Atlas Shrugged...

[Murph]

I watched part 2 last night. Actually rented part 1 again and watched them both.

 

Very surreal how Ayn Rand could have fore-seen these scenarios so many years ago. I guess her past makes it a normal vision.

 

I must confess I never read the book, but the similarities with her vision and the way things are happening now are quite alarming.

[milod]

Actually she had some easy tattletales to see where the wind might drive the sails of western history.

 

Ain't read Atlas in close to 50 years, though. Ain't seen the film(s).

 

Actually I rather preferred Orwell and Animal Farm even more than 1984. Animal Farm was required reading in high school "back then."

 

Back to Atlas... Critics never cared for Rand. Even I thought she was awfully verbose. I think it likely that this latest incarnation will likely become something of a "cult favorite" for a long time. But it's far too into political philosophy in concept to have the critics saying much good about it. It lacks the simplicity and if any politics, only the politics they tend to prefer.

 

m

[ShredAstaire]

Even I thought she was awfully verbose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Murph]

 

 

She used a lot of words.

 

Perhaps that's why I never tackled the book.

[ShredAstaire]

She used a lot of words.

 

Perhaps that's why I never tackled the book.

 

I was just teasing milod a bit. :) I started that book but didn't make it very far...I felt the same way.

[grampa]

Rand was on Medicare when she died, someting her philosophy detested. I have long thought her libertarian views were good for high school debate class but would not work anywhere except on an isoated island with a few selected fellow travelers.

[milod]

I think the problem of Rand v. politics is roughly the same as encountered by Plato when in Syracuse. Theory and real life that involves personalities are quite different.

 

Another difficulty with Rand is the accusation that the "objectivist school" was in ways virtually a religion. I encountered that a bit when I was in college the first time and regardless that the college was in general quite "left wing," there were a few Rand believers as well as a few folks with a bit of a rightward tilt including such as Ken Adelman.

 

I say "Rand believer" meaning exactly that.

 

OTOH, Rand did have an interesting concept of allowing things she disliked to be legal options. I think it's often forgotten, too, that she was born and educated in Russia during and after the revolution, spoke multiple languages, and had a rather wide vision of political theory that might and might not work. The weakness, as with Plato, is that her perspective also concentrated on theory and ignored the realities of "politics" in terms of personalities.

 

E.g., I got into trouble with acquaintances both on the left and on the right when Bill Clinton was emerging as a presidential candidate and I predicted he'd crush his Democrat opponents and go on to win the presidential election largely due to his very considerable personal skills as I had encountered them. Democrat friends soon forgot their objections to him and gave him firm support and Republican friends elected a new Congress in reaction within his first two years.

 

As for the Medicaid... apparently that was on her attorney's recommendation. Frankly after one pays various taxes toward so-called "Social Security" and "Medicaid," I'd like to know why not regardless of one's politics.

 

m

[Hall]

Actually she had some easy tattletales to see where the wind might drive the sails of western history.

 

Ain't read Atlas in close to 50 years, though. Ain't seen the film(s).

 

Actually I rather preferred Orwell and Animal Farm even more than 1984. Animal Farm was required reading in high school "back then."

 

Back to Atlas... Critics never cared for Rand. Even I thought she was awfully verbose. I think it likely that this latest incarnation will likely become something of a "cult favorite" for a long time. But it's far too into political philosophy in concept to have the critics saying much good about it. It lacks the simplicity and if any politics, only the politics they tend to prefer.

 

m

 

Milod - I'm with you on Orwell. I was a "back then" one myself. I'm going to have to brush up a bit on Atlas. Your insight has me interested once more.

 

Steve

[FirstMeasure]

Animal Farm was required High School reading back in the 80's. I'd hate to think that's changed. High School students need Animal Farm and Catcher in the Rye.

[milod]

Firstmeasure...

 

Seriously on Animal Farm? Great. I just haven't heard it mentioned in decades.

 

I my "back when," Thucydides also was required reading. In Latin II, we read Caesar and Virgil. Aristotle's Poetics was read and discussed in my high school senior English class before we got into Sophocles.

 

I still think times have changed some. <grin>

 

m

[Murph]

Animal Farm was required High School reading back in the 80's. I'd hate to think that's changed. High School students need Animal Farm

 

 

Agreed.

 

[FirstMeasure]

Firstmeasure...

 

Seriously on Animal Farm? Great. I just haven't heard it mentioned in decades.

