This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
LaszloWalrus edited this out as biased and unsupported -
Actually I don't find that to be biased at all, and it certainly is true. Why remove it? -- User:SmartGuy
First of all, LGagnon no personal attacks. Second of all, in the entire book there is only one scene it which this statement is at all applicable; Francisco d'Anconia's money speech roughly fits that description. Once is not "several times"; inasmuch as the statement had an obvious bias and was unsourced, the onus of proof was on you to demonstrate that it belonged. LaszloWalrus 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, I'm an Objectivist; I broadcast that on my user page so people know where I'm coming from. The John Galt speech is in a venue when one would expect people to listen to a speech. It's a radio address, and many people are tuned in to hear a report on the world crisis. As far as being amongst the "several biased editors," I really don't see the justification of that statement. My edits have almost always been with the consensus, as evident from my edits regarding Rand's views on homosexuality, to the people who have influenced her, etc. Likewise, when presented with facts, I've stopped editing in cases where I was wrong, i.e. the literary influence from Nietzsche. I've edited out hagiographic biographies of Objectivists (even ones I agree with that were biased); for evidence, see the history and talk page for the Tara Smith article. LaszloWalrus 03:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I've started a small criticism section; I'll add more when I have time. LaszloWalrus 23:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I eliminated the (positive) review of Atlas Shrugged that argues that the book is a sequel to Lord of the Rings. I think all reviews, positive or negative, should come from reputable sources, not just some guy with modem. LaszloWalrus 08:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not in Objectivist nature to ask before he/she does something. If one thinks he is right then no one else can convince him otherwise--let reality be the final judge, as Rand would say. And reality says that a criticism section would be unnecessary because the book is perfect. -- Friar xion 20:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not in Objectivist nature to ask before he does something if he believes that he is right and others are wrong, because Objectivists value the reasonable judgement of their own minds first and foremost. However, if another mind should come along and demonstrate reasonably why the Objectivist in question is incorrect, the Objectivist, being devoted to reason by definition, should concede their error of judgement. Objectivism does not require that a person be perfect or to hold themselves as perfect. It only requires that a person have enough confidence in their own mind to not allow themselves to be swayed by some nebulous general opinion. Hard, logical arguments, however, should be given just consideration. Sadly though, most arguments are of the former variety. -- Topplepot 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
An Objectivist (at least an intelligent one) would not deny the uses of environmentalism. Rand most likely ignored such arguments herself because of ignorance. The damage being done to the environment was not as well-documented and evidenced in the early 1950s as it is now. However, there is a difference between living in such a way as to preserve our environment to preserve our self-interests and living in such a way that glorifies our environment over ourselves. Rand would have agreed with the former, not with the latter. Furthermore, there is a difference between a nebulous public opinion and a rational argument. For example, the argument that started all of this is somewhat nebulous. "...on occasion," is nebulous and is worded in such a way as to overemphasize the usage of such speeches. There is, in truth, only one such speech and that is the one made by d'Anconia during the wedding reception. And in this circumstance, the partygoers react with incredulity and anger, much the reaction we would have expected them to have. As mentioned before, the speech made by Galt was a radio broadcast and an actual, pre-scheduled speech. Thus, people would naturally expect a monologue with more depth than bridge-club gossip. With regards to the hobo on the train, Dagny is intensely interested in exactly what he has to say, and would have been likely to throw him off the train had he started a "cocktail party" dialogue. This is not to say that the original statement should have been thrown out entirely. It should simply have been modified, perhaps by acknowledging that Atlas Shrugged is not the same type of fiction written by Tom Clancy or Michael Crighton. It is a highly philosophical book, and so dialogue is meant to convey a philosophical message while propelling the action, as opposed to simply driving a plot forward. Therefore, readers should expect dialogue that is a bit more weighty than the average modern novel. Perhaps it is a telling sign that, while our ancestors expected such depth in their leisure-reading, we become flustered when presented with anything more than the dialogue expected at "cocktail parties." -- Topplepot 19:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
An Objectivist ideal does not necessarily equal a political organization. While Ayn Rand started the Objectivist movement, she was by no means the ideal Objectivist. From what I have read of her interviews, she often appears to be a vain woman who often falls to the temptation of mistaking her personal preferences for logical arguments. Such an error is likely to carry over into any organization that is more concerned with political rather than philosophical purposes, or for the advancement of Ayn Rand rather then the ideas she championed. For example, the ARI itself is guilty of shading the truth. The biography portion of the organization's site devoted to Ayn Rand mentions only the shiny, happy parts of her life, conveniently ignoring her affair. Furthermore, as you say, the environmental problem is a problem in Randism. Randism being, I assume, the philosophical devotion to Ayn Rand. This would be by necessity separate from Objectivism because Objectivism champions the individual's ability to judge things for themselves without relying too much on the judgement of others. I'm certain Ayn Rand would have liked to hold herself up as the paragon of right reason, but such is not and was never the case. With regards to the quality of Ayn Rand's writing style, that is up to the opinion of the reader. I myself appreciate her straitforward style. I find authors such as Emerson who write in mystical language and then accuse others of stupidity when their words are misunderstood to be overly-arrogant and foolish. An author's