Atlas Shrugged Day

[Mandryka]

Just being "anti-capitalist" is the stance of many who can't be bothered to think more deeply and understand. It's an easy way for the intellectually lazy, or the intellectually incompetent.

That some capitalists have been evil and greedy is a given. So have some of those who are not capitalist. The system, at its basic level, is fine - but is corruptible, as are all systems used by humans.

Another book worth reading is "Good Business" by Steve Hilton and Giles Gibbons. Well-written, with a moral take.

Would that be the Steve Hilton who was David Cameron's eminence gris up until recently?

[Simon]

Yes - ex Saatchi guy. Goes around advising on ethical business.

[Pilchardman]

For most people, any book whose philosophical ideas you agree with, you will like/recommend/admire.

Any book whose philosophical ideas you disagree with, you will dislike/not recommend/not admire.

While that may be true, this really is a very badly written book. And if it doesn't have a bad sex award, then it should! I do disagree with the philosophy, but I hope I'm able to separate writing competence from the writer's philosophy. And this is dreadful.

Importance is something different, though. A book could plausibly be both important and clumsy drivel. Perhaps the OP could explain a bit about what makes this such an important book?

Noam Chomsky said: "Rand in my view is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history." It's worth reading "The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z", to get a sense of why Chomsky would say that. Basically, she was an extreme free marketeer, who (in Chomsky's words) had "no objection to tyranny as long as it is private tyranny".

(For the cult of Objectivism, I recommend Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things").

[amateur51]

Another book worth reading is "Good Business" by Steve Hilton and Giles Gibbons. Well-written, with a moral take.

Another of Steve Hilton's great ideas...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election2001/images/0,,449562,00.html

[Simon]

Noam Chomsky said...

Oh dear, Pilchardman. Now there's someone whose works I do know well ... and I'm afraid that once you quote him on politics, which he almost unfailingly manages to misunderstand superlatively, all bets are off. Should have stuck to psycholinguistics...

[Pilchardman]

And that is where we'll differ.

[french frank]

Oh dear, Pilchardman. Now there's someone whose works I do know well ... and I'm afraid that once you quote him on politics, which he almost unfailingly manages to misunderstand superlatively, all bets are off. Should have stuck to psycholinguistics...

As you yourself said, Simon, "Any book whose philosophical ideas you disagree with, you will dislike/not recommend/not admire."

[Mandryka]

While that may be true, this really is a very badly written book. And if it doesn't have a bad sex award, then it should! I do disagree with the philosophy, but I hope I'm able to separate writing competence from the writer's philosophy. And this is dreadful.

Importance is something different, though. A book could plausibly be both important and clumsy drivel. Perhaps the OP could explain a bit about what makes this such an important book?

Noam Chomsky said: "Rand in my view is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history." It's worth reading "The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z", to get a sense of why Chomsky would say that. Basically, she was an extreme free marketeer, who (in Chomsky's words) had "no objection to tyranny as long as it is private tyranny".

(For the cult of Objectivism, I recommend Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things").

I wonder if you've ever read Dan Brown? Clearly not, if you think A.R. is an 'incompetent' writer.

Needless to say, I couldn't disagree more......the integration of philosophy and fiction in her novels - something that is very difficult to bring off - puts her right up there with her hero, Victor Hugo.

As for the 'bad' sex scene (I presume you mean the coupling of Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart) - it's not bad as in risible, as so many sex scenes are, but it IS disturbing (though no more so than many of Ian Fleming's sex sscenes), which was probably Rand's intention (her belief that strong women like to be mastered by even stronger men).

I've always been suspicious of Chomsky....I think he enjoys his role as a runner against the wind a little too much. Why does he continue to live in America? Surely he knows by now that there's no chance of his beliefs ever gaining ground in his home country.

[Pilchardman]

I wonder if you've ever read Dan Brown? Clearly not, if you think A.R. is an 'incompetent' writer.

Of course I have. (I try not to have opinions on books I haven't read).

As for why Chomsky lives in America, that'd be because he's American. I'm not sure where else you think he should live? I'm critical of the current UK government; should I emigrate somewhere? :)

[Simon]

As you yourself said, Simon, "Any book whose philosophical ideas you disagree with, you will dislike/not recommend/not admire."

Quite right, ff. [ Well, you're quoting me, so it would be. ]

But as pilchardman went on to say, you can dislike a view whilst respecting the writing and vice versa. I think Chomsky writes well, but his logic has something to be desired, I think. I'll root out some of his wilder comments if I get time and you can see what you think. I often wonder, as Mandryka also implies, how much of what he wrote was real belief and how much intended as an irritant from someone enjoying the troublemaker image.

As to where you live - I think it's an interesting point. In the days of free travel across much of the globe, I have in the past wondered why those that hate the UK so much, and want to harm us, continue to live here. The answers aren't hard to find, of course... (That's very different, naturally, from just disagreeing with the government of the day).

[Pilchardman]

(That's very different, naturally, from just disagreeing with the government of the day).

Or indeed, finding fault with each successive government. I was no fan of Blair et al either. Nor Major. Nor Thatcher. Nor Callaghan. But I was born here. Relatively free travel notwithstanding, where else would I go?

[french frank]

I'll root out some of his wilder comments.

No, don't bother with the 'wilder comments'. Just a judicious view of his general position will do

[amateur51]

In the days of free travel across much of the globe ...

What does this mean and why is it relevant?

[Pilchardman]

No, don't bother with the 'wilder comments'. Just a judicious view of his general position will do

I'm sure Simon will chip in, but the overview I'd give is this: Chomsky is a libertarian socialist, who is extremely critical of US government foreign policy, and is critical of both GOP and Democrat administration foreign policy over the decades.

I think the question asked of "why does he continue to live in America if he knows his beliefs will never gain ground" is based on several assumptions. First, that his beliefs have little public support. There is no evidence that they don't. His views certainly have no support amongst the ruling elite. And, yes, probably never will. So, where does an American go if his views are not shared by successive governments? Chomsky analyses US foreign policy precisely because he is American. Why does that mean he should leave his country? It seems a strange rule to apply. On arrival at his new home, must he then keep his mouth shut about that government's policies?

If I'm to be deported for being generally discontented with successive governments, I'd like somewhere warm, please. :)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I don't suppose Simon will reel from shock when I say that I find Rand's "philosophy" utterly repugnant (her belief that strong women like to be mastered by even stronger men is only less revolting than some others because it is so transparently risible) but there are many writers with ideas I disagree with (Hemingway, Lawrence) whose work I can appreciate.

Sorry, Mandryka, but I have tried to read Atlas Shrugged (and The Fountainhead a couple of times and haven't been able to get beyond the hundredth page. This is not (just) because of the "philosophy" but because of the poor quality of the prose: turgid and leaden-footed, utterly lacking in humour and so scornful of sentimentality that it avoids any glimmer of Human generosity almost as an article of faith. And the affected, B movie dialogue, with characters declaring sanctimonious platitudes at each other. (Have you ever tried reading some of these speeches out loud? Don't try it if you're in the slightest bit asthmatic!)

For integration of philosophy and literature (as opposed to just "fiction") there are so many other writers with a gift for language that leaves Rand stuck at the starting post, and hundreds of other books since 1945 that deserve greater accolades than hers.