 

I my "back when," Thucydides also was required reading. In Latin II, we read Caesar and Virgil. Aristotle's Poetics was read and discussed in my high school senior English class before we got into Sophocles.

 

I still think times have changed some. <grin>

 

m

LOL, yeah, by the 80's they'd turned their backs on Aristotle and Thucydides. We read Caesar in my sophomore year, but we had an old fashioned (but very young) English teacher. I still owe him some thanks for making us think when we least expected it.

[jaxson50]

1361572830[/url]' post='1333180']

Animal Farm was required High School reading back in the 80's. I'd hate to think that's changed. High School students need Animal Farm and Catcher in the Rye.

 

Catcher in the Rye was required reading for some of the most deranged murdering sobs for years.

[FirstMeasure]

Catcher in the Rye was required reading for some of the most deranged murdering sobs for years.

And they listened to the Beatles, so what?

[badbluesplayer]

What's reading?

[jaxson50]

1361696783[/url]' post='1333786']

And they listened to the Beatles, so what?

 

More then just one...Robert John Bardo, John Hinckley Jr., Mark David Chapman,, I wonder why some people read a book an find such inspiration, the human mind is a dangerous weapon.

[milod]

Actually I greatly fear that the "What's reading?" question is truly a current response.

 

Consider the time taken texting and messing on the Internet with "current wisdom" while we collectively lack the cultural foundation "we" once had, at least in western cultures.

 

Even the Bible, both old and new testament, were generally known even among nonbelievers which gave "us" more common culture than has to do with "religion." For example, "The Good Samaritan" has brought numerous western nations, at least to have various sorts of "Good Samaritan" laws protecting from lawsuits an individual who drags an injured person from a burning automobile. I have no idea how anyone without at least a surface knowledge of "the Bible" could even intelligently Google this sort of statute and case law.

 

Parenthetically, IMHO the major linguistic landmark in English to create the language as we know it today is the King James version of the Bible. Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with religious belief, but rather an understanding of the language as we know it today in our Anglophone nations. Dr. Johnson's dictionary is another major landmark, btw, that's perhaps more important even in America than Noah Webster's.

 

A lack of knowledge of Aristotle and Plato, yes, even Thucidides and most probably Sophocles' Oedipus cycle, almost guarantee a lack of understanding of current legal, political and religious systems in Western European cultures - regardless of one's personal "politics" or "religion."

 

I think that lack of foundation leads to my own cynicism as to where western culture is headed, perhaps especially in the U.S., but also in other western national cultures.

 

It's not a matter of "the highly educated," because this stuff once was common knowledge even among those with what would be today considered "no education" whatsoever several hundred years ago up to perhaps WWI.

 

If one reads even the lowbrow "cowboy" novels of Louis L'Amour, one had no choice but to be exposed at least to names of Plutarch, Vegetius, De Saxe, Maimonides, etc., etc.

 

How many college grads today even recognize the names regardless of their importance to the foundation of our culture?

 

My cynicism, again, has to do with a lack of cultural foundation that leads to a lack of common cultural values that are far deeper than current "politics." They are rather are the underpinnings of political discussion that, unknown, have lessons forgotten from millenia of now unknown history that once was known, at least in general.

 

Today's deep schisms in political thought are brought by that lack of perspective. Don't take this as my "taking sides" in politics or general philosophy, but rather a concern that a lack of common culture almost guarantees deep divides in almost every endeavor undertaken - because even "science" effort is determined by cultural values and perceived wants and needs. A shattering of that cultural foundation means necessarily a shattering of common culture and deep cultural divides in every way imaginable.

 

Rand underwent the hell of revolutionary and post-revolutionary Russia. As one quite well educated, she took upon herself, justified or unjustified, something of the mantle of Plato in his "Republic" that ranged far afield from "politics" per se. And who has read "de Monarchia," let alone "Il Principe?"

 

m

[grampa]

More then just one...Robert John Bardo, John Hinckley Jr., Mark David Chapman,, I wonder why some people read a book an find such inspiration, the human mind is a dangerous weapon.

 

They all my have also read the bible so what they have read may not be too relevent.

[milod]

Grampa...

 

Actually I'd question the degree to which they'd read "the Bible." OTOH, we're talking some different things when one compares the movement of general culture vs. individuals exhibiting significant aberrations from a culture.