decision to hide their meaning in metaphor or to state it simply does not determine their worth as an author; it is a part of their writing style and, usually, a good clue as to the nature of the message the author wishes to convey. There are positives and negatives to each approach to writing and the author must weigh these when determining how best to communicate their message. -- Topplepot 06:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I agree with you that many Randists are probably arrogant and narrow-minded. I am merely arguing that a proper Objectivist would not be tied to the personal ideas of Ayn Rand in the same way a proper Randist would be. Thus, an Objectivist, not to be confused with a Randist, may not be as steadfastly anti-environmentlism as a Randist. Regarding "good art" and "good fiction," would you mind providing for me an all-inclusive definition of "art" so that we may accurately judge "good art" from "bad art." Until we have that, I don't think we'll be able to come to an agreement as to whether or not Ayn Rand is a "good author." -- Topplepot 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
This section describes the motor as responsible for "jamming all radio receivers on Earth, and completely destroying the contents of Galt's booby-trapped laboratory..." I do not remember anything that Rand wrote which specifically attributed the radio blackout and destruction of Galt's lab equipment to any function of the motor. I don't remember any other functions of Galt's motor being described other than harnessing and producing energy. It seems more likely that the destruction of the lab equipment and the jamming of all radio signals were the product of some other device(s?) made by Galt. It has been about a year since I read it though, so someone tell me if I'm wrong. AscendedAnathema 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, their opinions are worth adding. Kirk is considered the father of modern conservativism; Saunders is an award winning writer and former objectivist. Those are good reasons to have their opinions in this article, and makes them credible for a topic related to their fields. -- LGagnon 18:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
What are the criteria for adding people who criticize a book? While acclaimed authors, and philosophers who have coherent literary or philosophical criticism may be relevant, including a relatively random blogger who more people think are "loony" than they think the book, who nonsensically compares the book to "Fascism", the classic epithet for the ignorant and in this case totally unfounded, gives credit to the incredible and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. - Centrx 18:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Has The Daily Kos gained credibility in recent years or is it just more popular? By what criteria is Daily Kos a "major news source"? Most of the articles are specifically about campaign politics. If Daily Kos is a "major news source", NewsMax and Drudge Report have much greater claim to that title—they cover a broader range of topics and are much more "news"-oriented—but that does not mean that NewsMax articles are appropriate sources, or that NewsMax writers or Drudge's "scoops" are credible. -- Centrx 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to sourcing a wide range of creditable reviewers of this or any other work. And, since I am not an objectivist, I don't have a problem with even the most scathing criticisms of "Atlas Shrugged" (including reference to Rand's tendency to use characters for little more than extended exposition and philosophical objections against objectivism as put forth by the characters or content of the book. That said, I must agree completely with BOTH of the objections to the inclusion of the "Daily Kos" crticism in this instance. If there were too few examples of criticism available to meet the basic needs of such an article, then perhaps a reliance upon a blogger's view might serve a purpose in filling the perceived void. Otherwise, the growth in popularity of a blog is by no means the same thing as evidence of the relevance or validity of its content and there are better sources available. In addition, the argument that the comparison between objectivism and fascism is unwarranted is NOT merely a POV issue, but, on an objective basis, a factually inaccurate comparison. At the most fundamental level, objectivism elevates the individual and embraces lassez faire capitalism. Fascism is a socialist system that elevates race and nation above the individual and, in practice, preserves only the illusion of capitalism (mostly in terminology) while dictating prices, production and wages. Condemn objectivism as much as you like - perhaps even heap as much scorn upon it as you would fascism - but a direct comparison is absurd on its face. -- Fletch1_Lives 05:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It was good of you to provide the six elements of fascism – they prove my point.
Corporatism – Look up the term and you will find that it doesn’t have anything to do with corporations in the modern sense (or the sense that they appear in the novel). It’s “a political system [also Italian in origin]) in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups”. This is consistent with socialism in either Centrx’s context or yours. Moreover, Rand does not say that the “businessman was the ubermensch” (a loaded term anyway) but rather exalted the productive self-sufficient individual.
Totalitarianism - describes that condition where “the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. This, again, is descriptive of every socialist system that has ever existed and is anathema to the Randian philosophy which elevates the individual above the state or any other collective. A world ruled by such a philosophy cannot, by definition, be totalitarian.
Nationalism – here, again, is a feature common to socialistic systems as they have appeared in the real world and is directly opposed by objectivist philosophy. That Rand opposed communist elements in the United States has far less to do with nationalism than with “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
Militarism – yes, there’s a trend here. This, again, is a characteristic common to socialistic regimes as it requires the concentration of state power to take place (which, again, is contrary to basic objectivism). At least you concede that “Rand herself wasn’t very militaristic” but, again, she didn’t believe in “killing off everyone else”. Quite the contrary, she NEVER advocates killing anyone. The notion that separating oneself from self-destructive elements and, thereby, not intervening when self-destruction is achieved is vastly different from initiating or even facilitating that destruction. I don’t embrace Rand’s stance here, but it in no way resembles what you have described.
