long, depending on edition, so you can't have an opinion on it. Read it through first, then make up your mind. OrphanPip is entitled to his opinion because he read the book through, or so I assume.

[cyberbob]

I made it like 400 pages through so I'm entitled to an opinion. Stop reading it. It only gets more boring as it goes on.

The problem with Atlas Shrugged is that it's preachy and repetitive and the characters are flat. You're 14, though, so I assume you'll find plenty of hyped-up books boring at your age and each of those books will have its own faults.

I think if you're reading something and hating it and wanting to put it down then you should just put it down. If you read it half-heartedly, just to get through it, I think you'll miss whatever's good about that book. If you feel curious about it later then you can give it another chance. I've done that with a bunch of books. I'll try to read them but am not able to so I give up, then months or years or whatever later I'll try again and I'll love it. Or not, but at least I tried.

EDIT: and if you're not gonna finish reading it maybe you should get a refund because 15 dollars is a lot for a book IMO. Next time maybe you should try checking the book out of the library first, or just stand in the bookstore and read as much as you can before the owners accuse you of freeloading.

[wormofthebooks]

The book is very good. Although not everyone agrees with the political standpoints, the basic message is that too much government will ruin a society that is founded on Capitalism. As someone who became a serious reader at a young age, I would never accuse you of being too immature to understand the novel. I read it for the first time with I was about 19 or 20. I loved it and read it again a few years later. I enjoyed the mystery and romantic aspects of it.

Not every great novel is for everyone to enjoy. Charles Dickens is listed in every "must-read" list but personally I find his books boring and I have to muscle my way through them. Perhaps Atlas Shrugged is not for you, but try reading it again in a few years. Maybe you'll see something differently then.

[Shevek]

I would just read Galt's speech instead of wasting your time on the 1 000 page repetitive tome. I don't say this merely to start a tedious Ayn Rand debate; generally, her intention with Atlas Shrugged and all her works was to articulate her philosophy. Reading the speech should be sufficient to understand her philosophy's main tenets.

[wormofthebooks]

I heard from philosophy students that her philosophy is never really taken seriously in the classroom. Have you ever read Ayn Rand's biography? She was definitely an intelligent and interesting person... She was very confidant and self-assured. She was the type of woman who would (and did) sit her husband down and tell him straight up that she was having an affair and she was going to continue it on scheduled days whether he liked it or not. Her biography is actually more interesting than any of her novels.

[Shevek]

Since the post-2008 surge in popularity of American libertarianism she has received some attention in academia, but her ideas do not have nearly as much clout as Robert Nozick (who in my mind oversimplified Locke, but my point is that at least he engaged with the tradition, unlike Rand).

I haven't read an authoritative biography, although I have read passages out of Leonard Peikoff's works (her "intellectual heir") in which he praises her supposed originality, her brilliance, etc. I've read anecdotes about her personal life that don't exude confidence to me. I can't pretend to know whether she had a mental illness as many suggest, but everything she says about her work and life is dreadfully narcissistic. I think it was in a print interview that she proclaimed there are only "three important As" in the Western canon -- Aristotle, Aquinas and Ayn Rand.

[Summer M]

I think it's unfortunate that on a literature forum some members are trying to discourage others from reading a book. For better or for worse, Atlas Shrugged is one of the most influential books of all time and it deserves a read for that reason alone.

[Helga]

I think it's unfortunate that on a literature forum some members are trying to discourage others from reading a book. For better or for worse, Atlas Shrugged is one of the most influential books of all time and it deserves a read for that reason alone.

I think it's great that teenagers want to read but I won't recommend a book I don't like, literature forum or not.

[Heteronym]

I think it's unfortunate that on a literature forum some members are trying to discourage others from reading a book. For better or for worse, Atlas Shrugged is one of the most influential books of all time and it deserves a read for that reason alone.

Influential to whom? Other writers? Certainly not. Readers? Perhaps American ones, where she's most popular. Wall Street upstarts? Definitely!

[Emil Miller]

Influential to whom? Other writers? Certainly not. Readers? Perhaps American ones, where she's most popular. Wall Street upstarts? Definitely!

According to this extract, if translation is anything to go by she seems to have been, and still is, quite influential.

Many translations have been published in the last 50 years. Translations currently in print include Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Marathi, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swedish and Turkish.

