Is Ayn Rands “Atlas Shrugged” a prophecy? It’s starting to look likely.

reply to post by daskakik

I already told you, I was replying to a point in another members post

and that was exactly one dozen (12) posts ago, so, what's your excuse this far into the thread ?

how do you figure these two statements agree with each other ?

my point is that larger businesses can manipulate or use government to stifle their competition, so government isn't an equal opportunity stifler ... and ... [color=amber] it is not the business that stifles the employee, rather the government that stifles both employer & employee

now, please clarify.
either --> the government IS NOT an equal opportunity stifler
or --> it IS ... it cannot be both.

you seem to blame big business and while they certainly have played a part, they are not responsible for the stifling that the GOVT does.

btw, individuals have the same, dare i say, power.
the ONLY reason Edison was credited for his discovery/invention was simply because he arrived at the patent office FIRST (by a couple hours). had he arrived later, someone ELSE would have enjoyed his glory, his historical significance and his "legacy".
this is not the fault of any business, large or small, it was the workings of Government.

you're still barking about the words being synonyms ??

only with a slight negative slant towards selfishness.

oooooh, you do see a difference between the two ? good.
now work with that, rather the synonymous uses of the two.

I think it is your inability to recognize that Rand doesn't make that distinction either

sorry, but i read the book and she certainly does.

what Rand attempts to do is re-establish the original perceptions of selfishness which did not include "without regard for others".
i admire her effort, even though a failed one.

imho, it is best to keep the two separate, with separate definitions.
one does not reflect the other and neither is explicitly or inherrently a bad virtue.

for example: self interest allows one to develop natural skills.
selfishness can literally save your life in a dangerous situation.

on the opposite side - self interest encourages separatist behavior with regard to personal development.
selfishness can destroy those around you while you engage in personal development.

it is complicated and without reading Rand's material, you are no closer to understanding either.

as for synonyms, both "head" and "penis" can be used synonymously, and often are, however, the two body parts are not the same, they are not even located in the same region of the body, yet, the two words are synonymous.

Originally posted by Honor93
and that was exactly one dozen (12) posts ago, so, what's your excuse this far into the thread ?

Why keep asking me about it when the answer has already been given?

you seem to blame big business and while they certainly have played a part, they are not responsible for the stifling that the GOVT does.

Your opinion is noted.

oooooh,

you do see a difference between the two ? good.
now work with that, rather the synonymous uses of the two.

No, actually, I see you seeing a difference between the two while Rand does not.

sorry, but i read the book and she certainly does.

But that is your interpretation of the book while in her interviews she says it flat out without being filtered through you. That is why I don't see any point in discussing the matter with you.

reply to post by Honor93


No I wasn't born until 80's so that is far before my time, it is interesting to view none the less. I didn't realize there was such a large communist movement in the United States.

reply to post by daskakik

your perpetually poor excuse is wearing thin 14 posts later.

far be it from you to simply admit your ignorance of the topic and surrender your keyboard for momentary contemplation of subject matter obviously foreign to you.

Rand's interpretation doesn't even agree with the current, given definitions of the two terms ... so what's your point here ?

Rand dismisses the extended moral implication of "without concern for others", that's all.
and, in it's original definition (selfishness) did not include "without regard for others", so again, what's your point ??
she merely capitalized on the PC of the day that was swaying all who would absorb it.

fyi ...

aynrandlexicon.com...
In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.

Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.

This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

and, until you understand the above, you can never understand Rand, her writings or the commentary presented in later interviews.

today, some 80yrs later, it has become common application to apply the Moral dogma to the word, selfishness, which is exactly why i separate the two "self interest" and "selfishness".
regardless of their synonymous usage, i prefer to avoid the same trap that Rand wrote about.

and, at this point, until you've read ANYTHING she wrote, i simply refuse to engage your level of ignorance any longer.
(for both reasons, self interest and selfishness ... and i'd bet you can't decipher which is which)

in the meantime, have a nice day

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
reply to post by Honor93

 

No I wasn't born until 80's so that is far before my time, it is interesting to view none the less. I didn't realize there was such a large communist movement in the United States.

thanks for acknowledging it's news to you ... you are not alone.

thanks for the chuckle ... yes, i tend to forget our immediate history is seldom shared anymore.
not in school, around the dinner table, over pot-luck dinners or at a community picinic.
(sad but true)

yes, there was and it never died.
those members then, are today's politicians, professors and banker elite ... so, what does that tell ya ?

should you need other references, please ask ... this wasn't so long ago ... my best friend was born 1933 and is still alive today. yes, i understand it's foreign to most anyone under age 30 but that is not a valid excuse.

it is not foreign to your parents, their parents or their grandparents before them ... it is a continuation of a battle begun long before either you or i were born. it is incumbent upon us to understand so that we do not repeat the mistakes of our past.

thanks for being willing to learn
(agreeing is not part of the deal, if you agree, that is your own decision but to agree without understanding is the epitome of ignorance)

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik

 

your perpetually poor excuse is wearing thin 14 posts later.

I don't care, it's the truth.

Rand's interpretation doesn't even agree with the current, given definitions of the two terms ... so what's your point here?