Anti-communism – this one you get completely wrong because you attempt to use “communism” and “socialism” interchangeably. Communism is merely a type of socialism (arguably the most extreme form) or, as Wikipedia puts it, “a branch of the broader socialist movement”. There is nothing inconsistent with opposition to a competing form of socialism.
And finally anti-liberalism – In this context it does not mean liberalism in the modern sense but in the classical sense. That is, fascism is opposed to the “political tradition that holds liberty as the primary political value … a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas [and] a MARKET ECONOMY (emphasis mine) that supports private enterprise…” In other words, fascism opposes individualism and laissez faire economics in favor of state economic control (favoring socialism over objectivism).
That the article is less biased due to your intervention may well be the case. If there were few criticisms before (as appears to be the case), your contribution appears to be genuine and perhaps substantial. I am not being critical of those points. I am merely arguing that the specific criticism under discussion, partly because of its pedigree (or lack thereof) and partly due to factual inaccuracy – as demonstrated – does not have sufficient probative value to appear in an objective article. Such an article should reflect neither an objectivist bias or an anti-objectiovist bias either. --
Fletch1_Lives 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
As noted in the edit summary, the article from the Kirk quote is taken is not written by Kirk and has only one line about his criticism: "Other comments were not much friendlier: Russell Kirk, the conservative philosopher, groused that people read her novels "for the fornicating bits." This is not literary criticism, or anything warranting mention in an encyclopedia. It is a "grousing" not a reasoned claim, nor does it pretend to be. Further, it may also be taken out of context amongst a joke. There is no evidence to assert that Kirk actually thinks that people read the book only for the fornicating bits.
As for the Saunders paragraph, it grossly misrepresents what he actually says in the referenced article. In this particular, if he were actually so foolish as to adhere to or believe in a philosophy, making him a "former Objectivist", and then to discount that philosophy based on a novel (didn't he read it before?) and because he thought the novel was poorly written, his statements would clearly not be any sort of reasonable criticism. This is not what he says in the interview linked as reference. Aside from that, the prose of the book is good, better than many books that have no mention of bad prose in their articles. - Centrx 19:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
First, do not label me with a philosophy to which I do not adhere. The fact is that there is no evidence for the blank statement "Kirk claimed that people only reader Rand's novels "for the fornicating bits."" I do not mean that he was making a joke that flatly contradicted his opinion of the books, but that he was not intending to make a serious literary criticism. The statement clearly evidences dislike of the novels, but that is not the same thing as flatly stating that he thinks people only read the books for the sex parts.
Regarding "Wikipedia gives the facts": Yes, but judgment is still necessary when editing the article because it is not possible to give every single fact in an article, and simply including a smattering of facts is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, which is the premise of Wikipedia. If the facts aren't organized, then the reader is jumping around all the time while reading, with the Fictional terminologies mentioned in the introduction, with the helium article starting off with "Helium flows through even capillaries of 10-7 to 10-8 m width it has no measurable viscosity..." rather than "Helium is a chemical element...". Especially important in a criticism section is having some balance. If everyone added their favorite quotes, aside from the section becoming so long as to be useless, anyone could skew the criticism to his heart's desire so that the section was filled with quotes from anarchist's complaining about the book advocating too much government intervention or people saying the book was too short. There must be some reason, for example, why you think a statement that people think the book is "dangerous" must go in the introduction, rather than amongst the criticisms. Please discuss this rather than trying to sit on the article and turning it into a revert war over even the most reasonable changes. - Centrx 19:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the infobox tag, if anyone want to add the cover artist for the 35th aniversery edition it's designed by Richard Hasselberger and illustrated by Nicholas Gaetano. Vicarious 22:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This article about Atlas Shrugged is preposterous. Full deletion is the only option available. Maybe the Prime Movers of wikipedia should just let the looters run wikipedia as they see fit. Then, they will squander all of it into such a biasness mentality. After it collapses on itself (after begging the prime movers to come back), then we can come back and fix it the way it should be. Actually I should not even take the time to respond to such garbage, however, I realize after living in the world how can one write such irreverent and irrelevant facts without any kind of grounds. Irrelevant, Irreverent, and the feelings probably stem from jealousy and/or Communistic tendencies because those people cannot live without help from others. The problem with Wikipedia is people from outside Galt's Gulch.
-- Friar Xion 19:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I see that someone removed the POV notice but that someone else reverted it. It looks like we have a somewhat decent criticism section going, so I think we can remove the POV tag for now so long as people continue to work on the criticism section. I'll leave it be for now. I'd suggest that those who still find this article to be non-neutral start a list of specific improvements to be made. SmartGuy 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If "Rand isn't very well liked in academic circles or literary circles", why is most of the criticism now in the article from journalists making top 10 lists and passingly mentioning the book? (rather than making a critique directed at the book). We have:
Only the sources from Chambers and Branden are even about the book and, while they are the closest thing to anything like an academic or literary critique, the Chambers magazine article is still far from it, and Branden is mainly focused on its psychology, not a comprehensive literary critique. The others are, aside from not being academic or literary critiques, only tangentially related at all. Where are the legitimate critiques? If a criticism section doesn't reflect important and continuing strains of criticism, it would be better not to have it at all rather than hand-picking a few mostly irrelevant, non-encyclopedic remarks. If indeed there is serious literary criticism of the book, the purpose of properly mentioning it would be better served by simply stating it in the article. As it stands, only two of these sources warrant mention even in a summary, and the remainder do not belong in any encyclopedia at all. -- Centrx 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm kind of intimidated to post in this raging debate, but:
"That our sexual desire is a response to the embodiment of our values in others is a radical and original theory."