[Heteronym]

I didn't say she wasn't widely translated. But a writer can be widely translated and not mean anything to the people of these countries. Go ask the Portuguese or the Italian if they even know her or give a hoot about her ideas, I think a few will probably have heard of her, fewer will care.

[Summer M]

Rand's books have been translated to many languages, read and discussed by many people, and have been exerting wide influence for decades. Whether or not they're any good, and whether or not her philosophy is of any value, are different questions altogether. Let us separate the question of value from the question of influence.

[Emil Miller]

I didn't say she wasn't widely translated. But a writer can be widely translated and not mean anything to the people of these countries. Go ask the Portuguese or the Italian if they even know her or give a hoot about her ideas, I think a few will probably have heard of her, fewer will care.

You could say that about the millions of people of any nationality who haven't heard of her, but they probably aren't the kind of people who would be likely to read seriously anyway. Very few people, proportionately, have read Das Kapital but nobody would doubt its influence.

[Scheherazade]

You could say that about the millions of people of any nationality who haven't heard of her, but they probably aren't the kind of people who would be likely to read seriously anyway. A rather harsh and dismissive comment, I'd say.

I hadn't heard of Rand until I joined this Forum along with many authors considered "influential" in Europe or the USA. I do not think that was because I lacked seriousness where my reading was concerned but simply because I was exposed to and was very busy reading other authors and books, which were deemed "influential" in my own culture.

I agree with Heteronym to a certain degree that culture and social background shape our learning experiences. As much as I wanted to, I could not see the point of On The Road or Catcher in the Rye, for example, even though they are considered important books in shaping a certain era in American Literature.

[Emil Miller]

A rather harsh and dismissive comment, I'd say.

I hadn't heard of Rand until I joined this Forum along with many authors considered "influential" in Europe or the USA. I do not think that was because I lacked seriousness where my reading was concerned but simply because I was exposed to and was very busy reading other authors and books, which were deemed "influential" in my own culture.

I agree with Heteronym to a certain degree that culture and social background shape our learning experiences. As much as I wanted to, I could not see the point of On The Road or Catcher in the Rye, for example, even though they are considered important books in shaping a certain era in American Literature.

Yes this is why I say: 'probably' aren't the kind of people who would be likely to read seriously anyway. There is usually an exception to the rule and this is underlined by the fact that you came to know of Rand through a literary forum which proportionately has relatively few members compared to the overall readership of the countries from whence its members originate.
I too don't see the point of and why On The Road or Catcher in the Rye are supposed to be influential but was aware of them long before the forum came into existence.

[Heteronym]

You could say that about the millions of people of any nationality who haven't heard of her, but they probably aren't the kind of people who would be likely to read seriously anyway. Very few people, proportionately, have read Das Kapital but nobody would doubt its influence.

Well, the thing is, at least up to 1992, Karl Marx was amongst the top ten most cited people in academic writings. The other nine? Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero. So even serious academics don't seem to take her that serious at all. I'm sure most people haven't read it, but if you ask most people whether they've heard of Karl Marx's Das Kapital, anywhere in the world they'll say, yes. Ayn Rand? The further you move from the Anglo-American world, the likelier her name and work will be obscure.

[WyattGwyon]

Recently, a friend of mine living in Seattle (we had both read Atlas Shrugged as teens—and yes I am the kind of person who reads serious literature), mentioned in passing that in a local bookstore he saw Atlas Shrugged shelved in the science fiction section. I assumed this was an intentional slight perpetrated by a manager with a sense of humor. The more I thought about it, however, the more I saw the logic behind the decision, for the novel's weak and strong points (as well as that on which the plot turns) are precisely what one might expect from that kind of genre fiction:

Strong points: There is an intriguing conception behind it: the notion that the destruction of the world could be a profoundly moral act carried out by a novel's heroes. The plotting and pacing of the plot is actually pretty ingenious—as science fiction, though glacially slow if you are a fan of the genre.

Weaknesses: The "good" characters are cardboard mouthpieces for the author's philosophy and they all spout lengthy, more or less interchangeable speeches. One is constantly pummeled with puerile symbolism and hackneyed imagery. The author seems to have had a penchant for rape fantasies and a comical, Darwinian view of romantic relationships. The alpha male de jour always gets the girl, as she trades up like four times to finally land the ultimate specimen of absolute philosophical purity. Aaaargh!

