You’re welcome.

“A movie would suck – it would have to be a hatchet job. I’d like to see an HBO Rome type version.”

It would take judicious cutting of the book. You could also get the entirety of the Speech in if you treated it as diagetic sound (i.e. every time a radio is turned on, we hear Galt instead of the putative program) acting as narration and then segue into the rest of the Speech when it occurs towards the climax. I don’t trust Hollywood with it, and it would have to be in mini-series format to be really faithful.

You are talking about derived characteristics, rather than underlying philosophy.
Marxist philosophy ignores the productivity of capitalists, and assumes all value comes from physical labor — Rand assumes physical labor is mostly irrelevant, and most value comes from the inspirations of capitalists. In that respect, they are mirrors of each other. Not that in Atlas, most of the would dies so that the capitalists can have their utopia in the end.

Count to 10 on November 2, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Rand spends plenty of time talking about the sweat off the brow of the industrialists as well. D’Anconia is a hero, as is Galt, as is Roark, because of their labor from the ground up. D’Anconia labored before he led, Roark built before he designed, and Galt was essentially a brilliant tinkerer.

They used their physical labor to build themselves up.

There are also minor characters – like Mike the foreman (IIRC the name) – from The Fountainhead – who are laborers and they are recognized as integral to building great works. Every one of Dagny Taggarts regional managers down to the brakemen and linemen are recognized for their labor. The only thing holding them back is their own aspirations – or in the case of those who’ve gone Galt, it’s specifically the reigning in of their aspirations.

There is no mirror at all. Marxism glorified Stalin, Mao, Lenin, and men who did nothing but terrorize others. Objectivism glorifies those who work for their own means. By their works, whether it be the steelworker next to the furnace who helps Reardon forge his metal, Mike the foreman/electrician who helps Roark build his buildings, or Eddie Willers who helps Dagny run her line – their labor is recognized as critical. Without the laborers, there is no Reardon Steel or Taggart Transcontinental, and there are no Roark buildings.

It is only the acquiesence to the villain looters/moochers/leftists who preach govt. control that is decried as evil, because it is submission to evil.

In Rand’s world, the only things holding someone back are their own ambitions (or their level of satisfaction, for those content to only work so hard and enjoy their lives – not everyone needs to be Galt) – and the looter/moochers in parasitical govt.

Keep in mind the history of the USSR, from the liquidation of the Kulaks to the purges of intelligensia and military, that are what she’s getting at.

Rand finds physical labor absolutely critical to building the dreams of those with great dreams. In Galt’s Gulch, great scientists and architects work manual labor for those who live alongside them. Rearden and Taggart are constantly searching for the best labor, and acknowledge it.

Perhaps most telling is that when the leaders of science and philosophy and government and labor gather to issue their final directives 10-238, IIRC, in AS – the labor leader explains that the lowest dockworker won’t be fooled by it – because that lowest man on the totem pole knows that his labor is his effort and is his life – and that it won’t be Galt that ruins them – it will be that one worker who knows what it is to be a man and earn his living.

Those who are critical of the book rarely get it. One set of strategic scale heroes does not mean there are no tactical scale heroes.

Though I’ll admit I got sick of reading the word “insolent” by about page 300.

ebrown2 on November 3, 2009 at 8:10 PM

Thanks for the links, I enjoyed our conversion/debate.

John the Libertarian on November 3, 2009 at 8:40 PM

A movie would suck – it would have to be a hatchet job. I’d like to see an HBO Rome type version.

Nah, just a cheap attraction to the romanticizing of the individual creator without integrating her actual thought.

Merely an updated “do-your-own-thing-hippyism.”

Here’s the problem right here, you are equivocating between the two definitions of “universe” that I posted above. If we take (A) to be the definition, then we have to use the term “space-time continuum” instead of “universe” for (B), or else we commit the fallacy of argument by definition by way of the fallacy of equivocation.

“thus God can exist and create the universe. There’s many ways to go about this… Please forgive the verbosity of the following, it goes with the subject:)”

So much so that this reply won’t contain it.

“1) By saying that God created the universe, you presume two states: the state preceding the universe in which God existed, and the state following the act of creation in which both exist. These two states presuppose the concept of time… which has not yet been created in state 1.”

That is a part of the response to “2” below.

“2) You’re using the law of identity to justify God as a axiom – why not just identity the universe as a axiom, rather the identify it as a creation of an axiomatic self-existance. You’re just increasing the steps… Any justification for doing so can be recursively used to presuppose an infinate-chain of creators – and since infinity is merely a potential, one must postulate a beginning to the recursive chain – at which point the axiomatic existence of the universe as the whole of existence is the logical conclusion.”