Plato in the Symposium thinks love (read: sex) is based on an evaluation of someone else; love is what you feel towards someone who meets certain criteria based on your values. Is this substantially different from Rand's view? Even if it is substantially different, isn't it similar enough that Rand can't really be considered radical on this? -- 70.38.5.59
Okay, I was bold. I edited the section on Sexual theory just enough to correct the attribution of the theory and included a link to Plato's Symposium. If I did something wrong in the formating please let me know. -- Courtland Nerval 16:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Rand I believe did not get her ideas from Plato's Symposium; to the extent she was influenced by others on the topic, the influence was almost completely, if not completely, Aristotle's ideas on the nature of friendship, the alter-ego, and love. Leonard Peikoff discusses the basis of her ideas on the matter in "Objectivism Through Induction." LaszloWalrus 10:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You can "Believe" she didn't get her idea form Plato's Symposium all you want: She did. Read the damn text. Read some criticism and interpretation of it, "rand's" theory or sex is practically plagarism, we were far more kind to her than that in the article though. Rand without doubt read symposium when she was studying classical philosophy in college (considering that Symposium is Plato's Second greatest work); the ideas expressed in Symposium are of a Romantic style that is exactly in sync with Rand. Peikoff can say she got her ideas from elsewhere but he is full of shit. Either he was covering for her, or she lied to him about where "her" ideas came from and he was just to middling or dishonest to catch it.
Regardless of if she had read Symposium before or not (which she had) or whether it was conscious or not, the idea not generally, but SPECIFICALLY originated, as in was ORIGINALLY PUT FORWARD BY, Plato in Symposium. Sorry bud, but you can't give Rand credit for what she didn't invent. Thanks for the revert LGagnon, I didn't even see the vandalism. -- Courtland Nerval 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all I have read the Symposium (as well as criticism and interpretation of it). The fact that Plato said something similar to Rand does NOT mean that Rand got her ideas from Plato. If we were to trace EVERY philosopher's roots, ninety-five percent of them would have "plagiarized" Plato in SOME regard. Have you read Rand? I think not. LaszloWalrus 11:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I've eliminated the Symposium stuff again; give a citation for Rand getting the concept from Plato, and it can stay. Plato's conception of sexual desire and love and Rand's are fundamentally different. The inclusion of the Symposium in the article amounts to original research. I would also like a citation for Peikoff being "full of shit" about Rand's ideas, inasmuch as she explicitly acknowledges where she got many of her ideas. LaszloWalrus 11:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Your elimination of the Symposium link again amounts to vandalism of the article. Whether Rand acknowledged the origin of the idea or not does not mean it didn't come from there. Regardless of the fact, the Symposium cite didn't claim that she ripped it off from Plato, but that it Originated with Plato (which it did, by over 2400 years). This is not only factually correct but does not require citation; just look at Symposium (I don't think you have read it). For your information I HAVE read Rand, rather extensively, including (surprise surprise) Atlas Shrugged. Rand's theory of sexuality is the SAME theory of sex that Socrates puts forth in Plato's Symposium. Provide a link that proves beyond all arguement that the idea was a totally original randian idea or the link goes back. Plato's theory of Sex and sexual attraction in Symposium is not at question. What he argued is not in question. Whether or not Rand stole the idea from Plato isn't really in question. But regardless of that fact, the Symposium cite simply pointed out that Plato beat her to print on that idea by 2400 odd years. The link goes back in period. Stop vandalising the article.-- Courtland Nerval 13:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I have re-added the Syposium link. This is because it does not claim that Rand got her Idea from Symposium (which she did) but mearly asserts that the GENERAL idea was first printed there; it also points out how radical it was for the time she wrote it (credit where it is due). The substance of your objection has been addressed Laszlo: namely that Rand "Stole" or "got" her idea from Plato. As written a reader could draw the conclusion that Rand was unaware of plato all together, and that he just happened to have written down the same idea she came to on her own. The idea however is not stricly original in that it was written and printed 24000 years before Rand was born. The cite must stay in for clarity. The article DOES NOT claim that She GOT the idea from Symposium, just that it was there first. Rand's theory of Sex is a common source of criticism and literary critique, thus the link needs to stay (if nothing else Plato lends her credence). Stop inserting POV into article, it amounts to vandalism.-- Courtland Nerval 14:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Which is all I did. I know that she got the idea from Plato, I know because I have rather intensely studied Symposium and am quite familiar with Atlas shrugged. I do not have a web link to this however, so rather than claim that Rand GOT her idea from Plato, we can objectively point out that the idea was first written in Symposium. This all started of course because someone attributed the idea to her as "whole original and radical" which it wasn't. Even if Plato's idea was only "very similar" her theory would still not be wholey original.-- Courtland Nerval 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
LaszloWalrus edited this out as biased and unsupported -
Actually I don't find that to be biased at all, and it certainly is true. Why remove it? -- User:SmartGuy