 

That's a current political issue as well. We're getting a lot of discussion on which neither "left" nor "right" in the political environment seem to have positions that reflect all that well any of their other political perspectives beyond, "some folks are societal problems due to mental disorder-caused anti-social behavior." And it ain't just "us" Anglophones. I recall a soviet era mass murderer who got away with it for decades; the Chinese recently had a high-profile example.

 

m

[Kaiser Bill]

I'm not much for reading, but we did have Animal Farm back in the 6th grade 1957.

[milod]

Kaiser Bill...

 

Yup, but you're doggone near as old as I am! 'Twas a different world we entered back then than those young enough to be our grandchildren encounter.

 

m

[jaxson50]

1361731028[/url]' post='1333976']

Actually I greatly fear that the "What's reading?" question is truly a current response.

 

Consider the time taken texting and messing on the Internet with "current wisdom" while we collectively lack the cultural foundation "we" once had, at least in western cultures.

 

Even the Bible, both old and new testament, were generally known even among nonbelievers which gave "us" more common culture than has to do with "religion." For example, "The Good Samaritan" has brought numerous western nations, at least to have various sorts of "Good Samaritan" laws protecting from lawsuits an individual who drags an injured person from a burning automobile. I have no idea how anyone without at least a surface knowledge of "the Bible" could even intelligently Google this sort of statute and case law.

 

Parenthetically, IMHO the major linguistic landmark in English to create the language as we know it today is the King James version of the Bible. Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with religious belief, but rather an understanding of the language as we know it today in our Anglophone nations. Dr. Johnson's dictionary is another major landmark, btw, that's perhaps more important even in America than Noah Webster's.

 

A lack of knowledge of Aristotle and Plato, yes, even Thucidides and most probably Sophocles' Oedipus cycle, almost guarantee a lack of understanding of current legal, political and religious systems in Western European cultures - regardless of one's personal "politics" or "religion."

 

I think that lack of foundation leads to my own cynicism as to where western culture is headed, perhaps especially in the U.S., but also in other western national cultures.

 

It's not a matter of "the highly educated," because this stuff once was common knowledge even among those with what would be today considered "no education" whatsoever several hundred years ago up to perhaps WWI.

 

If one reads even the lowbrow "cowboy" novels of Louis L'Amour, one had no choice but to be exposed at least to names of Plutarch, Vegetius, De Saxe, Maimonides, etc., etc.

 

How many college grads today even recognize the names regardless of their importance to the foundation of our culture?

 

My cynicism, again, has to do with a lack of cultural foundation that leads to a lack of common cultural values that are far deeper than current "politics." They are rather are the underpinnings of political discussion that, unknown, have lessons forgotten from millenia of now unknown history that once was known, at least in general.

 

Today's deep schisms in political thought are brought by that lack of perspective. Don't take this as my "taking sides" in politics or general philosophy, but rather a concern that a lack of common culture almost guarantees deep divides in almost every endeavor undertaken - because even "science" effort is determined by cultural values and perceived wants and needs. A shattering of that cultural foundation means necessarily a shattering of common culture and deep cultural divides in every way imaginable.

 

Rand underwent the hell of revolutionary and post-revolutionary Russia. As one quite well educated, she took upon herself, justified or unjustified, something of the mantle of Plato in his "Republic" that ranged far afield from "politics" per se. And who has read "de Monarchia," let alone "Il Principe?"

 

m

 

Great post! Totally agree.

[jaxson50]

1361736124[/url]' post='1333999']

They all my have also read the bible so what they have read may not be too relevent.

 

But none of them were under the illusion that they were acting out as John the Baptist, were they?

[grampa]

But none of them were under the illusion that they were acting out as John the Baptist, were they?

 

People have dne odd things after being influencd by the Beatles as well as the christian bible. It's not what they read but their mindset to start with.

You can't blame the Beatles' "Helter Skelter" for Charles Manson.

[milod]

Grampa...

 

I dunno. That's one place I'm a bit flamboozled.

 

For example...

 

When I was in college yea those many decades ago, we had some folks getting seriously into witchcraft. Most seemed at the time to be off their rockers in an unhealthy way.

 

Neither then nor now have I made up my own mind whether they were off kilter before, or knocked off kilter during the experience.

 

I'll add that this was pretty much before the drug culture hit. This was pretty much just old fashioned mind bending in ways little different from cult activities seen in ancient Rome.

 

m