A great movie is in the making - after a painstaking 15 years - the best selling book 'Atlas Shrugged' is being made into a movie. The leading actress playing Dagny Taggart will be Angelina Jollie - which is cool. Based on the article I have read by Robert James Bidinotto (see http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/071013-bidinotto-atlas-shrugged-movie.php), the producer and script writer will do justice to the movie.
I suspect the reason why this movie took so long to make was the length of the book and its intellectual themes. There may also have been the odd film executive against the project, but Ayn Rand really did pack alot of plots into this movie, though I suspect the producer and script writers will do a great job drawing out the essence of the movie. Based on the current schedule, the movie is likely to be released in the USA in 2009.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Atlas Shrugged sale boosted by Alan Greenspan and Amazon exposure
There was a well written article on Forbes this week - paying a a tribute to Ayn Rand 25 years after her death and 50 years after her best selling book 'Atlas Shrugged' was published. And you wonder why I flog this book - see http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2007/09/27/unsolicited-advice-aynrand-oped_meb_0928unsolicited.html. This book is more popular than ever and it sells better than those current best sellers, 50 years later. Its never been out of print. It sells like the Bible, but thats about where the similarity ends. Apart from the link to Alan Greenspan I think Ayn Rand is attracting sales because of Amazon book reviews - people either love her or hate her.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
A Qualified Tribute to Ayn Rand
I was first introduced to Ayn Rand at the age of 19 by my boss at Pizza Hut. I was interested in politics and economics since I was raised in a house that talked about such things. Anyway my boss suggested that she was an 'absolute genius'. Well I dont much believe in genius today....I just reflect on how people's values are developed and the extent to which a person's philosophy of life leads them to develop their minds or lets them stagnate.
It would be fair to say that when I was introduced to Ayn Rand I was a quiet, shy, very ambitious and curious guy, with a strong desire to learn and to apply what I had learned to the real world. I had only just commenced my university education, but I has read alot of economics, politics and science already. The first book my manager gave me was Ayn Rand's 'Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal'. Ok....my manager had my attention. Ayn Rand was brilliant! I never knew people could think with such clarity. Her thinking was so systematic and she defined her terms, and they retained a solid 'grounding' in the facts of reality.
University was a testing ground for me. I was challenging everyone I met, even friends, with the new ideas I was being exposed to. But far from learning from others, I was perceived as a threat and put down. I came to realise that people hated her. I think in this climate it was easy for readers and supporters of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism to feel alienated and self-righteous. It made me more keen to change the world, to learn more. The problem was I lacked the people skills to change minds. A close friend on mine said 'Andrew - people have to like you before they will listen to you'. The difference was most people hated me once I opened my mouth, perceiving me as a threat, whereas this girl shared my sense of curiosity. She is without a doubt the most courageous girl I have ever met. She didn't let others affect her the ways others did. She filtered ideas before she accepted or rejecting them.
Over time I came to appreciate the knowledge and empowerment that I had gained from Ayn Rand and her associates Leonard Peikoff and (former) Nathaniel Branden. I had truly developed as a thinker, and I never found any other philosopher who shared the objectivity, clarity or insights of Ayn Rand. In fact I received 'other philosophy' as just being irrelevant, detached, unstructured, vague and unreadable. I think alot of people reading it for the first time must think it profound because it isnt intelligible...'above them' in some respect.
So I reflect on the philosophy and feel pride for the way it has advanced my thinking. But in another sense the philosophy was damaging to me. I had become alienated and impractical. Snubbed by people as provocative, disloyal, intimidating, 'not fun', negative; I was destined to fail as long as I stayed this way, unless I detached myself from society. I did the later. I was either feeling comfortable being around others or conflicted dealing with work colleagues, but otherwise I was just different. I was intense, direct, inquisitive, problem-solving, but for others I was judgemental, intrusive and cold. They really just didnt get me. I understood them, but at the end of the day, true to my (differing) ethics, I viewed values as objective, and they didn't. They didnt mind if their values were grounded in facts. They didnt think an 'IS' implied a 'OUGHT', they saw no link.