First of all, LGagnon no personal attacks. Second of all, in the entire book there is only one scene it which this statement is at all applicable; Francisco d'Anconia's money speech roughly fits that description. Once is not "several times"; inasmuch as the statement had an obvious bias and was unsourced, the onus of proof was on you to demonstrate that it belonged. LaszloWalrus 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, I'm an Objectivist; I broadcast that on my user page so people know where I'm coming from. The John Galt speech is in a venue when one would expect people to listen to a speech. It's a radio address, and many people are tuned in to hear a report on the world crisis. As far as being amongst the "several biased editors," I really don't see the justification of that statement. My edits have almost always been with the consensus, as evident from my edits regarding Rand's views on homosexuality, to the people who have influenced her, etc. Likewise, when presented with facts, I've stopped editing in cases where I was wrong, i.e. the literary influence from Nietzsche. I've edited out hagiographic biographies of Objectivists (even ones I agree with that were biased); for evidence, see the history and talk page for the Tara Smith article. LaszloWalrus 03:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I've started a small criticism section; I'll add more when I have time. LaszloWalrus 23:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I eliminated the (positive) review of Atlas Shrugged that argues that the book is a sequel to Lord of the Rings. I think all reviews, positive or negative, should come from reputable sources, not just some guy with modem. LaszloWalrus 08:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not in Objectivist nature to ask before he/she does something. If one thinks he is right then no one else can convince him otherwise--let reality be the final judge, as Rand would say. And reality says that a criticism section would be unnecessary because the book is perfect. -- Friar xion 20:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not in Objectivist nature to ask before he does something if he believes that he is right and others are wrong, because Objectivists value the reasonable judgement of their own minds first and foremost. However, if another mind should come along and demonstrate reasonably why the Objectivist in question is incorrect, the Objectivist, being devoted to reason by definition, should concede their error of judgement. Objectivism does not require that a person be perfect or to hold themselves as perfect. It only requires that a person have enough confidence in their own mind to not allow themselves to be swayed by some nebulous general opinion. Hard, logical arguments, however, should be given just consideration. Sadly though, most arguments are of the former variety. -- Topplepot 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
An Objectivist (at least an intelligent one) would not deny the uses of environmentalism. Rand most likely ignored such arguments herself because of ignorance. The damage being done to the environment was not as well-documented and evidenced in the early 1950s as it is now. However, there is a difference between living in such a way as to preserve our environment to preserve our self-interests and living in such a way that glorifies our environment over ourselves. Rand would have agreed with the former, not with the latter. Furthermore, there is a difference between a nebulous public opinion and a rational argument. For example, the argument that started all of this is somewhat nebulous. "...on occasion," is nebulous and is worded in such a way as to overemphasize the usage of such speeches. There is, in truth, only one such speech and that is the one made by d'Anconia during the wedding reception. And in this circumstance, the partygoers react with incredulity and anger, much the reaction we would have expected them to have. As mentioned before, the speech made by Galt was a radio broadcast and an actual, pre-scheduled speech. Thus, people would naturally expect a monologue with more depth than bridge-club gossip. With regards to the hobo on the train, Dagny is intensely interested in exactly what he has to say, and would have been likely to throw him off the train had he started a "cocktail party" dialogue. This is not to say that the original statement should have been thrown out entirely. It should simply have been modified, perhaps by acknowledging that Atlas Shrugged is not the same type of fiction written by Tom Clancy or Michael Crighton. It is a highly philosophical book, and so dialogue is meant to convey a philosophical message while propelling the action, as opposed to simply driving a plot forward. Therefore, readers should expect dialogue that is a bit more weighty than the average modern novel. Perhaps it is a telling sign that, while our ancestors expected such depth in their leisure-reading, we become flustered when presented with anything more than the dialogue expected at "cocktail parties." -- Topplepot 19:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
An Objectivist ideal does not necessarily equal a political organization. While Ayn Rand started the Objectivist movement, she was by no means the ideal Objectivist. From what I have read of her interviews, she often appears to be a vain woman who often falls to the temptation of mistaking her personal preferences for logical arguments. Such an error is likely to carry over into any organization that is more concerned with political rather than philosophical purposes, or for the advancement of Ayn Rand rather then the ideas she championed. For example, the ARI itself is guilty of shading the truth. The biography portion of the organization's site devoted to Ayn Rand mentions only the shiny, happy parts of her life, conveniently ignoring her affair. Furthermore, as you say, the environmental problem is a problem in Randism. Randism being, I assume, the philosophical devotion to Ayn Rand. This would be by necessity separate from Objectivism because Objectivism champions the individual's ability to judge things for themselves without relying too much on the judgement of others. I'm certain Ayn Rand would have liked to hold herself up as the paragon of right reason, but such is not and was never the case. With regards to the quality of Ayn Rand's writing style, that is up to the opinion of the reader. I myself appreciate her straitforward style. I find authors such as Emerson who write in mystical language and then accuse others of stupidity when their words are misunderstood to be overly-arrogant and foolish. An author's decision to hide their meaning in metaphor or to state it simply does not determine their worth as an author; it is a part of their writing style and, usually, a good clue as to the nature of the message the author wishes to convey. There are positives and negatives to each approach to writing and the author must weigh these when determining how best to communicate their message. -- Topplepot 06:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I agree with you that many Randists are probably arrogant and narrow-minded. I am merely arguing that a proper Objectivist would not be tied to the personal ideas of Ayn Rand in the same way a proper Randist would be. Thus, an Objectivist, not to be confused with a Randist, may not be as steadfastly anti-environmentlism as a Randist. Regarding "good art" and "good fiction," would you mind providing for me an all-inclusive definition of "art" so that we may accurately judge "good art" from "bad art." Until we have that, I don't think we'll be able to come to an agreement as to whether or not Ayn Rand is a "good author." -- Topplepot 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