No, I am an moderate realist in the Aristotelian/Thomist tradition, so both axiomatic defenses and attacks on God’s existence (i.e. theistic and anti-theistic “ontological” arguments, the latter being what I’m objecting to from Objectivists) are unsound as far as I’m concerned. Another problem arises in that if I take your point about infinity to be true, (and, by the way, {g}) then I would have to reject the Aristotelian notion of the successive experience of time being real (because that WOULD generate an actual infinity with all the foolish paradoxes that would entail) in favor of the notion of the tenseless presentism (B-theory of time) of a certain Prussian philosopher that Rand just adores. [about as much as I do]

“In other words, the B definition is irrational… Which makes perfect sense, since reason operates within the universe as a logic system. So if you would concede that definition B is irrational, I’ll agree with you… But you seem to suggest that B is rational, and dismiss A. Do you have a rational basis to offer for B? And as a corollary, the basis for the dismissal of A?”

As a matter of fact, Prof. Craig, who I mentioned earlier, has devoted his life to the examination of this problem, and this article is a fairly decent intro to his prime argument…

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

His arguments against the position you’re proposing are here:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html

He discusses the notion of divine temporal relations here: (free registration required to view)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5387

I don’t know when they will close replies on this, so if you want to start a thread over at the Reasonable Faith forum, or take a look-see at my old blog

saturninretrograde.blogspot.com

feel free.

So now they are interested in Capitalism via Ayn Rand? Is it just because Hollywood’s Socialistic/Marxists worldview is so in vogue that its no longer in vogue to be part of it?

ebrown2 on November 3, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Ok I think I follow you… You’re saying that the universe is a subset of existence, thus God can exist and create the universe. There’s many ways to go about this… Please forgive the verbosity of the following, it goes with the subject:)

1) By saying that God created the universe, you presume two states: the state preceding the universe in which God existed, and the state following the act of creation in which both exist. These two states presuppose the concept of time… which has not yet been created in state 1.

2) You’re using the law of identity to justify God as a axiom – why not just identity the universe as a axiom, rather the identify it as a creation of an axiomatic self-existance. You’re just increasing the steps… Any justification for doing so can be recursively used to presuppose an infinate-chain of creators – and since infinity is merely a potential, one must postulate a beginning to the recursive chain – at which point the axiomatic existence of the universe as the whole of existence is the logical conclusion.

In other words, the B definition is irrational… Which makes perfect sense, since reason operates within the universe as a logic system. So if you would concede that definition B is irrational, I’ll agree with you… But you seem to suggest that B is rational, and dismiss A. Do you have a rational basis to offer for B? And as a corollary, the basis for the dismissal of A?

Absolutely not, that is the problem with the OBJECTIVIST equivocation of A and B above. You are fallaciously assuming that A -reduces- to B and then projecting that confusion onto theists. The non-question begging definition of “universe” is B.

“The universe is (only-is implied by Objectivism, but is the point at issue) our present space/time continuum.”

If “universe” is defined as the set of ALL things that exist subsumed under logical possibility (definition A-which I accepted for argument’s sake, remember that I have always been arguing that B is the proper definition of “universe”, then God did not create the set (Universe) since, contra Peikoff and Sartre, God is not self-created but self-existent. He would be the creator of the space-time continuum and all that exists within it. When theistic and most non-theistic thinkers use the term “universe,” they are using the “B” definition. No sensible theist would talk about God transcending the universe as God transcending -existence- itself.

On the B definition, that which has the property of existence would -not necessarily be limited- to the space- time continuum. That is exactly the point being argued. I have every respect for the principle of non-contradiction, which is why I’m rejecting your confusion of definitions.

Ummm…The Fountainhead was published in 1943. Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957.

The Satanic Bible was published in 1969.

Perhaps you should re-arrange your comment if it is a serious one.

The problem is the Laws of Thermodynamics seem universal, and a red-shift has been observed by astronomers. So we’re all moving away from each other, and cooling off as we move.
Chris_Balsz on November 3, 2009 at 1:04 PM

While true that still can’t solve the contraction that is the concept of the existance of non-existance. Remember the big bang only theorizes about the universe expanding from a single point of no entropy. And that point existed.

The principle of non-contradiction says nothing about anything existing beyond or outside the present space-time continuum, as long as it -exists,- period. If you say that the Universe is the set of all things that exist, theists will obviously agree that the set (Universe) does not have a beginning, because God, a member of that set, does not. Existence has always existed. The evidence that we currently have shows that the present space-time continuum) has not always existed, therein lies the problem. Atheist philosophers generally (with a few unhappy exceptions) take care to define “universe” in line with its standard non-question begging usage to avoid the fallacy.

