William Buckley on Ayn Rand

@ 1:01 "A thousand pages of ideological fabulism, I had to flog myself to read it... the insolence she had you wouldn't believe" LOL

I agree.
 
Crashk said:
@ 1:01 "A thousand pages of ideological fabulism, I had to flog myself to read it... the insolence she had you wouldn't believe" LOL

I agree.
Click to expand...

It's Damo's favourite book. It's amazing to think that it has sold over 7 million copies.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
There is a reason why I like William Buckley, he was just so good at sensing bullshit.

Click to expand...
Yes. I remember his commenting once about the religious right that it wasn't their religious views that turned people off but rather it was their religiosity that turned people off. He was spot on there.

The republican party was a vastly superior party with spokesmen like Mr. Buckley as opposed to loud mouth demogogues like Limbaugh and Beck.

I remember when I first read Atlas Shrugged and talked with some John Birch types who thought she was a goddess that though I thought in the novel she did an outsanding job of characterizing the flaws of socialism (real socialism now, not what some rednecks think it is) as an economic and political system. However, the problem I had with objectivism is that it's not objective. For example, if you objectively test some of her tenets they come up short of being factually correct yet she and her adherents held to those beliefs dogmaticlly. Some examples of that were her belief in lassiez-faire capitalism, a system just as discredited as socialism, and her opposition to the environmental movement which is based on protecting the public safety and individual property rights (both of which are legitimate functions of government) are two good examples of Rands subjective objectivism. So in short I found much value in Atlas Shrugged as a rational argument of the failiings of socialism but I found the epistomological rational behind her objectivist philosophy as failing short in many significant areas. In fact most scientist I know who have read Atlas Shrugged kinda get a chuckle out of it as Rands own objectivity, by the standards of the scientific community, lacked something to be desired to say the least. It was a good thing she was an intellectual and a philosopher cause she would have never made it as a scientist....objectively speaking.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes. I remember his commenting once about the religious right that it wasn't their religious views that turned people off but rather it was their religiosity that turned people off. He was spot on there.

The republican party was a vastly superior party with spokesmen like Mr. Buckley as opposed to loud mouth demogogues like Limbaugh and Beck.

I remember when I first read Atlas Shrugged and talked with some John Birch types who thought she was a goddess that though I thought in the novel she did an outsanding job of characterizing the flaws of socialism (real socialism now, not what some rednecks think it is) as an economic and political system. However, the problem I had with objectivism is that it's not objective. For example, if you objectively test some of her tenets they come up short of being factually correct yet she and her adherents held to those beliefs dogmaticlly. Some examples of that were her belief in lassiez-faire capitalism, a system just as discredited as socialism, and her opposition to the environmental movement which is based on protecting the public safety and individual property rights (both of which are legitimate functions of government) are two good examples of Rands subjective objectivism. So in short I found much value in Atlas Shrugged as a rational argument of the failiings of socialism but I found the epistomological rational behind her objectivist philosophy as failing short in many significant areas. In fact most scientist I know who have read Atlas Shrugged kinda get a chuckle out of it as Rands own objectivity, by the standards of the scientific community, lacked something to be desired to say the least. It was a good thing she was an intellectual and a philosopher cause she would have never made it as a scientist....objectively speaking.
Click to expand...
Rand was an author. Yes, she was outspoken, and yes, she was wrong on may points.

But she was a great author.

What many fail to realize, is that they're criticizing a book that was written decades before many of our failed social programs were even implemented. Society was very different then. And....the concept of payroll taxes being withheld was fairly new. There were a lot of people who were very angry about this phenom.
 
Althea said:
Rand was an author. Yes, she was outspoken, and yes, she was wrong on may points.

But she was a great author.

