Atlas Shrugged -- For Adults Only
The first thing I read by Rand was Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
- - -
THIS ARTICLE REPURPOSED FROM: http://lamrot-hakol.blogspot.com/2012/10...
- - -
The other day, I was talking to my partner about Atlas Shrugged at the dinner table, and my 12 year old daughter asked what it was. I told her it's a book by Ayn Rand, and that she can't read it until she's 21.
My partner stared at me and asked why. After all, I'm an Objectivist. I think Rand's philosophy is incredibly important. So why would I bar my daughter from reading it until she's an adult?
I've felt this way for at least a decade, but given the President's comments about Ayn Rand's books being something you'd pick up as a 17-18 year old feeling misunderstood, and then get rid of once you realized that thinking only about yourself wasn't enough, I thought it would be worthwhile to explain why kids shouldn't read Atlas Shrugged.
The thing is, Obama is right. In a way. Let me explain that.
I didn't read Atlas Shrugged until I was 33 years old. In fact, other than Anthem, which I may have read in passing in high school, I never read anything of Rand's until I was 32, and I started with her essays. Maybe I'll post about how and why I got into those at a later date. But as someone who didn't get into Rand's philosophy as a kid, it took me a while to realize that for the vast majority of people, reading it as a teenager is almost inevitably going to create the opposite effect that Rand had in mind.
There's a common misconception that Objectivism is about being selfish and grasping and greedy. It's an understandable misunderstanding. After all, Rand wrote a book of essays called The Virtue of Selfishness. She spoke against altruism and in favor of selfishness. The thing is, though, that in Rand's writing, those are "terms of art". A term of art, or jargon, is a word that's used a specific way in a specific field, regardless of how it's used colloquially. In politics, to "depose" means to remove a leader. In law, to "depose" means to have someone give a deposition. In medicine, an "ugly" infection is one that doesn't respond well to antibiotics.
We're all familiar with groups "reclaiming" perogative words. "Queer" was an insult when I was growing up, and it still is for a lot of people. Yet to the younger generation of GLBT teens, "queer" is simply how they identify. Rand used the term "selfish" to mean acting to further ones long term and global well being, given the understanding that we are not alone in the world, and that what I do to others can be done to me as well. There is no other way to describe that in a single world, so far as I'm aware, than selfishness. Or if we allow a modifier, "rational selfishness".
But Rand failed. She failed to communicate this in a way that would be clear enough to get past the negative connotations of selfishness as meaning a blind, grasping devotion to ones short term desires, paying no attention to the world around us. Even expanding the term to "rational selfishness" didn't work, because people understood "rational" to mean "cold and unemotional" and concluded that "rational selfishness" meant cold, hard, unemotional, uncaring selfishness. Like a robot that lacks all empathy.
But adolescents are a different story. Adolescence is a time when we are detaching ourselves from our role as dependent children, and learning to stand on our own, personally empowered. When I was 17, I remember one evening during an argument with my father, exclaiming, "You're a person, and I'm a person. Why should you have any more right to decide than I do!" And I was absolutely convinced of my righteousness. Two years later, when my younger brother was 17, I heard him say virtually the exact same thing. I looked at my father and said, "I'm so sorry, Dad. And I wish there was some way I could explain it to him." But I knew there wasn't. You can't explain that to an adolescent. They have to learn to grow up and realize that the world doesn't revolve around them.
Which is one of the reasons why a lot of adolescents love Atlas Shrugged. They miss the bigger picture, and only pick up on the message that they shouldn't have to sacrifice themselves for others. Which is a good message, but they conflate it with their irrational selfishness. Their self-centered, almost solipsistic view of the world. And when they do grow up, as most of them do, they jettison Objectivism, thinking that it's part and parcel of the adolescent mindset they no longer need.
And that's why Obama said what he did. It's absolutely true that 17 and 18 year olds who are feeling misunderstood, and whose self is feeling threatened would pick up Atlas Shrugged and see it as a vindication of what they're feeling. And it's absolutely true that someone like that reading the book would, in the vast majority of cases, throw it away once they grow up and realize that we're all in this together, so to speak.