This section describes the motor as responsible for "jamming all radio receivers on Earth, and completely destroying the contents of Galt's booby-trapped laboratory..." I do not remember anything that Rand wrote which specifically attributed the radio blackout and destruction of Galt's lab equipment to any function of the motor. I don't remember any other functions of Galt's motor being described other than harnessing and producing energy. It seems more likely that the destruction of the lab equipment and the jamming of all radio signals were the product of some other device(s?) made by Galt. It has been about a year since I read it though, so someone tell me if I'm wrong. AscendedAnathema 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, their opinions are worth adding. Kirk is considered the father of modern conservativism; Saunders is an award winning writer and former objectivist. Those are good reasons to have their opinions in this article, and makes them credible for a topic related to their fields. -- LGagnon 18:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
What are the criteria for adding people who criticize a book? While acclaimed authors, and philosophers who have coherent literary or philosophical criticism may be relevant, including a relatively random blogger who more people think are "loony" than they think the book, who nonsensically compares the book to "Fascism", the classic epithet for the ignorant and in this case totally unfounded, gives credit to the incredible and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. - Centrx 18:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Has The Daily Kos gained credibility in recent years or is it just more popular? By what criteria is Daily Kos a "major news source"? Most of the articles are specifically about campaign politics. If Daily Kos is a "major news source", NewsMax and Drudge Report have much greater claim to that title—they cover a broader range of topics and are much more "news"-oriented—but that does not mean that NewsMax articles are appropriate sources, or that NewsMax writers or Drudge's "scoops" are credible. -- Centrx 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to sourcing a wide range of creditable reviewers of this or any other work. And, since I am not an objectivist, I don't have a problem with even the most scathing criticisms of "Atlas Shrugged" (including reference to Rand's tendency to use characters for little more than extended exposition and philosophical objections against objectivism as put forth by the characters or content of the book. That said, I must agree completely with BOTH of the objections to the inclusion of the "Daily Kos" crticism in this instance. If there were too few examples of criticism available to meet the basic needs of such an article, then perhaps a reliance upon a blogger's view might serve a purpose in filling the perceived void. Otherwise, the growth in popularity of a blog is by no means the same thing as evidence of the relevance or validity of its content and there are better sources available. In addition, the argument that the comparison between objectivism and fascism is unwarranted is NOT merely a POV issue, but, on an objective basis, a factually inaccurate comparison. At the most fundamental level, objectivism elevates the individual and embraces lassez faire capitalism. Fascism is a socialist system that elevates race and nation above the individual and, in practice, preserves only the illusion of capitalism (mostly in terminology) while dictating prices, production and wages. Condemn objectivism as much as you like - perhaps even heap as much scorn upon it as you would fascism - but a direct comparison is absurd on its face. -- Fletch1_Lives 05:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It was good of you to provide the six elements of fascism – they prove my point.
Corporatism – Look up the term and you will find that it doesn’t have anything to do with corporations in the modern sense (or the sense that they appear in the novel). It’s “a political system [also Italian in origin]) in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups”. This is consistent with socialism in either Centrx’s context or yours. Moreover, Rand does not say that the “businessman was the ubermensch” (a loaded term anyway) but rather exalted the productive self-sufficient individual.
Totalitarianism - describes that condition where “the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. This, again, is descriptive of every socialist system that has ever existed and is anathema to the Randian philosophy which elevates the individual above the state or any other collective. A world ruled by such a philosophy cannot, by definition, be totalitarian.
Nationalism – here, again, is a feature common to socialistic systems as they have appeared in the real world and is directly opposed by objectivist philosophy. That Rand opposed communist elements in the United States has far less to do with nationalism than with “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
Militarism – yes, there’s a trend here. This, again, is a characteristic common to socialistic regimes as it requires the concentration of state power to take place (which, again, is contrary to basic objectivism). At least you concede that “Rand herself wasn’t very militaristic” but, again, she didn’t believe in “killing off everyone else”. Quite the contrary, she NEVER advocates killing anyone. The notion that separating oneself from self-destructive elements and, thereby, not intervening when self-destruction is achieved is vastly different from initiating or even facilitating that destruction. I don’t embrace Rand’s stance here, but it in no way resembles what you have described.