I don't see the point of discussing Rand if you are not going to use her definition of terms. That is bound to lead to misinterpretations of what she meant.

Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.

"One's own interest" is not "self-interest"? I think it is. Nothing I can do if you disagree.

and, at this point, until you've read ANYTHING she wrote, i simply refuse to engage your level of ignorance any longer.

Good. I' keep saying that I don't want to discuss Rand with you but since you keep responding with questions then I thought I would be polite and take the time to answer.

reply to post by daskakik

on the contrary, i am using her definition ... the one MINUS moral implications ... perhaps you should try it.

you can't have it both ways.
in discussing your definitions, there are 2 separate actions.
in discussing HER definition, they are one and the same.
(in relation to her definition, i agree)

in consequence of common usage, i find self interest completely necessary whereas selfishness can be applied as needed based on the goal to be achieved.

in your own words ... here are examples of both.
selfishness -

I don't care, it's the truth

without regard for ANYONE else, you insist you are correct, regardless of the truth or consequence of error.

self interest -

I' keep saying that I don't want to discuss Rand with you but since you keep responding with questions then I thought I would be polite and take the time to answer.

your own self interest compels you to respond. (as does mine)

funny thing is, both exemplify self interest whereas only one exhibits selfishness as it is defined today.
in the same regard, it is your own selfishness that prohibits greater understanding of the topic at hand. [in Rand's opinion, selfishness is the only virtue being exhibited by either act]

and, truth be told, if you don't want to do it, then stop.
that is by far, the greatest teaching of Rand ever.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik

 

on the contrary, i am using her definition ... the one MINUS moral implications ... perhaps you should try it.

Actually in the post where you said:

fortunately, for our sake, Rand was seeing the same principles being exercised today in a much smaller population ... remarkably, the fictional characters in her story were able to overcome their personal selfishness.

You are using the word WITH moral implications. That is why I prefer to not discuss it with you. You flip-flop to much.

reply to post by daskakik

Actually in the post where you said:

[color=amber] fortunately, for our sake, Rand was seeing the same principles being exercised today in a much smaller population ... remarkably, the fictional characters in her story were able to overcome their personal selfishness.

You are using the word WITH moral implications. That is why I prefer to not discuss it with you. You flip-flop to much

and i believe your misunderstanding is demonstrated in the above accusation.

first, i am not flipping or flopping.
second, the AS story is presented in such a way as to clue the reader to the implications.

of course, you cannot begin to understand as you've never explored the material

in Rand's view, both self interest and selfishness are interchangeable.
and, in some aspects, they are.

Rand chooses to impress upon the reader that the finite difference between the two is virtually non-existant.
i disagree. (but only in as much as the definition has changed over time)

when or if i choose to employ Rand's method of encompassing both actions under the same umbrella (selfishness), i cannot logically disagree.
in other words, if "self interest" wasn't an active part of our vocabulary, selfishness would clearly describe either act as the primary purpose is to gain advantage for self.

now, what about the above statement is confusing for you ?
i'll even separate the statements to lessen the confusion.
part 1 -

fortunately, for our sake, Rand was seeing the same principles being exercised today in a much smaller population

perhaps my English is poorly written and for that i apologize, but, during Rand's day, the US population was 1/3 of today's US inhabitants.
1930 - 123,202,624 - source

do you agree that the same principle (selfishness) is being practiced all over the world, today ?

part 2 -

the fictional characters in her story were able to overcome their personal selfishness

self interest [or Rand's selfishness) never strayed from the storyline.
(but of course, you wouldn't know this ).

each of the producers were engaging self interest as they pursued their chosen goals.
however, (not giving more until you actually read it) at some point in time, those characters who were exhibiting selfishness (as it is defined today) were able to overcome the so-called "evil" intentions and work together, in spite of the government obstacles placed in their way, to achieve a common goal.

like i said before, there really is no point in discussing that of which you have NO CLUE.
however, since you insist ... carry on.

please, do not turn this into something it isn't.
i do not harbor an objectivist viewpoint but i understand it.
we are discussing ONE book, not a philosophy.
and lastly, my interpretation isn't the only one going ... but what i do find surprising ... is rather discuss my mistaken interpretation , you choose to dismiss it and i am curious why ?

Originally posted by Honor93
we are discussing ONE book, not a philosophy.

Actually you are trying to discuss one book. I'm trying to avoid discussing it for the reason given below.

and lastly, my interpretation isn't the only one going ... but what i do find surprising ... is rather discuss my mistaken interpretation

, you choose to dismiss it and i am curious why ?

I'm saying Rand's philosophy is wrong so whatever people see as prophetic in any of her writings is probably a product of mental gymnastics.

reply to post by Honor93


Thanks for educating me. It is easier to understand your view point the more I know about it. Keep denying ignorance my friend.

reply to post by daskakik

NO, the thread is about ONE BOOK and its potential as a harbinger.

neither of which have you addressed, specifically.
nor can you since you never read it.

so, rather engage in more derailment tactics, how 'bout you leave the discussion to those who actually read it or at the very least saw the movie ?

you can say this all you want ...