In more recent years I have come to question aspects of the Ayn Rand philosophy. From a psychological perspective it bothered me that I was not achieving the success that I had expected for myself. In defence of Rand I had my own issues, and a 'new philosophy' is always going to be undermined by opponents who hold the political power. But aspects bothered me. I didnt like the fact that it empathy has given no standing. The psychology side of Objectivism seemed under-developed. And contrary to what Ayn Rand said, I think all philosophies tend to engender some degree of rationalism, and her philosophy is no exception. I found a great many Objectivists to be rationalists and almost 'God fearing' in the sense that they would pose issues as 'What did Ayn Rand say about that?' in the first instance.
The other aspect that I didnt like about Objectivism was the bitterness displayed by the founder. Ayn Rand did not appear to be a happy soul to people outside her 'inner circle'. I was not concerned because I 'got her' conceptually, and saw these negative perceptions as reflecting on her negative childhood growing up in Russia. Conceptually there was alot to appreciate about her. Her love of those values which she saw as the essence of the United States - that is freedom, individualism, creativity, aspirational romanticism and egoism. She was about looking up...though she seemed bitter that they seemed to take for granted or were indifferent to the values that had made the USA possible.
No book written by Ayn Rand has ever disappointed me. I agree with critics that her concretisation of themes in her novels can be repetitive but I think her intent her was reinforcement of values that were contrary to many readers, so she thought perhaps she needed to challenge them, to reinforce good values. I think alot of people will attack her 'style' because her values are so different from theirs. People either love her of hate her. It tends to be peopl strong in the 'objective sciences' like engineering, accounting, economics, science that seem to appreciate her more. The BA types seem to scorn her, and few women seem to get her, interpreting Objectivism as 'unfeeling' or 2-dimensional. Most of those who hate her want to destroy her through smear, and so she is constantly misrepresented.
She deserves to be read. I recommend reading the following books in this order:
1. Capitalism - The Uknown Ideal (non-fiction)
2. The Fountainhead (fiction)
3. Atlas Shrugged (fiction)
4. The Virtue of Selfishness (non-fiction)
If you are a fan at this point, I would recommend the Ayn Rand lecture series. I did this with a group of university admirers and it was very enlightening and fun. Leonard Peikoff is an entertaining speaker. The fact that her books have never been out of print is testimony to the fact that she will have a 'timeless' impact, and I think alot of people would 'downplay' her influence on them. She has made philosophy relevant and meaningful...and 'professional' philosophers are scornful of her because she is popular and they remain irrelevant. She stands alone whilst most philosophers are just a rehash of early influences. Ayn Rand cites just a few soul mates - Aristotle (philosopher), Frank Lloyd Wright (atchitect), Victor Hugo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard.
It would be fair to say that when I was introduced to Ayn Rand I was a quiet, shy, very ambitious and curious guy, with a strong desire to learn and to apply what I had learned to the real world. I had only just commenced my university education, but I has read alot of economics, politics and science already. The first book my manager gave me was Ayn Rand's 'Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal'. Ok....my manager had my attention. Ayn Rand was brilliant! I never knew people could think with such clarity. Her thinking was so systematic and she defined her terms, and they retained a solid 'grounding' in the facts of reality.
University was a testing ground for me. I was challenging everyone I met, even friends, with the new ideas I was being exposed to. But far from learning from others, I was perceived as a threat and put down. I came to realise that people hated her. I think in this climate it was easy for readers and supporters of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism to feel alienated and self-righteous. It made me more keen to change the world, to learn more. The problem was I lacked the people skills to change minds. A close friend on mine said 'Andrew - people have to like you before they will listen to you'. The difference was most people hated me once I opened my mouth, perceiving me as a threat, whereas this girl shared my sense of curiosity. She is without a doubt the most courageous girl I have ever met. She didn't let others affect her the ways others did. She filtered ideas before she accepted or rejecting them.