So, for young readers: Sure go ahead. You will be exposed to big ideas and from it you will learn a lot that is relevant to the world in which we live, since this book is the power behind the libertarian movement. It may do you good to think about issues the book raises. But it is not very good literature. Reading it expecting something on the level of middling Asimov, you might not be too disappointed. I can't help thinking, however, that there are hundreds of better novels one might read . . .

[Shevek]

I think it's unfortunate that on a literature forum some members are trying to discourage others from reading a book. For better or for worse, Atlas Shrugged is one of the most influential books of all time and it deserves a read for that reason alone.

Regardless of its debatable influence, the OP expressed boredom with the book. I don't advocate dropping a book the second it gets boring, but Atlas Shrugged really doesn't get any better as it progresses. The whole thing is pretty tedious unless one can stomach the fact that it's a long-winded propaganda piece.

[stlukesguild]

I quite like this article on Rand:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-trouble-with-ayn-rand

[Emil Miller]

So even serious academics don't seem to take her that serious at all. I'm sure most people haven't read it, but if you ask most people whether they've heard of Karl Marx's Das Kapital, anywhere in the world they'll say, yes. Ayn Rand? The further you move from the Anglo-American world, the likelier her name and work will be obscure.

That may be because some serious academics have a penchant for taking themselves too seriously. In any case, how representative are they compared to those who might have been influenced by Rand?
It is unlikely that her name is restricted to locality in the age of the Internet. A former member of this forum who lives in the Philippines told me that Atlas Shrugged had been a major influence in her life.




I quite like this article on Rand:

' There was, however, the same frantic look of terrible recognition in my eyes, the same pitch of hopeless horror in my voice, the same sense of doom. I had just discovered that some malevolent wretch had done it at last: had made a film of Atlas Shrugged.'

:lol:

'All right, all right—perhaps I’m being just a little spiteful. I may even be overreacting.'

No kidding ?

[Summer M]

Regardless of its debatable influence, the OP expressed boredom with the book.

After reading 3% of it.


I don't advocate dropping a book the second it gets boring, but Atlas Shrugged really doesn't get any better as it progresses. The whole thing is pretty tedious unless one can stomach the fact that it's a long-winded propaganda piece.

There is value in reading boring literature, because an intellectual life requires one to read many boring writings. Besides, it is impossible to read only interesting things because one can't tell what's interesting until one reads a work through. So, one's reading "career" will invariably involve reading many boring works. That's OK.

EDIT:

... if you ask most people whether they've heard of Karl Marx's Das Kapital, anywhere in the world they'll say, yes

Questions of this form usually get a "yes". Put the question is the following form: "Please name the major work by Karl Marx, the one that is 3,000 pages long", and not five percent will know the answer.

[Dark Muse]

I absolutely loved the book. I get that a lot of people do not agree with Rand's philosophy, but I am honestly not sure why people are so hard on her writing. A part of me thinks their opinions of her philosophy affect the way in which they judge her books as a whole.

Personally I think she creates some very intriguing characters and I do generally enjoy her writing. The first book I read of hers was The Fountainhead, and at that time I really knew nothing about her philosophical view points or the controversy about her. I just read the back of the book, and thought it sounded interesting. And I found the book to be completely fascinating. Granted it is true that through reading her I did become something of a Rand fan, and I do agree with some of the ideas she proposes. But I enjoyed the book for its own sake as well.

I think you should give it a chance.

[Whifflingpin]

"Please name the major work by Karl Marx, the one that is 3,000 pages long", and not five percent will know the answer.
Is it "The Fat Lady Sings" ?

[Emil Miller]

I absolutely loved the book. I get that a lot of people do not agree with Rand's philosophy, but I am honestly not sure why people are so hard on her writing. A part of me thinks their opinions of her philosophy affect the way in which they judge her books as a whole.

Personally I think she creates some very intriguing characters and I do generally enjoy her writing. The first book I read of hers was The Fountainhead, and at that time I really knew nothing about her philosophical view points or the controversy about her. I just read the back of the book, and thought it sounded interesting. And I found the book to be completely fascinating. Granted it is true that through reading her I did become something of a Rand fan, and I do agree with some of the ideas she proposes. But I enjoyed the book for its own sake as well.

I think you should give it a chance.