In short, you cannot go from

A) The universe is the set of all things that exist.

to

B) The universe is only our present space/time continuum.

by definition without argument.

ebrown2 on November 3, 2009 at 1:31 PM

No no, you can’t claim that God created the universe AND that he is part of the universe. By auto-defining God as part of the universe by begging the question that if he is posited to exist he must be part of the universe, you render the concept of God a non-supernatural, rational, and a non-universe creating concept… Which of course defeats the whole point.

You can’t avoid this by setting-up a “time” and “before-time” dichotomy as subsets of the universe and assigning God to the before-time subset. It is sheer sophistry.

An axiom such as the law of identity (A=A, or, existance exists) is NOT begging the question, it is the metaphysical root of reality… It is the premise of all logic. To even mutter the words “I think you are begging the question…”, you postulate for the existence of “I”, and accept the law of identity.

Ayn Rand was a SATANIST!

Her books are almost word for word identical to her best buddy Anton La Vey’s SATANIC BIBLE.

If you people do not realize this you are incredibly stupid.

MaximusConfessor on November 3, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Taken literally, you accuse Anton LaVey of plagiarizing fiction about architecture and industrial transport.

The principle of non-contradiction says nothing about anything existing beyond or outside the present space-time continuum, as long as it -exists,- period. If you say that the Universe is the set of all things that exist, theists will obviously agree that the set (Universe) does not have a beginning, because God, a member of that set, does not. Existence has always existed. The evidence that we currently have shows that the present space-time continuum) has not always existed, therein lies the problem. Atheist philosophers generally (with a few unhappy exceptions) take care to define “universe” in line with its standard non-question begging usage to avoid the fallacy.

In short, you cannot go from

A) The universe is the set of all things that exist.

to

B) The universe is only our present space/time continuum.

by definition without argument.

Atlas Shrugged is a life changing novel. To those who despise it, hate it, are revolted by it, they are the looters (or the looter-wanna-be’s). They are seeing their ugly selves in a mirror and they hate it.

I too disagree with the concept of a beginning of existence. Too many atheists fall for the “what existed before existence” line, which is a contradiction.

And so I’ll reiterate my point… Ex nihilo is bullshit.

ebrawer on November 3, 2009 at 12:15 PM

The problem is the Laws of Thermodynamics seem universal, and a red-shift has been observed by astronomers. So we’re all moving away from each other, and cooling off as we move.

This is one of the -real- errors in Objectivism, defining the universe as “everything that exists” and then conflating it with the present space/time continuum, thus committing the fallacy of argument by definition.

It’s not a fallacy, it’s called an Axiom.

The equation “Universe = Existence” is an equivocal and question-begging definition in favor of naturalism that Angeles perpetrates in his DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, but more reputable philosophical dictionaries avoid.

The equation you’re looking for is A = A, the law of Identity as established by Aristotle… Existence exists. This is axiomatic. It’s the foundation of logic.

In point of fact, William Lane Craig, the chief modern defender of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), attacks the very idea of a “beginning of existence” in his debate with the atheist Peter Atkins.

ebrown2 on November 3, 2009 at 9:37 AM

I too disagree with the concept of a beginning of existence. Too many atheists fall for the “what existed before existence” line, which is a contradiction.

And so I’ll reiterate my point… Ex nihilo is bullshit.

Her books are almost word for word identical to her best buddy Anton La Vey’s SATANIC BIBLE.

If you people do not realize this you are incredibly stupid.

Oh yeah!?

Well…you smell!

Sheesh! Pardon me for expressing my opinion…

“I don’t agree that the universe was created in the first place. I don’t consider the concept of nothing to be real. In other words, I don’t agree with your premise. The concept of Ex nihilo, and everything that you hold to follow is bullshit.”

This is one of the -real- errors in Objectivism, defining the universe as “everything that exists” and then conflating it with the present space/time continuum, thus committing the fallacy of argument by definition.

The equation “Universe = Existence” is an equivocal and question-begging definition in favor of naturalism that Angeles perpetrates in his DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, but more reputable philosophical dictionaries avoid. In point of fact, William Lane Craig, the chief modern defender of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), attacks the very idea of a “beginning of existence” in his debate with the atheist Peter Atkins.

If you are still reading this, Rand realized that not everyone (especially the business executives she hoped to reach) would have the time or energy to crank through a 1000+ novel, so she collected the most relevant philosophical extracts from her novels into an anthology called FOR THE NEW INTELLECTUAL, with an introductory essay that discusses the nature of the two basic types of collectivist, the Attilas (those who employ brute force) and witch doctors (those who venerate rationalism unconnected to reality).