Over time I came to appreciate the knowledge and empowerment that I had gained from Ayn Rand and her associates Leonard Peikoff and (former) Nathaniel Branden. I had truly developed as a thinker, and I never found any other philosopher who shared the objectivity, clarity or insights of Ayn Rand. In fact I received 'other philosophy' as just being irrelevant, detached, unstructured, vague and unreadable. I think alot of people reading it for the first time must think it profound because it isnt intelligible...'above them' in some respect.
So I reflect on the philosophy and feel pride for the way it has advanced my thinking. But in another sense the philosophy was damaging to me. I had become alienated and impractical. Snubbed by people as provocative, disloyal, intimidating, 'not fun', negative; I was destined to fail as long as I stayed this way, unless I detached myself from society. I did the later. I was either feeling comfortable being around others or conflicted dealing with work colleagues, but otherwise I was just different. I was intense, direct, inquisitive, problem-solving, but for others I was judgemental, intrusive and cold. They really just didnt get me. I understood them, but at the end of the day, true to my (differing) ethics, I viewed values as objective, and they didn't. They didnt mind if their values were grounded in facts. They didnt think an 'IS' implied a 'OUGHT', they saw no link.
In more recent years I have come to question aspects of the Ayn Rand philosophy. From a psychological perspective it bothered me that I was not achieving the success that I had expected for myself. In defence of Rand I had my own issues, and a 'new philosophy' is always going to be undermined by opponents who hold the political power. But aspects bothered me. I didnt like the fact that it empathy has given no standing. The psychology side of Objectivism seemed under-developed. And contrary to what Ayn Rand said, I think all philosophies tend to engender some degree of rationalism, and her philosophy is no exception. I found a great many Objectivists to be rationalists and almost 'God fearing' in the sense that they would pose issues as 'What did Ayn Rand say about that?' in the first instance.
The other aspect that I didnt like about Objectivism was the bitterness displayed by the founder. Ayn Rand did not appear to be a happy soul to people outside her 'inner circle'. I was not concerned because I 'got her' conceptually, and saw these negative perceptions as reflecting on her negative childhood growing up in Russia. Conceptually there was alot to appreciate about her. Her love of those values which she saw as the essence of the United States - that is freedom, individualism, creativity, aspirational romanticism and egoism. She was about looking up...though she seemed bitter that they seemed to take for granted or were indifferent to the values that had made the USA possible.
No book written by Ayn Rand has ever disappointed me. I agree with critics that her concretisation of themes in her novels can be repetitive but I think her intent her was reinforcement of values that were contrary to many readers, so she thought perhaps she needed to challenge them, to reinforce good values. I think alot of people will attack her 'style' because her values are so different from theirs. People either love her of hate her. It tends to be peopl strong in the 'objective sciences' like engineering, accounting, economics, science that seem to appreciate her more. The BA types seem to scorn her, and few women seem to get her, interpreting Objectivism as 'unfeeling' or 2-dimensional. Most of those who hate her want to destroy her through smear, and so she is constantly misrepresented.
She deserves to be read. I recommend reading the following books in this order:
1. Capitalism - The Uknown Ideal (non-fiction)
2. The Fountainhead (fiction)
3. Atlas Shrugged (fiction)
4. The Virtue of Selfishness (non-fiction)
If you are a fan at this point, I would recommend the Ayn Rand lecture series. I did this with a group of university admirers and it was very enlightening and fun. Leonard Peikoff is an entertaining speaker. The fact that her books have never been out of print is testimony to the fact that she will have a 'timeless' impact, and I think alot of people would 'downplay' her influence on them. She has made philosophy relevant and meaningful...and 'professional' philosophers are scornful of her because she is popular and they remain irrelevant. She stands alone whilst most philosophers are just a rehash of early influences. Ayn Rand cites just a few soul mates - Aristotle (philosopher), Frank Lloyd Wright (atchitect), Victor Hugo.