I gave up on Rand's We the Living about one fifth into the book as it went over ground that I was very familiar with from other books covering the period and didn't seem to be adding anything to the scenario. I don't find her philosophy of 'objectivism' a cause for rolling on the ground in self-abnegation but I could never agree with the idea that The Virtue of Selfishness is an acceptable title or theme for a book. Perhaps I should try to read it sometime but I doubt if I could ever accept such a denial of the basic human instinct of charity.
However, blanket condemnation is something that both Rand and her critics have in common and, amusingly enough, in judging her work it's objectivity that's required. I'm sure she would have agreed.

[cyberbob]

I absolutely loved the book. I get that a lot of people do not agree with Rand's philosophy, but I am honestly not sure why people are so hard on her writing. A part of me thinks their opinions of her philosophy affect the way in which they judge her books as a whole.

Personally I think she creates some very intriguing characters and I do generally enjoy her writing. The first book I read of hers was The Fountainhead, and at that time I really knew nothing about her philosophical view points or the controversy about her. I just read the back of the book, and thought it sounded interesting. And I found the book to be completely fascinating. Granted it is true that through reading her I did become something of a Rand fan, and I do agree with some of the ideas she proposes. But I enjoyed the book for its own sake as well.

I think you should give it a chance.

I like her philosophy and I enjoyed reading her book of essays "philosophy-who needs it?" but as works of art, her stories just aren't that good.

I think part of the problem for me was that I had already read The Fountainhead, and after reading that 1000 page book, I didn't feel like reading another 1000 page book that was essentially the exact same story.

I think she's very smart and I admire some things about her, and I agree with you that a lot of the hate that she gets comes from people who A.) have never read her books. or B.) Won't give her a chance because they're too committed to their left-wing politics.

And the thing is that people misconstrue her philosophy a lot of the time. Her philosophy isn't out to defend just business moguls. I mean, a lot of the antagonists in her stories ARE businessmen. Her philosophy doesn't espouse greed or social darwinism, it espouses the power of the individual. That applies to artists and thinkers as much as businessmen.

People also misinterpret what she means when she says that selfishness is a virtue. She doesn't mean selfishness in the way that we usually associate it. As in being cruel or willing to do whatever to get what you want. In fact, the antagonists in her story are selfish in this sense and mostly they all end up miserable. In that sense, she would be just as much against the corruption in wall street as the most ardent liberal.

With all of that being said, I still can hardly stomach reading her books. It's just not my idea of what art should be. I don't have a problem with intellectual/political/didactic art per se, but at least do it ARTFULLY.

[Summer M]

I could never agree with the idea that The Virtue of Selfishness is an acceptable title or theme for a book. Perhaps I should try to read it sometime but I doubt if I could ever accept such a denial of the basic human instinct of charity.

These ideas have not originated with Rand. Why isn't Twain reviled for espousing some of the same views in What is Man?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the basic human instinct of charity, but Richard Dawkins has probably done more to destroy that idea on scientific grounds than Twain or Rand have done to destroy it on philosophical or theoretical grounds.

[Dark Muse]

With all of that being said, I still can hardly stomach reading her books. It's just not my idea of what art should be. I don't have a problem with intellectual/political/didactic art per se, but at least do it ARTFULLY.

I find what you say quite interesting, considering that I do find her books to be genuinely captivating to read. Perhaps it is just because I do like philosophical novels as a whole. Or maybe it is just that because I feel on a personal level I can relate so well to a lot of what she says that makes the reading of it more interesting for me.

[cyberbob]

This is my favorite quote from Atlas Shrugged:

"I don't like people who speak or think in terms of gaining anybody's confidence. If one's actions are honest, one does not need the predated confidence of others, only their rational perception. The person who craves a moral blank check of that kind, has dishonest intentions,whether he admits it to himself or not."

Her books are filled with great quotes like this and that's one of the things that I do like about them.

[Dark Muse]

This is my favorite quote from Atlas Shrugged:

"I don't like people who speak or think in terms of gaining anybody's confidence. If one's actions are honest, one does not need the predated confidence of others, only their rational perception. The person who craves a moral blank check of that kind, has dishonest intentions,whether he admits it to himself or not."

Her books are filled with great quotes like this and that's one of the things that I do like about them.

Yes she does have some great quotes. I have a collection of some of my favorites.

