32 KiB
[RT] Atlas Shrugged [BST] / [Q]
-
Author: u/zedMinusMinus *
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/2b5wns/rt_atlas_shrugged_bst_q/
-
Score: 4
-
Created: 2014-07-19T22:05:40
Post:
I don't know if anyone's taken on a re-write of Atlas Shrugged, but I feel like it needs it. Part of me wants to write it, but I doubt my writing powers are up to the ask and I don't particularly want to re-read Atlas Shrugged. But if nobody else wants to give it a try, I suppose I'll have to.
The problems that came to mind when I read it were:
- the good industrialists live in a world that can support endless growth because the plot/her philosophy demands it
- Sputnik was launched the same year as the novel was published, but there's no mention of space travel
- John Galt's engine could effectively produce free, limitless energy and end scarcity, but he instead cripples industrial civilization
My mind keeps coming back to John Galt. He's supposed to be the smartest man in the world, but he's not more insightful or imaginative than Ayn Rand. I can accept rational!Galt still being largely an Objectivist. Maybe even a purified Objectivist, with all of Rand's personal biases, foibles, and stupidities stripped away. I can accept him not going out to optimize the world. canon!Galt was basically offered a dictatorship of the world if he would fix it, and he turned it down. Maybe his understanding of the human utility function means that post-scarcity humans would fail to achieve eudaimonia, and that is more valuable to him, though that could be just a side note to the equally real but more important reason of he just doesn't want to. But I can't accept that somebody that smart not taking into account any of my points without good reasons.
tl;dr - The characters need to be smarter than Rand. Any takers?
Comments:
u/Kodix [+6] (8 hours later)
Oh good. I thought you were recommending Atlas Shrugged as rationalist literature. I.. didn't know how to feel about that.
u/None [+2] (10 hours later)
Pretty amusing troll though.
u/Iconochasm [+4] (5 hours later)
With the caveats that I really like the book and her philosophy and have no intention of taking up your cast gauntlet and have been drinking:
Limited growth potential is more of an imagination failure than the other way around. The most valuable resource is design information, which has at least near-umlimited scaling. There was just a recent article claiming that currently existing tech could feed another 3 billion people, on top of current population. There are amazing advancements being made in indoor farming. And if a society ever did hit some hard limit on growth in things humans consider valuable, well, this is only one tiny rock in a vast expanse of resources... Honestly, the fetishizing of growth limits seems rather Ludditish, and Rand would certainly be harsher. And if you're going to extend the objection far enough to bring up entropy, that's rather like calling out the guy who figured out how fire works for not knocking off biological immortality too.
The novel was written and edited over something like 9 years. There are also no jets, and television only gets a little mention near the end.
That's a bit of an exaggeration. It was dirt cheap, super efficient energy, but that is still a far cry from actual post scarcity. An interesting take for a rational rewrite might be to devise a plausible-ish method to how it worked, and discuss the potential ramifications, sort of how wind power used on a vast enough scale could take enough kinetic energy out of the atmosphere to disrupt or shut down weather. Rand only ever really explains that it somehow draws static electricity out of the air (iirc), which I assumed to be somehow related to a proof my Advanced E&M professor once showed demonstrating that the atmosphere was functionally a kind of giant capacitor. (My apologies to anyone who actually completed their physics degree or superior autodictats if I'm misremembering, or horribly mangling.)
Maybe even a purified Objectivist, with all of Rand's personal biases, foibles, and stupidities stripped away.
That could be interesting. I've always wondered just how the amphetamine use affected her. Making Galt seems less... statuesque is the only word that comes to mind... while keeping the ideas relatively hardline would be a difficult writing challenge.
Maybe his understanding of the human utility function means that post-scarcity humans would fail to achieve eudaimonia, and that is more valuable to him
She valued eudamonia highly (so Galt would too), but the bigger issue is post-scarcity not being on the table, any more than moving from manual labor to combustion engines put it on the table. Eudamonia would still be viable even post-scarcity, though. The issue would be approaching your hobbies seriously, and actually making the effort to do your best. As an example, the only issue Rand ever had with motherhood was people who had babies as an emotional dalliance. She thought it should be approached with the same degree of seriousness and study as a difficult career.
I fully expect any effort at this to be even more anvilicious than Rand, but maybe the above might be of use to someone who cares enough to try.
u/zedMinusMinus [+5] (10 hours later)
There are some fairly hard limits on energy consumption, and consequently economic growth.
Technologies like rockets and atomic power were both in science fiction magazines as early in the 1930s but weren't really things until shortly after Atlas Shrugged was published. I can't fault Rand for not including them, but John Galt had a degree in physics and it would be keeping in his character to know about them.