See http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_24/c3937137_mz030.htm - my public tribute to Ayn Rand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
The problem with pragmatism
The problem I have with pragmatism is that it flips ethics on its head. It takes practicality as the standard – that is ‘whatever works’, giving rise to the adage ‘if it works don’t fix it’. But works by what standard? So your politics is kind of running ethics. Something has to ‘work’ or be good by some standard of value. Rand links this to the science of human nature, and in so doing offers a metaphysical and epistemological justification for her ethics. It tends to be at ethics where I disagree with her…and that arises because of differences on our understanding of psychology. However I do regard her protégé Nathaniel Branden ‘The Psychology of Self Esteem’ as very good on this subject.
Reading a blog post by Josh at www.outlandishjosh.com who cites philosopher Richard Rorty, suggests that “Metaphysical debates — are we really alive? what is truth? — are largely pointless”. Well they aren’t, even though most people take them for granted, since it’s the very reason that pragmatists flip philosophy on its head. What would prompt a person who thinks you can’t be certain or know the nature of reality to profess knowledge of ethics.
Josh also says some interesting things, I guess again citing Richard Rorty or John Dewey, the more notorious American pragmatist:
1. “The concept of a Absolute Truth (or, in an older context, God), in addition to being fruitless to pursue, is often really a dodge for authoritarianism”. Coincidentally, people tend to appeal to God or Absolute Truth when it supports their side in an argument”
I would argue that authoritarian actually stems from an attempt for self-mastery over others, and that comes from a loathing of human nature, a belief that you can’t know. Science of course is a slap in the face of that thinking, and can be hardly be regarded as an authoritarian pursuit, notwithstanding the contradictions of a great many scientists. Science is very much still ‘mastery’ of facts of reality not of or over people. Science presupposes an objective world, pragmatism a subjective one. One wonders how Dewey and other pragmatists can even bother writing a philosophical treatise given their ardent skepticism…since how can they know at all, certain of themselves. The last point “people tend to appeal to God or Absolute Truth when it supports their side in an argument” fails to appreciate the dichotomy raised above. Actually people lacking self-mastery, that is confidence in their own judgement, tend to impose their judgement on others. Its no accident that they tend to loath logic and egoism….yet usurp others right to self-reliance.
2. To the extent that we ever know Truth, we do so via a social process of consensus. Even hard science works this way (peer review), so we should embrace this concept, and resist the notion that this consensus can be created by an individual and enforced through the power of it’s own (self-referential) validity ala Monotheism or Fascism.
Actually it would appear that a great deal of science does ‘think collectively’, which explains why there is a great deal of ‘bad science’ being published. But remember that whilst science does seek ‘peer review’ and scientists do collaborate, its not for collective truth, but for validation. Scientists collaborate not because their consciousness needs to plug into another, but because groups have more resources. At the end of the day a mind is autonomous. Some ‘one’ has an insight, others grasp it because they accept an objective reality, others refute it because they too recognise an objective reality. Everyone has the capacity to know or err in that task. The better you think, the better prepared you are for life.
3. Democracy is better, both in terms of individual liberty and in terms of effectiveness in producing human happiness. Per utilitarianism, maximizing human happiness is really the only outcome that makes sense to pursue.
Democracy is to politics like markets are to economy….they are only as strong as the weakest participants. Given that most people are poorly trained in the art of thinking, we tend to get poor results from democracy. So rather than reason (objectivity or scientific method) being the standard of value, we have politicians appealing to fear, emotion, even faith. Any philosophy that subjugates a person’s logic to the fears, whims or emotions of others is on a course towards collectivism. The practicality of science and economy are the only obstacles to authoritarianism. Utilitarianism is a collectivist philosophy that subjugates the rights of individuals to those that profess to represent ‘society’. The lack of sustainable support for politicians suggests that’s a rare best, and in itself still lacks objective validity. But that’s ok if their candidate can’t impose their will on others.
4. Likewise, the only meaningful definition of Reason is, “can you participate in the inter-subjective process of communal inquiry as to how to maximize human happiness?” The idea that Reason is aligned with Absolute Truth or God is another rabbit-hole/authoritarian danger zone.