[Emil Miller]

These ideas have not originated with Rand. Why isn't Twain reviled for espousing some of the same views in What is Man?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the basic human instinct of charity, but Richard Dawkins has probably done more to destroy that idea on scientific grounds than Twain or Rand have done to destroy it on philosophical or theoretical grounds.

The reason why Twain wasn't equally reviled was because most of his writing wasn't polemical whereas all of Rand's was. I don't think Twain. Rand or Dawkins have destroyed the idea of the basic instinct of human charity or the giving of one's time or money to causes beyond one's own selfish advantage. Dawkins stands in contradiction to his writings on this issue by his support for the anti Vietnam war movement and the Dawkins prize for, "outstanding research into ecology and behaviour of animals whose welfare and survival may be endangered by human activities."
Moreover, his much publicised atheism shows a similar lack of conviction when one considers the campaign to promote atheism among the UK population.

The campaign, started in January 2009, features adverts across the UK with the slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." Dawkins said that "this campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think—and thinking is anathema to religion."

Note the word 'probably'.

[OrphanPip]

Dawkins' use of selfishness in his description of the "Selfish-Gene" is not really analogous to selfishness in the sense that most of us use the term, or in the way Rand uses it. It's a gross misreading of Dawkins to suggest that he thinks human beings are not naturally charitable (all that we do is natural since we are natural beings). Dawkins would simply suggest that our charitability arises by the selective benefit such behaviour provides for the propagation of "charity genes", such as through kin selection or reciprocity. It is not the individual who is selfish from this perspective. Also, Dawkins would be quick to point out that these are just observations of how natural selection operates, how things like charity come about in the first place, but are not explanations of why charity continues to exist or an argument for or against charity.

[cyberbob]

The reason why Twain wasn't equally reviled was because most of his writing wasn't polemical whereas all of Rand's was. I don't think Twain. Rand or Dawkins have destroyed the idea of the basic instinct of human charity or the giving of one's time or money to causes beyond one's own selfish advantage. Dawkins stands in contradiction to his writings on this issue by his support for the anti Vietnam war movement and the Dawkins prize for, "outstanding research into ecology and behaviour of animals whose welfare and survival may be endangered by human activities."
Moreover, his much publicised atheism shows a similar lack of conviction when one considers the campaign to promote atheism among the UK population.

The campaign, started in January 2009, features adverts across the UK with the slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." Dawkins said that "this campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think—and thinking is anathema to religion."

Note the word 'probably'.

Dawkins does not stand in contradiction to his own writings. And it's not so much his writings that go against "the instinct of human charity" as it is the modern understanding of biology.

The "selfish gene" is misinterpreted a lot, kind of like how Rand's "rational selfishness" is misinterpreted. Except the misunderstanding of the selfish gene is much worse because selfish genes are a scientific FACT.

Dawkins' is not against charity in any way. He's a very very liberal scientist. The selfish gene does NOT state that charity is not valid, or that every person that participates in charity has selfish ulterior motives.

The ONLY thing that Dawkins' theory says about charity is that it evolved in humans because it was a behavior that was beneficial to certain genes. If it were detrimental to an organism then it would've died off and the gene for charity would've become extinct.

Dawkins uses the word "selfish" to describe the gene itself, not human behavior. The gene is selfish because the organism only serves as a vehicle for the gene. Just because something is good for the organism does not mean it's good for the gene and vice versa.

That is why, for example, some species of spider, when they lay their eggs and they hatch, the hatchlings eat the mother alive. This kind of animal behavior couldn't possibly be beneficial to the individual spider (particularly the mother) because it leads to her death. BUT it is beneficial to the genes, because the baby spiders, which carry the genes of the mother, will be nourished when they eat her.

Contrary to some people's opinion, Dawkins is not and doesn't pretend to be a philosopher. Any statements he makes about human behavior are based on theoretical models of natural selection.

What's funny is that you call charity an "instinct". Well, instincts come from our genes and genes can only survive if they are "selfish" (in the neo-darwinian sense).

And the fact that the slogan says "probably" means absolutely nothing. Dawkins has written extensively on the difference between temporary and permanent agnosticism. Obviously we can't prove through science that there is no God (at least not at the present time) and as a scientist, Dawkins can't make the statement "I know for a fact that there is no God".

It's saying probably in the same sense that one says "there probably is no such thing as Bigfoot". In other words, it's not possible to disprove it, but practically speaking we can assume there's no such thing. I don't think that shows a lack of conviction, I think that shows a lack of dogmatic faith.