I'm saying Rand's philosophy is wrong so whatever people see as prophetic in any of her writings is probably a product of mental gymnastics

fact is, you have NO WAY of knowing since you haven't read ANY of the material, let alone the one piece being discussed here.

Atlas Shrugged is not a philosophy, it is a story and a fictional one at that.

reply to post by daskakik

look daskakik, regarding Rand's philosophy, i agree, it's wrong.
however, unlike you, i can explain why i believe it's wrong or incomplete.

why are you dead set or comfortable with >> it's wrong because i say so, period ??

how can you claim any level of understanding unless you have explored the material representing the theory involved ?

can you relate to living in a time/place where life is practiced on a level of equal inequality ?
yes, we still live in a society of equal inequality, however, it is not as it was 80yrs ago.

please don't think for one minute that life "today" is anything like life in the 40s, 50s or 60s for that matter.
it is not even close.

actually, evaluating material you've never indulged is a direct product of mental gymnastics ... now rollover/somersault and bow

reply to post by Honor93

Actually this one book is probably the most popular part of her philosophy. I don't need a piece of fiction that tries to illustrate her philosophy to know what it is about. In the end that is all it is.

The OP states:

I’m reading the book for the third time. Much of it is contradictory regarding the characters views, but overall, the world depicted in that book is starting to manifest in real time.

Redistribution of wealth. The bottom line of the book.

That is what the thread is about. TDawgRex's observation seems to line up with Rand's philosophy. I believe the philosophy to be wrong and have said so.

ETA:

look daskakik, regarding Rand's philosophy, i agree, it's wrong.
however, unlike you, i can explain why i believe it's wrong or incomplete.

why are you dead set or comfortable with >> it's wrong because i say so, period ??

I can explain it as well but don't want to get into it.

how can you claim any level of understanding unless you have explored the material representing the theory involved ?

This book isn't the only material available.

reply to post by daskakik

since you've studied neither, you know this how ?

Actually this one book is probably the most popular part of her philosophy

something is better than nothing, even fiction.
however, why would you even consider a piece of fiction to be a "philosophy" anyway ?

the OPs first statement you quoted is correct, what's your problem with it ?

many of the character's views are contradictory.
(selfish yet cooperative / cooperation vs government meddling / self interest vs community interest)

imho, too much of the world depicted in that story is manifested throughout the world over.
so, what and where do you see a "conflict" in the OPs statement?

Redistribution of Wealth has been the Obama administration's stated goal, so how is the OP mistaken ?

Rand's "philosophy" does NOT encourage wealth redistribution.
[neither does the storyline of this book - quite the opposite]

and that is why you will never understand until you put forth an effort. because, if what you say here is true, then you AGREE with Rand's philosophy even though you don't understand it

TDawgRex's observation seems to line up with Rand's philosophy. I believe the philosophy to be wrong and have said so

uh, the infamous, i don't wanna ... really ?
hmmmm, after nearly 20 posts, i'm going with the obvious, you don't because you can't. typical.

while this statement is true ...

This book isn't the only material available

this book is the only material being addressed in this thread.

Originally posted by Honor93
while this statement is true ...

This book isn't the only material available

this book is the only material being addressed in this thread.

This attitude is why I don't want to get into it. I have read up on Rand at this site and also other things that were posted by an anarcho-capitalist in an old thread.

See you around.

reply to post by daskakik

so then, apparently you favor the communist/socialist/marxist theories of oppression ?
if not free markets, then what ?

reply to post by Honor93

I don't advocate anything.

Free markets don't exist and probably never have, except in small short lived examples. The reason is simple, as soon as someone has enough money/power to control things they find ways to do so through direct use/threat of force, market manipulation and even the implementation of one form of government or another.

I agree to a point with capitalists that say "what we have isn't real capitalism", but what other outcome did they expect?

reply to post by daskakik

yet, you are advocating that Rand's philosophy is wrong.
are you sure you're NOT advocating anything ?

because it was and more times than not in our distant history.

market manipulation occurs with or without outside interference ... it's called supply & demand.

only the government and unions have used such tactics (direct use/threat of force).
never have i been beat or threatened to shop at WalMart
never have i been disowned or stripped of citizenship for trading on the reservation.
never has anyone, that i know of, been threatened or forced to buy/trade/engage in any market activity unless we're discussing Wall Street or Obamacare.

what other outcome did they expect?

one of balance.
one where the market determines the outcome, not the speculators.
one that benefits the producers and providers as equally as the owners.
one which will encourage competition rather stifle it.
one that can build a nation rather a Bank.

perhaps we expected too much or perhaps we didn't expect enough ... either way, we allowed this diversion and only we can change it.

ETA - just out of curiosity, i wonder, as the industrial revolution transformed human labor to mechanical, why did the "costs" increase ?
if employing humans is such a drain on the economy, why is consuming mechanically crafted items more expensive in general ? (and no, i'm not talking about inflation)

Redistribution of wealth has already occurred. We termed it "trickle down economics".

Just look at the data concerning wealth and who takes it for themselves for the last 30 years.

Plain as day!