Well how is he going to prove it? How can he assert anything? Even if collective support was a basis for truth, how could it be revered as such since it has to start with one consciousness. This is the basis of authoritarianism.
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard. It usually is...the question is whether its good or bad reasoning....make it pertain to reality. The best way of doing that is to provide examples.
Reading a blog post by Josh at www.outlandishjosh.com who cites philosopher Richard Rorty, suggests that “Metaphysical debates — are we really alive? what is truth? — are largely pointless”. Well they aren’t, even though most people take them for granted, since it’s the very reason that pragmatists flip philosophy on its head. What would prompt a person who thinks you can’t be certain or know the nature of reality to profess knowledge of ethics.
Josh also says some interesting things, I guess again citing Richard Rorty or John Dewey, the more notorious American pragmatist:
1. “The concept of a Absolute Truth (or, in an older context, God), in addition to being fruitless to pursue, is often really a dodge for authoritarianism”. Coincidentally, people tend to appeal to God or Absolute Truth when it supports their side in an argument”
I would argue that authoritarian actually stems from an attempt for self-mastery over others, and that comes from a loathing of human nature, a belief that you can’t know. Science of course is a slap in the face of that thinking, and can be hardly be regarded as an authoritarian pursuit, notwithstanding the contradictions of a great many scientists. Science is very much still ‘mastery’ of facts of reality not of or over people. Science presupposes an objective world, pragmatism a subjective one. One wonders how Dewey and other pragmatists can even bother writing a philosophical treatise given their ardent skepticism…since how can they know at all, certain of themselves. The last point “people tend to appeal to God or Absolute Truth when it supports their side in an argument” fails to appreciate the dichotomy raised above. Actually people lacking self-mastery, that is confidence in their own judgement, tend to impose their judgement on others. Its no accident that they tend to loath logic and egoism….yet usurp others right to self-reliance.
2. To the extent that we ever know Truth, we do so via a social process of consensus. Even hard science works this way (peer review), so we should embrace this concept, and resist the notion that this consensus can be created by an individual and enforced through the power of it’s own (self-referential) validity ala Monotheism or Fascism.
Actually it would appear that a great deal of science does ‘think collectively’, which explains why there is a great deal of ‘bad science’ being published. But remember that whilst science does seek ‘peer review’ and scientists do collaborate, its not for collective truth, but for validation. Scientists collaborate not because their consciousness needs to plug into another, but because groups have more resources. At the end of the day a mind is autonomous. Some ‘one’ has an insight, others grasp it because they accept an objective reality, others refute it because they too recognise an objective reality. Everyone has the capacity to know or err in that task. The better you think, the better prepared you are for life.
3. Democracy is better, both in terms of individual liberty and in terms of effectiveness in producing human happiness. Per utilitarianism, maximizing human happiness is really the only outcome that makes sense to pursue.
Democracy is to politics like markets are to economy….they are only as strong as the weakest participants. Given that most people are poorly trained in the art of thinking, we tend to get poor results from democracy. So rather than reason (objectivity or scientific method) being the standard of value, we have politicians appealing to fear, emotion, even faith. Any philosophy that subjugates a person’s logic to the fears, whims or emotions of others is on a course towards collectivism. The practicality of science and economy are the only obstacles to authoritarianism. Utilitarianism is a collectivist philosophy that subjugates the rights of individuals to those that profess to represent ‘society’. The lack of sustainable support for politicians suggests that’s a rare best, and in itself still lacks objective validity. But that’s ok if their candidate can’t impose their will on others.
4. Likewise, the only meaningful definition of Reason is, “can you participate in the inter-subjective process of communal inquiry as to how to maximize human happiness?” The idea that Reason is aligned with Absolute Truth or God is another rabbit-hole/authoritarian danger zone.
Well how is he going to prove it? How can he assert anything? Even if collective support was a basis for truth, how could it be revered as such since it has to start with one consciousness. This is the basis of authoritarianism.
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard. It usually is...the question is whether its good or bad reasoning....make it pertain to reality. The best way of doing that is to provide examples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)