And that's why I won't let my daughter read the book. Because it takes a certain amount of maturity to understand that the kind of altruism that says doing for others is always more moral than doing for oneself is evil and anti-human, but that benevolence and empathy are vitally important virtues. The vice of altruism always leads to bad results in the long run, even if it may seem beneficial in the short term. Because giving requires a recipient. And if receiving is a bad thing, there's always going to be someone bad and wretched. More than that, you're always going to need poor people, because without them, you can never be virtuous. It's an ugly world that raises altruism up as the highest virtue.
Perhaps we need to find another term to reflect what Rand called "selfishness". The battle to reclaim that word was lost before it even started. All it does now is feed into the ignorance of the left.
- - -
THIS ARTICLE REPURPOSED FROM: http://lamrot-hakol.blogspot.com/2012/10...
- - -
The other day, I was talking to my partner about Atlas Shrugged at the dinner table, and my 12 year old daughter asked what it was. I told her it's a book by Ayn Rand, and that she can't read it until she's 21.
My partner stared at me and asked why. After all, I'm an Objectivist. I think Rand's philosophy is incredibly important. So why would I bar my daughter from reading it until she's an adult?
I've felt this way for at least a decade, but given the President's comments about Ayn Rand's books being something you'd pick up as a 17-18 year old feeling misunderstood, and then get rid of once you realized that thinking only about yourself wasn't enough, I thought it would be worthwhile to explain why kids shouldn't read Atlas Shrugged.
The thing is, Obama is right. In a way. Let me explain that.
I didn't read Atlas Shrugged until I was 33 years old. In fact, other than Anthem, which I may have read in passing in high school, I never read anything of Rand's until I was 32, and I started with her essays. Maybe I'll post about how and why I got into those at a later date. But as someone who didn't get into Rand's philosophy as a kid, it took me a while to realize that for the vast majority of people, reading it as a teenager is almost inevitably going to create the opposite effect that Rand had in mind.
There's a common misconception that Objectivism is about being selfish and grasping and greedy. It's an understandable misunderstanding. After all, Rand wrote a book of essays called The Virtue of Selfishness. She spoke against altruism and in favor of selfishness. The thing is, though, that in Rand's writing, those are "terms of art". A term of art, or jargon, is a word that's used a specific way in a specific field, regardless of how it's used colloquially. In politics, to "depose" means to remove a leader. In law, to "depose" means to have someone give a deposition. In medicine, an "ugly" infection is one that doesn't respond well to antibiotics.
We're all familiar with groups "reclaiming" perogative words. "Queer" was an insult when I was growing up, and it still is for a lot of people. Yet to the younger generation of GLBT teens, "queer" is simply how they identify. Rand used the term "selfish" to mean acting to further ones long term and global well being, given the understanding that we are not alone in the world, and that what I do to others can be done to me as well. There is no other way to describe that in a single world, so far as I'm aware, than selfishness. Or if we allow a modifier, "rational selfishness".
But Rand failed. She failed to communicate this in a way that would be clear enough to get past the negative connotations of selfishness as meaning a blind, grasping devotion to ones short term desires, paying no attention to the world around us. Even expanding the term to "rational selfishness" didn't work, because people understood "rational" to mean "cold and unemotional" and concluded that "rational selfishness" meant cold, hard, unemotional, uncaring selfishness. Like a robot that lacks all empathy.
But adolescents are a different story. Adolescence is a time when we are detaching ourselves from our role as dependent children, and learning to stand on our own, personally empowered. When I was 17, I remember one evening during an argument with my father, exclaiming, "You're a person, and I'm a person. Why should you have any more right to decide than I do!" And I was absolutely convinced of my righteousness. Two years later, when my younger brother was 17, I heard him say virtually the exact same thing. I looked at my father and said, "I'm so sorry, Dad. And I wish there was some way I could explain it to him." But I knew there wasn't. You can't explain that to an adolescent. They have to learn to grow up and realize that the world doesn't revolve around them.