Anti-communism – this one you get completely wrong because you attempt to use “communism” and “socialism” interchangeably. Communism is merely a type of socialism (arguably the most extreme form) or, as Wikipedia puts it, “a branch of the broader socialist movement”. There is nothing inconsistent with opposition to a competing form of socialism.
And finally anti-liberalism – In this context it does not mean liberalism in the modern sense but in the classical sense. That is, fascism is opposed to the “political tradition that holds liberty as the primary political value … a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas [and] a MARKET ECONOMY (emphasis mine) that supports private enterprise…” In other words, fascism opposes individualism and laissez faire economics in favor of state economic control (favoring socialism over objectivism).
That the article is less biased due to your intervention may well be the case. If there were few criticisms before (as appears to be the case), your contribution appears to be genuine and perhaps substantial. I am not being critical of those points. I am merely arguing that the specific criticism under discussion, partly because of its pedigree (or lack thereof) and partly due to factual inaccuracy – as demonstrated – does not have sufficient probative value to appear in an objective article. Such an article should reflect neither an objectivist bias or an anti-objectiovist bias either. --
Fletch1_Lives 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
As noted in the edit summary, the article from the Kirk quote is taken is not written by Kirk and has only one line about his criticism: "Other comments were not much friendlier: Russell Kirk, the conservative philosopher, groused that people read her novels "for the fornicating bits." This is not literary criticism, or anything warranting mention in an encyclopedia. It is a "grousing" not a reasoned claim, nor does it pretend to be. Further, it may also be taken out of context amongst a joke. There is no evidence to assert that Kirk actually thinks that people read the book only for the fornicating bits.
As for the Saunders paragraph, it grossly misrepresents what he actually says in the referenced article. In this particular, if he were actually so foolish as to adhere to or believe in a philosophy, making him a "former Objectivist", and then to discount that philosophy based on a novel (didn't he read it before?) and because he thought the novel was poorly written, his statements would clearly not be any sort of reasonable criticism. This is not what he says in the interview linked as reference. Aside from that, the prose of the book is good, better than many books that have no mention of bad prose in their articles. - Centrx 19:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
First, do not label me with a philosophy to which I do not adhere. The fact is that there is no evidence for the blank statement "Kirk claimed that people only reader Rand's novels "for the fornicating bits."" I do not mean that he was making a joke that flatly contradicted his opinion of the books, but that he was not intending to make a serious literary criticism. The statement clearly evidences dislike of the novels, but that is not the same thing as flatly stating that he thinks people only read the books for the sex parts.
Regarding "Wikipedia gives the facts": Yes, but judgment is still necessary when editing the article because it is not possible to give every single fact in an article, and simply including a smattering of facts is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, which is the premise of Wikipedia. If the facts aren't organized, then the reader is jumping around all the time while reading, with the Fictional terminologies mentioned in the introduction, with the helium article starting off with "Helium flows through even capillaries of 10-7 to 10-8 m width it has no measurable viscosity..." rather than "Helium is a chemical element...". Especially important in a criticism section is having some balance. If everyone added their favorite quotes, aside from the section becoming so long as to be useless, anyone could skew the criticism to his heart's desire so that the section was filled with quotes from anarchist's complaining about the book advocating too much government intervention or people saying the book was too short. There must be some reason, for example, why you think a statement that people think the book is "dangerous" must go in the introduction, rather than amongst the criticisms. Please discuss this rather than trying to sit on the article and turning it into a revert war over even the most reasonable changes. - Centrx 19:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the infobox tag, if anyone want to add the cover artist for the 35th aniversery edition it's designed by Richard Hasselberger and illustrated by Nicholas Gaetano. Vicarious 22:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This article about Atlas Shrugged is preposterous. Full deletion is the only option available. Maybe the Prime Movers of wikipedia should just let the looters run wikipedia as they see fit. Then, they will squander all of it into such a biasness mentality. After it collapses on itself (after begging the prime movers to come back), then we can come back and fix it the way it should be. Actually I should not even take the time to respond to such garbage, however, I realize after living in the world how can one write such irreverent and irrelevant facts without any kind of grounds. Irrelevant, Irreverent, and the feelings probably stem from jealousy and/or Communistic tendencies because those people cannot live without help from others. The problem with Wikipedia is people from outside Galt's Gulch.
-- Friar Xion 19:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I see that someone removed the POV notice but that someone else reverted it. It looks like we have a somewhat decent criticism section going, so I think we can remove the POV tag for now so long as people continue to work on the criticism section. I'll leave it be for now. I'd suggest that those who still find this article to be non-neutral start a list of specific improvements to be made. SmartGuy 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If "Rand isn't very well liked in academic circles or literary circles", why is most of the criticism now in the article from journalists making top 10 lists and passingly mentioning the book? (rather than making a critique directed at the book). We have:
Only the sources from Chambers and Branden are even about the book and, while they are the closest thing to anything like an academic or literary critique, the Chambers magazine article is still far from it, and Branden is mainly focused on its psychology, not a comprehensive literary critique. The others are, aside from not being academic or literary critiques, only tangentially related at all. Where are the legitimate critiques? If a criticism section doesn't reflect important and continuing strains of criticism, it would be better not to have it at all rather than hand-picking a few mostly irrelevant, non-encyclopedic remarks. If indeed there is serious literary criticism of the book, the purpose of properly mentioning it would be better served by simply stating it in the article. As it stands, only two of these sources warrant mention even in a summary, and the remainder do not belong in any encyclopedia at all. -- Centrx 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm kind of intimidated to post in this raging debate, but:
"That our sexual desire is a response to the embodiment of our values in others is a radical and original theory."