[Summer M]

Dawkins would simply suggest that our charitability arises by the selective benefit such behaviour provides for the propagation of "charity genes", such as through kin selection or reciprocity. It is not the individual who is selfish from this perspective.

Yes, that's what I meant. Dawkins would argue that our charity is based in genetic selfishness, that we are charitable because we (or our genes) get something out of it. What Dawkins and his followers have destroyed is the notion of "pure" charity, that is charity that results in a net loss to the replicative fitness of the genes of those who confer it.

Miller,

I wasn't comparing Rand to Twain. I was merely pointing to the fact that Twain believed many of the things that Rand believed, and that he was a misanthrope to boot, and yet he never receives a fraction of the scorn that Rand received for the same ideas.

Anyway, I revert to the main point of this thread: everybody should read Atlas Shrugged because it's an important, influential book. Read it, then knock it. No shortcuts.

[Emil Miller]

Miller,

Anyway, I revert to the main point of this thread: everybody should read Atlas Shrugged because it's an important, influential book. Read it, then knock it. No shortcuts.

You seem to have misconstrued my observations in this thread. If you read what I have written previously you will see that I actually support the idea of Rand's influence and ask for some objectivity when discussing her writing rather than condemning it out of hand. I even give an example of how her influence has reached far beyond the Western hemisphere.





Dawkins does not stand in contradiction to his own writings. And it's not so much his writings that go against "the instinct of human charity" as it is the modern understanding of biology.

The "selfish gene" is misinterpreted a lot, kind of like how Rand's "rational selfishness" is misinterpreted. Except the misunderstanding of the selfish gene is much worse because selfish genes are a scientific FACT.

Dawkins' is not against charity in any way. He's a very very liberal scientist. The selfish gene does NOT state that charity is not valid, or that every person that participates in charity has selfish ulterior motives.

The ONLY thing that Dawkins' theory says about charity is that it evolved in humans because it was a behavior that was beneficial to certain genes. If it were detrimental to an organism then it would've died off and the gene for charity would've become extinct.

Dawkins uses the word "selfish" to describe the gene itself, not human behavior. The gene is selfish because the organism only serves as a vehicle for the gene. Just because something is good for the organism does not mean it's good for the gene and vice versa.

That is why, for example, some species of spider, when they lay their eggs and they hatch, the hatchlings eat the mother alive. This kind of animal behavior couldn't possibly be beneficial to the individual spider (particularly the mother) because it leads to her death. BUT it is beneficial to the genes, because the baby spiders, which carry the genes of the mother, will be nourished when they eat her.

Contrary to some people's opinion, Dawkins is not and doesn't pretend to be a philosopher. Any statements he makes about human behavior are based on theoretical models of natural selection.

What's funny is that you call charity an "instinct". Well, instincts come from our genes and genes can only survive if they are "selfish" (in the neo-darwinian sense).

And the fact that the slogan says "probably" means absolutely nothing. Dawkins has written extensively on the difference between temporary and permanent agnosticism. Obviously we can't prove through science that there is no God (at least not at the present time) and as a scientist, Dawkins can't make the statement "I know for a fact that there is no God".

It's saying probably in the same sense that one says "there probably is no such thing as Bigfoot". In other words, it's not possible to disprove it, but practically speaking we can assume there's no such thing. I don't think that shows a lack of conviction, I think that shows a lack of dogmatic faith.

Denying the existence of something whilst there is no possibility of proving it sounds rather like dogmatic faith to me; that's why I'm agnostic.

With regard to Dawkins selfish gene theory, I would prefer to think along the lines of this article from Scientific American

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/2012/01/28/on-selfish-genes-and-human-behaviour/

[Summer M]

Miller,

In your quote of me, you cut out the paragraph that was addressed to you and attached the general comment at the end to your name, thus distorting my post altogether. Now that wasn't nice, was it?

[Emil Miller]

Miller,

In your quote of me, you cut out the paragraph that was addressed to you and attached the general comment at the end to your name, thus distorting my post altogether. Now that wasn't nice, was it?

I had already addressed the reason why Twain and Rand were treated differently so it was pointless reiterating it. Then you wrote : Anyway, I revert to the main point of this thread: everybody should read Atlas Shrugged because it's an important, influential book. Read it, then knock it. No shortcuts.
I replied that I was broadly in agreement with Rand's influence. If it's the question of the selfish gene theory that's bothering you, then read the extract from Scientific American.

