The Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Bump

I too am reading Atlas Shrugged. It is, simply put, challenging. It is 1,000 pages (not too much of a challenge, I just read Nixonland) and is very (almost too) descriptive. Rand’s philosophy is something I only half agree with. Her defense of the common man and his capacity to well in society is something I have always believed in and agree with. But the attacks on religion really bugged me. Rands philosophy states (a description was in the back of the book) that “facts are facts, A is A”. If one believes in God, then one should look at Gods existence as “fact” and “reason”. Rand also glorifies the common sociopath. I like the book, and I like the respect she held for the common man, but all in all, I find it was poorly written.

I just watched these videos today, and I thought they gave a good insight into Rand’s views and personality.




Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU&feature=related
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N4KbLbGYgk&feature=related
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7cje1I3VM&feature=related
Part 5:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfqq4VKh1xM&list=UUNTrCzThyx2lV9B0KuM4RBg&index=36&feature=plcp

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Atlas Shrugged was a massive book in size, depth, and detail. It had way too many subplots, way too much detail, and as mentioned, had only two characters in multiple forms. But, for all her kinks in Atlas Shrugged, she still is a decent writer. Certainly not the best ever, but if you read Anthem and We the Living you will quickly find that her writing style was not as bad as it was in Atlas Shrugged.

If you are getting into Rand, I suggest you first read Anthem, and then We the Living. Anthem gives you a basic introduction to Objectivism. We the Living gives you background on why she thought the way she thought.

I agreed overall with Rand’s views on the divide between capitalists and the “looters.” But Rand’s views on religion are the opposite of what I think as a Christian. As a Paleoconservative, I believe that church/private welfare or charity programs are very beneficial to society and should be encouraged. But I don’t believe that my tax dollars should pay for welfare that I will never get. Rand’s opposition is much more sinister. Rand believed that it was belittling for a man to help another man because it did not benefit him. When pressed about this, Rand once said “I believe in charity and assistance. If my husband wants me to go get some milk at the store, I will do it. Why? Because it is in my self interest to keep his love.” If my mom, brother, or grandma asked me to go get some milk, I would do it whether it benefited me or not. As far as I know, love is supposed to be as close to unconditional as possible. Atlas Shrugged seems kind of contradictory when Dagny Taggart buys the homeless man dinner. Wasn’t that charity? You finally think something good is happening, when bam, you realize Dagny’s goal was to find out about an old factory. Once again, selfishness prevails.

Rand’s objection to Christianity was the most powerful argument for atheism I have ever read, but it had no effect on my spirituality whatsoever. Rand basically said that believing in a God would make you subhuman-a slave to a master. But, through Jesus dying for me, I am freed, and eternally in debt to him. I am pretty sure Rand would agree with me that you have to pay what you owe. How do Christians pay for the unpayable debt we have to Jesus? We love one another, as he loved us. Furthermore, Rand preached ration or reason as the best way for man to find answers. Ration tells me that human kind developing on our own is impossible, and that evolution is only half true. Others will disagree, and say that evolution is rationalized. That’s fine. It’s just a common disagreement, but at the end of the day, reason is seen through the eyes of the beholder.

Overall, Rand was a great writer, a decent (but misguided) philosopher, and a literary icon. While I don’t know what her personality was like, judging by her childhood and life in Russia, she was a very bitter, angry women who had a lot of hate. Christianity would of solved her problems, but she was very principled and stubborn, so she would never have excepted it. Her views on gender roles, charity, and “selfishness” were alright in theory, but awful in practice. It is not a bad thing to condemn the government for having social programs, but too condemn man himself? That is not Libertarianism at all. Its just the opposite in fact. Atlas Shrugged is a 7/10 in my opinion.