Plato in the Symposium thinks love (read: sex) is based on an evaluation of someone else; love is what you feel towards someone who meets certain criteria based on your values. Is this substantially different from Rand's view? Even if it is substantially different, isn't it similar enough that Rand can't really be considered radical on this? -- 70.38.5.59
Okay, I was bold. I edited the section on Sexual theory just enough to correct the attribution of the theory and included a link to Plato's Symposium. If I did something wrong in the formating please let me know. -- Courtland Nerval 16:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Rand I believe did not get her ideas from Plato's Symposium; to the extent she was influenced by others on the topic, the influence was almost completely, if not completely, Aristotle's ideas on the nature of friendship, the alter-ego, and love. Leonard Peikoff discusses the basis of her ideas on the matter in "Objectivism Through Induction." LaszloWalrus 10:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You can "Believe" she didn't get her idea form Plato's Symposium all you want: She did. Read the damn text. Read some criticism and interpretation of it, "rand's" theory or sex is practically plagarism, we were far more kind to her than that in the article though. Rand without doubt read symposium when she was studying classical philosophy in college (considering that Symposium is Plato's Second greatest work); the ideas expressed in Symposium are of a Romantic style that is exactly in sync with Rand. Peikoff can say she got her ideas from elsewhere but he is full of shit. Either he was covering for her, or she lied to him about where "her" ideas came from and he was just to middling or dishonest to catch it.
Regardless of if she had read Symposium before or not (which she had) or whether it was conscious or not, the idea not generally, but SPECIFICALLY originated, as in was ORIGINALLY PUT FORWARD BY, Plato in Symposium. Sorry bud, but you can't give Rand credit for what she didn't invent. Thanks for the revert LGagnon, I didn't even see the vandalism. -- Courtland Nerval 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all I have read the Symposium (as well as criticism and interpretation of it). The fact that Plato said something similar to Rand does NOT mean that Rand got her ideas from Plato. If we were to trace EVERY philosopher's roots, ninety-five percent of them would have "plagiarized" Plato in SOME regard. Have you read Rand? I think not. LaszloWalrus 11:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I've eliminated the Symposium stuff again; give a citation for Rand getting the concept from Plato, and it can stay. Plato's conception of sexual desire and love and Rand's are fundamentally different. The inclusion of the Symposium in the article amounts to original research. I would also like a citation for Peikoff being "full of shit" about Rand's ideas, inasmuch as she explicitly acknowledges where she got many of her ideas. LaszloWalrus 11:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Your elimination of the Symposium link again amounts to vandalism of the article. Whether Rand acknowledged the origin of the idea or not does not mean it didn't come from there. Regardless of the fact, the Symposium cite didn't claim that she ripped it off from Plato, but that it Originated with Plato (which it did, by over 2400 years). This is not only factually correct but does not require citation; just look at Symposium (I don't think you have read it). For your information I HAVE read Rand, rather extensively, including (surprise surprise) Atlas Shrugged. Rand's theory of sexuality is the SAME theory of sex that Socrates puts forth in Plato's Symposium. Provide a link that proves beyond all arguement that the idea was a totally original randian idea or the link goes back. Plato's theory of Sex and sexual attraction in Symposium is not at question. What he argued is not in question. Whether or not Rand stole the idea from Plato isn't really in question. But regardless of that fact, the Symposium cite simply pointed out that Plato beat her to print on that idea by 2400 odd years. The link goes back in period. Stop vandalising the article.-- Courtland Nerval 13:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I have re-added the Syposium link. This is because it does not claim that Rand got her Idea from Symposium (which she did) but mearly asserts that the GENERAL idea was first printed there; it also points out how radical it was for the time she wrote it (credit where it is due). The substance of your objection has been addressed Laszlo: namely that Rand "Stole" or "got" her idea from Plato. As written a reader could draw the conclusion that Rand was unaware of plato all together, and that he just happened to have written down the same idea she came to on her own. The idea however is not stricly original in that it was written and printed 24000 years before Rand was born. The cite must stay in for clarity. The article DOES NOT claim that She GOT the idea from Symposium, just that it was there first. Rand's theory of Sex is a common source of criticism and literary critique, thus the link needs to stay (if nothing else Plato lends her credence). Stop inserting POV into article, it amounts to vandalism.-- Courtland Nerval 14:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Which is all I did. I know that she got the idea from Plato, I know because I have rather intensely studied Symposium and am quite familiar with Atlas shrugged. I do not have a web link to this however, so rather than claim that Rand GOT her idea from Plato, we can objectively point out that the idea was first written in Symposium. This all started of course because someone attributed the idea to her as "whole original and radical" which it wasn't. Even if Plato's idea was only "very similar" her theory would still not be wholey original.-- Courtland Nerval 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)