What many fail to realize, is that they're criticizing a book that was written decades before many of our failed social programs were even implemented. Society was very different then. And....the concept of payroll taxes being withheld was fairly new. There were a lot of people who were very angry about this phenom.
Click to expand...
I share many of the criticisms Rand and conservative intellectuals (isn't that an oxymoron these days?) had about the social wellfare state. I didn't bust my ass to make a better life for me and my family to sacrifice that to the social welfare state. Where I diverge is that I agree about the need for social safety nets and that I am willing to contribute towards them in a mutually beneficial manner, particularly in areas in which the market fails to produce. Having said that I didn't bust my ass to get where I am so SF can collect six more months of welfare.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
It's Damo's favourite book. It's amazing to think that it has sold over 7 million copies.
Click to expand...

I like the book, but it isn't my favorite book. I skip all the parts where she gets preachy. Like the really long speech by John Galt when he took over the radio waves.

She has better books. Just no so many that are quite as psychic. I literally have read current philosophy... one article recently in "support" of Obama's "you didn't build that" speech that said that nothing we do ever has any meaning, therefore we do not "earn" anything, ever. It was like she was reading that dude's mind.
 
It's my favorite book too. I loved it. When discussing this book it is important to remember Ayn Rand's background, her childhood in Russia, and the time period in which the book was written and what was happening (economically) in the world. It's also a fiction book, not a policy poisition paper by a politician running for office.

And this idea that she had 'failed ideas', well I don't see socialism or communism dominating the globe as some/many thought it might during the time she wrote this book. Capitalism seems to have won that battle. I know there are still some out there that believe capitalism is a failed idea but they don't have a lot of evidence on their side.
 
I would call it my favorite book in the political fiction genre. My favorite books are usually pure sci-fi... The Ender's Game "universe" comes to mind.
 
I have tried to read her but cannot.

"... Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind, which finds this one natural to it, shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: " To the gas chambers — go!" The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture — that Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the differences between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house. A tornado might feel this way, or Carrie Nation.

We struggle to be just. For we cannot help feel at least a sympathetic pain before the sheer labor, discipline and patient craftsmanship that went to making this mountain of words. But the words keep shouting us down. In the end that tone dominates. But it should be its own antidote, warning us that anything it shouts is best taken with the usual reservations with which we might sip a patent medicine. Some may like the flavor. In any case, the brew is probably without lasting ill effects. But it is not a cure for anything. Nor would we, ordinarily, place much confidence in the diagnosis of a doctor who supposes that the Hippocratic Oath is a kind of curse."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2705853/posts
 
Damocles said:
I like the book, but it isn't my favorite book. I skip all the parts where she gets preachy. Like the really long speech by John Galt when he took over the radio waves.

She has better books. Just no so many that are quite as psychic. I literally have read current philosophy... one article recently in "support" of Obama's "you didn't build that" speech that said that nothing we do ever has any meaning, therefore we do not "earn" anything, ever. It was like she was reading that dude's mind.
Click to expand...
Well than no wonder you like the book. You haven't read it all. :)

Don't you think those really preachy parts might bring to the fore some of the major flaws of her philosophy?

Anyone can read bullet points and executive summaries Damo but it takes true self flogging discipline to read all of Atlas Shrugged! ;)
 
Damocles said:
I like the book, but it isn't my favorite book. I skip all the parts where she gets preachy. Like the really long speech by John Galt when he took over the radio waves.

She has better books. Just no so many that are quite as psychic. I literally have read current philosophy... one article recently in "support" of Obama's "you didn't build that" speech that said that nothing we do ever has any meaning, therefore we do not "earn" anything, ever. It was like she was reading that dude's mind.
Click to expand...
What about the Fountainhead? That's vastly superior to Atlas Shrugged and it makes the same points about Objectivism with out beating you to death with volumes of redundant rhetoric.
 
cawacko said:
It's my favorite book too. I loved it. When discussing this book it is important to remember Ayn Rand's background, her childhood in Russia, and the time period in which the book was written and what was happening (economically) in the world. It's also a fiction book, not a policy poisition paper by a politician running for office.

And this idea that she had 'failed ideas', well I don't see socialism or communism dominating the globe as some/many thought it might during the time she wrote this book. Capitalism seems to have won that battle. I know there are still some out there that believe capitalism is a failed idea but they don't have a lot of evidence on their side.
Click to expand...
You're hearing what you just want to hear then. I don't exactly see Laissez-Faire capitalism dominating the planet either and Rand specifically advocated Laissez-Faire capitalism. A systems whos failure was the primary cause for the challenge of socialism to capitalism in the first place.