[Summer M]

No, what's bothering me is that you edited my comment without leaving an ellipsis, appropriated a paragraph that was clearly not addressed to you, and then used that artificially-contrived, mutilated comment to argue that I wasn't reading carefully. My issue is with your manners, not with your views on Rand or on selfish genes.

[SubtleSilence97]

Well, I have since read 200 pages and am sad to report that I will continue with the book no longer. I hear The Fountainhead is more apt for people looking for a book with an exciting plot rather than information on politics, perhaps I'll give that a go.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I really need to read Rand. Just wish her books weren't so damn long.

[Dark Muse]

I really need to read Rand. Just wish her books weren't so damn long.

We the Living and Anthem are a couple of shorter works of hers, though I have not yet read these so I cannot personally speak for them.

[Emil Miller]

No, what's bothering me is that you edited my comment without leaving an ellipsis, appropriated a paragraph that was clearly not addressed to you, and then used that artificially-contrived, mutilated comment to argue that I wasn't reading carefully. My issue is with your manners, not with your views on Rand or on selfish genes.

This will remain unanswered in order to prevent this thread from being closed.

[Summer M]

I doubt they ever closed a thread because someone issued an apology.

[stlukesguild]

:rofl::smilielol5::cheers2::hand::cheers2: :smilielol5:

[cyberbob]

Denying the existence of something whilst there is no possibility of proving it sounds rather like dogmatic faith to me; that's why I'm agnostic.

With regard to Dawkins selfish gene theory, I would prefer to think along the lines of this article from Scientific American

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/2012/01/28/on-selfish-genes-and-human-behaviour/

My point was, and Dawkin's point is, that as a scientist you can never really prove the non-existence of anything.

We can't scientifically prove the non-existence of flying spaghetti monsters, teapots in space, invisible unicorns, Santa Claus, or any of the other tropes atheists use in their arguments.

Even evolution cannot technically be proven to be a scientific fact even though it is for all intents and purposes a fact.

And like Dawkins says, we are all atheists in some sense. We're all atheists toward Greek and Norse gods. I don't think being a Zeus agnostic would be a more intellectually respectable position to hold than being a Zeus atheist. Some of us just extend that toward the modern religions.

Anyway, this is not the religion section so that's the last I'll say of that.

[hellsapoppin]

Don't worry about it Subtle, the book is trash, one part boring polemics and one part trite bodice ripper.
Ayn Rand pops up on these "best of" lists because she has a devoted fanatical following driven by their sympathy for her politics.



Touché!

Ayn Rand called Jesus Christ the biggest fraud in history and said that the best thing about Christmas was its commercialization. She hated welfare but secretly took welfare under her married name in order to hide that fact. Her hypocrisy is to typical of delusionals who subscribe to those of that social bent.

[gurthbruins]

Ayn Rand is anti-altruistic in an age which has gone to the opposite extreme. Or pretends to have, but is really just more hypocritical. So in honesty she surpasses her critics.

She is a hero-worshipper with leanings towards meritocracy, and resents the exploitation of genii by mediocre people.

Well, I'd say she's entitled to her opinions, however misguided.

The real question for me is: is she boring? No; the opposite: pretty unputdownable. I even managed to enjoy re-reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged a second time, about 40 years after the first.

I don't demand a book must be good art, but I do demand it must not be boring. If it doesn't appeal as art, it may still appeal as intellectually stimulating. Which I think she is, although I don't think her philosophy is going to get the world anywhere. The world is much more subtle than she dreams of.

[Chris 73]

After reading 3% of it.



There is value in reading boring literature, because an intellectual life requires one to read many boring writings. Besides, it is impossible to read only interesting things because one can't tell what's interesting until one reads a work through. So, one's reading "career" will invariably involve reading many boring works. That's OK.

EDIT:




That really is damning with faint praise.:biggrin5:

[Kafka's Crow]

Read on Rand in Tobias Smith's Old School, difficult, if not totally impossible, to give her any respect after reading that.

[Raven Falcon.]

Read on Rand in Tobias Smith's Old School, difficult, if not totally impossible, to give her any respect after reading that.

Are you insinuating that any work of literature that seems atheistic deserves no respect whatsoever?