Which is one of the reasons why a lot of adolescents love Atlas Shrugged. They miss the bigger picture, and only pick up on the message that they shouldn't have to sacrifice themselves for others. Which is a good message, but they conflate it with their irrational selfishness. Their self-centered, almost solipsistic view of the world. And when they do grow up, as most of them do, they jettison Objectivism, thinking that it's part and parcel of the adolescent mindset they no longer need.
And that's why Obama said what he did. It's absolutely true that 17 and 18 year olds who are feeling misunderstood, and whose self is feeling threatened would pick up Atlas Shrugged and see it as a vindication of what they're feeling. And it's absolutely true that someone like that reading the book would, in the vast majority of cases, throw it away once they grow up and realize that we're all in this together, so to speak.
And that's why I won't let my daughter read the book. Because it takes a certain amount of maturity to understand that the kind of altruism that says doing for others is always more moral than doing for oneself is evil and anti-human, but that benevolence and empathy are vitally important virtues. The vice of altruism always leads to bad results in the long run, even if it may seem beneficial in the short term. Because giving requires a recipient. And if receiving is a bad thing, there's always going to be someone bad and wretched. More than that, you're always going to need poor people, because without them, you can never be virtuous. It's an ugly world that raises altruism up as the highest virtue.
Perhaps we need to find another term to reflect what Rand called "selfishness". The battle to reclaim that word was lost before it even started. All it does now is feed into the ignorance of the left.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
As far as changing words to suit a wrong or twisted definitional understanding, what do you gain? I think it just gets you stuck in intellectual mud. If you're allowing others to redefine your philosophical language, particularly in describing first principles, then you don't have your own philosophy.
I've been "mining" the gulch for "precious"....can sleep well now. Very enriched.
As a Christian, selfishness is *not* a predefine sin. For thousands of years, the teachings of Jesus have been appropriated to gather wealth for those who use religion, and with it political power. But, that doesn't make it predefined.
Even the list of 7 deadly sins doesn't include "selfishness".
A proud look
A lying tongue
Hands that shed innocent blood
A heart that devises wicked plots
Feet that are swift to run into mischief
A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
Him that soweth discord among brethren
The definition of avarice is excessive or insatiable appetite for wealth... but even that's not selfishness.
Compiled half a millennium after Christ, the common list doesn't include selfishness, since selfishness implies hoarding or taking to oneself *at the expense of or to the detriment of others*.
gluttony
fornication, lust
avarice/greed
hubris, pride
sorrow/despair/despondency
wrath
vainglory
sloth
When he calmed down he took me for a walk during which he introduced me to Ayn Rand and to those that use altruism to enslave the people. On that fateful day I was taught to be a Capitalist and on every single day of the near 40 years that have passed since, I have questioned whether it's right to be a Capitalist. At first, those questions were directed at my father. He basically explained AR's work to me in a way that a pre-teen could understand. Then I started reading AR for myself. I read We The Living when I was 14, The Fountainhead when I was 15 and AS when I was 16. Even then though I realised that I probably only understood 10-20% of the book. In the next two years I read AR's non-fictional works such as The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism and with the understanding they gave me I again read AS when I was 18. This time I reckoned I understood 90% of the book. Alas, in the over 30 years since, I've not read the book (or indeed much of her work) since.
Since my early 20's I have not let a day go by without continually questioning my belief-system. I have realised that, as in science, the only sensible way to determine the best socio-economic system for mankind to adopt to afford the most benefit to all is to use rational argument. I will give up my belief in Capitalism tomorrow if only someone could offer me a rational argument for doing so. My father taught me to be a Capitalist but I remain one today simply because no one has ever offered me a rational argument to stop being one.
One thing I have come to learn is that by the standards of almost every single aspect of our culture the writings of Ayn Rand are mean, nasty, heartless and filthy. From Prometheus to Harry Potter, from the corruption of the Capitalist hero Robin Hood to the way the word profit is spat out in modern TV dramas and news programmes our whole culture is predicated on the concept that the purpose of your life is to live it for the benefit of others. The problem for those that advocate this is that every single organism on the planet, for the entire history of the planet, only ever gets off its fat idle backside if it or its own are the beneficiaries of that effort. Even when Ivy Starnes' real world counterparts used guns and the gulag to force their compatriots to do this un-natural thing, the resultant bread queues showed that it's an unsustainable concept.