Capitalism may have won the battle but it's been the well regulated form of Keynesian Capitalism that has won the day and it sure as hell is not the laissez-faire form of Capitalism Rand advocated to which I say. Thank God for that! As that is a system as bad as communism.

Then there's her utter lack of human compassion which I found rather disturbing. Not all forms of ultruism are canabalism. I reject that notion utterly and I think most rational people do.

This is what I mean about objectivist not being objective.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
I would call it my favorite book in the political fiction genre. My favorite books are usually pure sci-fi... The Ender's Game "universe" comes to mind.
Click to expand...
As a piece of fiction I think it sucks. It's wordy, preachy, grossly repetative, the plot drags forever and ever to reach a very predictable climax. As a work of literature it wasn't nearly of the quality that the Fountainhead is. This was a case of "Stop While You Are Ahead!". In fact the fact that she had such incredible difficulty explaining her philosophy, clearly and concisely is indicitive to me of confused thinking by the author. I'm not impressed with Atlas Shrugged at all and think it is by far and away her lesser work as compared to The Fountainhead. I still can't believe I had the discipline to read the whole damned thing.

I would say this about Atlas Shrugged. It and "War and Peace" are probably the best two books to bring with you for a long prison sentence to help you kill time.....or commit suicide.
 
Last edited:
midcan5 said:
I have tried to read her but cannot.

"... Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind, which finds this one natural to it, shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: " To the gas chambers — go!" The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture — that Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the differences between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house. A tornado might feel this way, or Carrie Nation.

We struggle to be just. For we cannot help feel at least a sympathetic pain before the sheer labor, discipline and patient craftsmanship that went to making this mountain of words. But the words keep shouting us down. In the end that tone dominates. But it should be its own antidote, warning us that anything it shouts is best taken with the usual reservations with which we might sip a patent medicine. Some may like the flavor. In any case, the brew is probably without lasting ill effects. But it is not a cure for anything. Nor would we, ordinarily, place much confidence in the diagnosis of a doctor who supposes that the Hippocratic Oath is a kind of curse."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2705853/posts
Click to expand...
Well this review could explain why she never invited Mr. Buckley over for dinner.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well than no wonder you like the book. You haven't read it all. :)

Don't you think those really preachy parts might bring to the fore some of the major flaws of her philosophy?

Anyone can read bullet points and executive summaries Damo but it takes true self flogging discipline to read all of Atlas Shrugged! ;)
Click to expand...

Wow.

Okay, I guess I have to go step by step for some people.

One day I got up, brushed my teeth, took a shower, and got dressed. I went to the library and checked out another book by an author I liked. I had read Fountainhead before, I had just checked out Atlas Shrugged. Over the next three days I read every word of the second book from this author named Ayn Rand. It was interesting, but clearly written in some parts more to teach something that most people who would enjoy the book already knew.

Because of this in subsequent years when I re-read the book, I skipped some of the longer "teaching" moments and simply read the story. Although I do read the speech on "money" by Francisco every time. That one rocks.

I would have advised her that a bit of editing on the Galt speech would be nice, it is a bit repetitive (not just a bit, but you know)... and I would have noted to her that a dude in 7th grade could see the foreshadowing from at the very most the third chapter... With a bit of judicious editing the same point that was made repetitively could have been brought to bear leaving the story intact and far more enjoyable.

Basically it was like reading the "Left Behind" series. On occasion the authors would break into a long sermon in the middle of the book. Skipping those bits that are meant to teach people who may be reading about their religious beliefs for the first time, if you already know about their beliefs, changes nothing in the story and you get more out of it because you aren't annoyed by reading something "teaching" you something you learned long ago.
 
I'm absolutely shocked to find that a Christian Conservative found the atheist and materialist objectivist to be appalling. I really am shocked. :shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top