From what I've read, Galt's motor uses the Casimir effect in a sort of handwavy zero-point energy way. Thinking about it, you're right: automation technologies of the 1950s weren't enough to couple with the energy-crisis-averting motor to achieve post-scarcity. Maybe today, or in the next ten years, but that's neither here nor there.
Making Galt seems less... statuesque is the only word that comes to mind... while keeping the ideas relatively hardline would be a difficult writing challenge.
I feel like this fic gives him a more humanizing alternate character interpretation.
u/Iconochasm [+2] (19 hours later)
There's a difference between growth in energy use, and economic growth. But if we're going to hit some maximal limit of energy use in the universe, well, I'd rather humanity get there to have that 5th world problem than stagnate into agri-feudal bucolic fantasies on this measly rock. If you're going to tackle that in an AS re-write, I don't see any meaningful resolution aside from a brief "One more reason to make sure to teach our children to value physics, as if we needed any."
u/zedMinusMinus [+2] (20 hours later)
Earth could hit that energy limit without space travel in about 400 years, which is why I think at least a discussion of space travel is needed. Energy consumption also ties into all the mistakes people were making in the 1950s*. They burned coal while a small handful people warned about the greenhouse effect and the need to switch to solar decades prior. They burned oil, a diminishing resource capable of being turned into all sorts of useful plastics.
By the way, did you read the linked fanfic, and if so, what were your thoughts?
*I see AS set not in the future, but in an alternate 1957. Technology has too far advanced and Communism has too far retreated for it to be a plausible dystopic future.
u/Iconochasm [+1] (22 hours later)
Earth could hit that energy limit without space travel in about 400 years, which is why I think at least a discussion of space travel is needed.
It could be worked in without too much fuss. Dwight Sanders seems like the most relevant character to do so. Research at the time was pointing towards building aircraft that could go higher and higher until they seamlessly transitioned into being spacecraft. That was cut off when Kennedy redirected all those minds into multi-billion dollar, PR one-shots.
The oil and coal bits seem more difficult to work in. I don't believe they were common/serious concerns at the time, and Galt's motor makes them both moot points. Which is why I suggested thinking of possible, similar downsides to widespread adoption of the motor.
By the way, did you read the linked fanfic, and if so, what were your thoughts?
I've just read it. Musing on it now. It seems reliant on semantically waffling between Objectivist and conventional meanings of "selfless" and "sacrifice". It would make more sense if Galt's plans had him dying to ignite change, like Mistborn spoilers, but the actual plan had no risk to himself, just a long period of less than optimal fun while he worked on bringing the world into a state that would allow massively greater enjoyment/satisfaction. And I kind of suspect the author hadn't read the book closely, or at least recently. There's a line that seems too appropriate to not bring up, where Galt explicitly says what he'd do if Dagny were tortured. It's not scream "No, do me instead!", he'd just NOPE out of existence. If Breaking_Point!Toohey were correct, Galt's consideration for the effect his suicide would have on Dagny or his other friends ought to preclude that selfish (in both meanings) option. The bit about passion also seems rather ignorant. The lines from MoR regarding love being a measurable, physical phenomenon seem like a satisfactory rebuttal. Rand rejected a mind/body dichotomy like that. We're reasoning animals, but we're still reasoning animals, if you will, and we can't rightly say what a human being ought to do that violates what a human being is. It's proper for a rationalist to love and value some others extremely highly for the same reason it's proper for a lion to eat meat.
u/traverseda [+1] With dread but cautious optimism (16 hours later)
I really like the book and her philosophy
I feel like this bears talking about. Have you skimmed through the metaethics sequence? It's a bit of a prerequisite for talking about this kind of thing. Making sure we have enough common ground to eventually reach some kind of agreement.
Why do you think objectivism is good? Keeping in mind that I only have third hand experience with it, and am probably working off some negative stereotypes.
u/Iconochasm [+6] (19 hours later)
Have you skimmed through the metaethics sequence?
I have been for the last while. I'm about a third of the way through. I'm honestly seeing quite a lot of similarity to Rand in it. In particular, the second one could have been a riff off of her scathing critique of Rawls, and the Subhan/Obert argument is quite near to one of her biggest claimed successes. I don't think there's near as vast a gap between EY and Rand as most Rand-haters hereabouts assume. I think he hits at topics more precisely than she did, and think there's a solid chance I'll prefer him in the end, but the similarities are often startling.
Why do you think objectivism is good?
It attempts to give a full, coherent philosophy of human life without resorting to pure arbitrariness or moral intuitions (aka: I feel that this is true, therefor it's true). People will often attack it as sociopathic, but that's misunderstanding it's great strength. It's a moral philosophy that would be comprehensible to a sociopath. A sociopath could read Rand and come away thinking "Ok, so it's better for me, overall, to not go around harming and screwing over other people, even if I think I could hide that I had done so".
Keeping in mind that I only have third hand experience with it, and am probably working off some negative stereotypes.
