Atlas Shrugged: From fiction to fact in 52 years

[cammerfe]

The Real World

Since I don't have a horse in this race, I can stand off to one side and see the good points made by all those here who have a functioning thinking mechanism and have actually learned to spell.

I've heard both 'Ine' and 'Een' as pronunciation. Although the heroic scope of her writings invite enthusiastic acceptance, I, too, find her thoughts not completely in line with my observations of reality. I decided, years ago, to take what I could from her, without becoming a disciple.

And I, too, benefited greatly from the social programs in place under Carter. The official Govt. positions were of significant help to being an inner city landlord. This made me somewhat uneasy---I did a senior project for my AB in Sociology by working as a 'small-group worker' at a Settlement House in inner Detroit. I, therefore, saw at first hand the sense of entitlement and sullen anger at the lack of the 'stuff' the local folk thought they had a right to.

All that simply taught me that philosophic answers often don't go very far in the real world.

KS

 

[KD00LS]

KD00LS - you are in college - right?

De rigor for college - it is great to read utopian thought when you are in college - read BF Skinner as well - and then compare where the two differ and are the same - and why neither will work. Look for gray...

When you read Rand, you might want to read something smaller first - try Anthem - it gives a you a look at objectivism in a 'easy to digest' formula - and is available on the web...

Also, it is very interesting to delve into character study when reading Rand. Look at her characters, their dimension or scope.

And yes, there are a lot of correlations with what is happening today - so, read Rand to find out why her utopia is a dead end, and unrealistic in any society. She has some good ideas - but, they aren't achievable when you factor in the 'singularity' of humans. Similar to all utopian thought.

Thanks for the insight and the leads. Yes, I go to Temple University. I took Intro to Political Philosophy last semester, I really found it interesting. I was more inclined towards the philosophy aspect rather than the political structure, but I found it all pretty interesting.

I read...
Plato- The Republic
Machiavelli- The Prince
Locke- Treatise of Government
Hobbes- Leviathon
Karl Marx- Manifesto and Manuscripts
Pateman- Sexual Contract
Adam Smith, Rawls, Hayek, Fanon, Goldman

Funny you should mention singularity and utopian thought, that was what my final paper was based on. It was labeled basically as free will's effect on a political structure and the attempt to compensate for it with consequences, such as... rules, laws, morals, etc. I enjoyed writing that paper.

 

[foxpaws]

Depending on the length of aforesaid paper – pm it to me KD.

Locke, Hobbes, and Pateman – nice choices – yours or required? Unusual to see the juxtaposition there – Locke and Hobbes on one side, Pateman on the other. Although not completely opposed – I often feel that she extrapolates on especially the Locke ideal, while creating importunity to move his treatise into more modern day models.

Yes, we mere humans are so singular – it does ‘gum’ up the works of political structure as well as philosophical thought…

And because Foss just doesn’t get it sometimes…
Seduction is always more singular and sublime than sex and it commands the higher price.
Jean Baudrillard

 

[mespock]

Thanks for the insight and the leads. Yes, I go to Temple University. (Liberal institution therefore doesn't justify your statements) I took Intro to Political Philosophy last semester, I really found it interesting. I was more inclined towards the philosophy aspect rather than the political structure, but I found it all pretty interesting.

I read...
Plato- The Republic
Machiavelli- The Prince
Locke- Treatise of Government
Hobbes- Leviathon
Karl Marx- Manifesto and Manuscripts
Pateman- Sexual Contract
Adam Smith, Rawls, Hayek, Fanon, Goldman

(I'm sure these books have a liberal bias or do not support a conservative Christian philosophy therefore it would support the fact that you're ideals are liberal and therefore wrong)

Funny you should mention singularity and utopian thought, that was what my final paper was based on. It was labeled basically as free will's effect on a political structure and the attempt to compensate for it with consequences, such as... rules, laws, morals, etc. I enjoyed writing that paper.

I'm just trying to get a jump on what the response will be... but your education does not validate your responses.

 

[KD00LS]

I'm just trying to get a jump on what the response will be... but your education does not validate your responses.

With all due respect, what the hell are you referring to?

 

[KD00LS]

Depending on the length of aforesaid paper – pm it to me KD.

Locke, Hobbes, and Pateman – nice choices – yours or required? Unusual to see the juxtaposition there – Locke and Hobbes on one side, Pateman on the other. Although not completely opposed – I often feel that she extrapolates on especially the Locke ideal, while creating importunity to move his treatise into more modern day models.

Yes, we mere humans are so singular – it does ‘gum’ up the works of political structure as well as philosophical thought…

And because Foss just doesn’t get it sometimes…
Seduction is always more singular and sublime than sex and it commands the higher price.
Jean Baudrillard

The paper was like 8-10 pages long, I posted it into the political thread a little while ago. Still wanna read it?

I wasn't very fond of Patemen overall, but after reading it I did find some of her claims to be somewhat coherent, although I still didn't like her. Locke was a little bland for me, Hobbes was okay. Machiavelli and Plato were my favorite, and the main basis of my paper.

 

[fossten]

It's funny to see cheap seaters like foxpaws and others commenting in this thread, and yet they haven't read the book at least in the last 10 years.