I disagree with your argument that AR failed. I seem to remember somewhere in her writing something along the lines of: "If my purpose is to win the propaganda battle then I should choose different words than Selfishness and Greed but if my purpose is to win the argument then they, with their dictionary definitions as they are, will do just fine". (If she didn't say it then I'd like to say it on her behalf!)
The real issue (as identified by AR herself) is that we need to educate the masses that the concept of selflessness is not the ideal it's portrayed as and that the concept of rational-selfishness is not the evil mankind's slave-drivers have taught us it is. Inventing new less-offensive words might help with this task but I doubt it.
As for when it's best to introduce a person to AR? Well, I shudder to think what blind alleys I would have gone down in the last 30 years had I not read AR's works in my late teens. It pains me beyond words that my 18 year old son has read on the internet that AR's writings do not fit in the real world and so seems reluctant to read any of her works. He has gained my right-wing views but without the understanding and guidance that AR's (non-fictional in particular) work offers I fear he will develop to be the sort of bigoted person at the heart of Britain's Conservative and America's Republican parties.
I think the lesson to learn is that AR by no means got everything right (her exaltation of the man who lives by reason alone is one example), she seemed not to have lived her own life by the standards she created (an interview she gives denigrating the Arab people is - by her own teachings - sickening) and the works of AR should be treated as a guide not a bible then I suggest that, with the right guidance, AR's works can indeed be read and understood by a teenager. After all, it worked for me!
Rational self-interest is essentially = rational selfishness. "The exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests."
"Man’s self-interest can be served only by a non-sacrificial relationship with others." A thief is not truly acting in his best interest (despite your use of terms like "absurd" or "affront to logic". Your use of "selfless" is too narrow.
"The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind." Do you really want to accept that?
Just a question, but how do parallel and opposite work? Geometry wasn't my favorite discipline, but I believe the concept of "skew" lines is the closest I can come to visualizing what you are after there. Can you elaborate?
And to try yet again in your vocabulary of one to redefine theft to be selfless is absurd and an affront to logic itself. Thieves think of no one EXCEPT themselves (definition of selfishness) when they steal. They are not concerned about an equitable trade at any level in either a moral or physical context. To be selfless requires an act of sacrifice of one's own property/time/etc. in order to better someone else. You can't sacrifice or give away something you don't own!
Now really, I'm quite content to converse with someone who can come up with a cogent argument, but you're doubling down on nothing more than your own irrationality at this point. Neither you nor I is going to have any more success with attempting to redefine selfishness than Ayn Rand did when she tried it. Choosing to continue to do something that has been done before and expecting a different outcome isn't rationality, but rather obstinate stupidity and a complete waste of time.
Note that Rand did not "co-op" the term; she defined it (as with all other words) going back to the root of words and to create a cohesive philosophy.
Inappropriate? Wrong word. Pointless? Absolutely. When a concept is already defined and you are outnumbered a billion to one against changing it, I have to question your definition of who is rational.
Again, go back to the point of persuasion and conversation - you have to start from common ground and common lingo. Starting off by trying to define your own terms for everything is bound to fail to persuade the listener - and even less so when you are trying to replace a term already in their vocabulary with such a core foundational meaning and significance.
Afterwards, while I attended to the rest room, I found him in a detailed discussion with a gentleman in his 70's about the content, impact and social implications the movie presented and how well it represented the book. I was amazed at his cogent discussion.
I hope he will carry insights into his college years as a foundation to combat the horrendous liberal bias on most/all college campuses. SO far so good I think.
You can never begin to expand your mind too soon but only can do so when your reading comprehension capacity allows it to be so. My grandson was reading Harry Potter with me at age 5 so he got a jump start!
Cheers,
Skip Stein
Management Systems Consulting, Inc.
Load more comments...