I don't mean to intend this as combative, but it's rather likely you have a near-complete misunderstanding. When I was in a similar position, I know I did. In particular, she uses a number of important terms, like selfish or altruism, to mean things that are not equivalent to their conversational meanings. Her detractors gleefully abuse that dichotomy to attack her, and that is the understanding that you'll pick up if your knowledge comes from, say, having observed internet arguments about Objectivism, or more commonly, just attacks directed at it.
u/traverseda [+2] With dread but cautious optimism (20 hours later)
I'm not going to be offended or anything. That's why I let you know.
In particular, she uses a number of important terms, like selfish or altruism, to mean things that are not equivalent to their conversational meanings.
Then there's definitely a communication problem in that movement, and it's led to a pretty severe image problem. Something to think about fixing maybe.
without resorting to pure arbitrariness or moral intuitions
I'm not sure what to do with the term "pure arbitrariness". You'd say it's less arbitrary "try to maximize for what-people-want happening"?
As far as I can tell, it comes down to a device between "try to maximize for what-people-want happening" and "try to maximize for what-I-want happening". Both of those are equally arbitrary, but with ethics you really need to build on some type of axiom.
u/Iconochasm [+2] (20 hours later)
Then there's definitely a communication problem in that movement, and it's led to a pretty severe image problem. Something to think about fixing maybe.
You're not wrong. The choice of "selfish" in particular I don't think any native English speaker would have made. It's a problem stemming from both claimed Objectivists doing a disastrously bad job of explaining, or failing to note a need to explain, and detractors deliberately muddying the waters. Both are vexing, and while I think I can do a good job of explaining the difference in meaning, it's hard to do without a small wall of text.
I'm not sure what to do with the term "pure arbitrariness".
I'm just referring to claims made with no attempt at justification, inserted as self-evident. Moral intuition is at least a justification, even if it's a crappy, uncompelling one, and the really arbitrary claims tend to just be based on embarrassed intuition.
but with ethics you really need to build on some type of axiom.
Agreed, which is another point I like about Objectivism, which I actually considered bringing up in the last post. And even there, she defined axiom a bit differently, as a claim that cannot be rebutted without being presupposed. Her three were "existence exists", "consciousness (the state of being able to percieve existence) exists", and a last which is phrased in multiple ways. "A is A", "Existence is Identity", "To be is to be something in particular". She tried to build up everything in her philosophy with those three as her bedrock, with the inclusion higher up the logical chain of "I want to live", which she called a "pre-rational choice".
u/traverseda [+2] With dread but cautious optimism (21 hours later)
I'm just referring to claims made with no attempt at justification, inserted as self-evident. Moral intuition is at least a justification, even if it's a crappy, uncompelling one
Isn't "I want to live" basically just that? Why is it on a different level from the other axioms?
u/Iconochasm [+2] (21 hours later)
She claimed that the decision between "I want to be/exist/live" and "I don't" wasn't something that could be rationally derived. You have to make the decision for yourself first, then you can begin reasoning on how to go about securing that goal. It's not an axiom, just a fundamental assumption to begin reasoning about ethics, since ethics would be irrelevant to a mind which doesn't exist.
u/traverseda [+2] With dread but cautious optimism (21 hours later)
wasn't something that could be rationally derived.
I agree. That kind of statement is generally called an axiom. Everything hinges on that one thing. It's not really something that can be debated using logic though. If that's one of the axioms you're using, then I could make appeals to emotion, or use any number of rhetorical tricks. But logic isn't really going to change your mind.
The big question is, "why choose that axiom". I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from it, to actually living well. Simply maximizing for continuing to stay alive...
u/Iconochasm [+3] (22 hours later)
It's more that it's a baseline minimum to valuing anything. You have to want to be alive before you can want to live well, you have to be alive to be capable of valuing something. So, not the thing you're maximizing, but a minimum benchmark to meet (while still allowing for rare edge cases where you might value something more highly than your own continued survival, such as the survival of a child.)
u/traverseda [+1] With dread but cautious optimism (22 hours later)
So what you're saying is that objectivism isn't really good, but it's attempting to be universal. At least universal among entities that plan on continuing to live, which is going to be most of them thanks to the anthropic principle.
But it doesn't maximize the overall amount of "goodness".
The baseline minimum isn't enough. We need to be better then that.
Which does bring us to the problem of defining "goodness". If we're going to maximize goodness, we need to know what is good. It's pretty easy to know what's good intuitively, but that ofter leads you astray.
u/Iconochasm [+1] (22 hours later)
I don't quite understand your point here, and that may be my fault. Maybe I should rephrase like this: I'm a human. What is right for me to do? Step 1 is stay alive. There are a lot of things that can be inferred from this like, "I should not murder, because that increases the chances that I will be murdered, but I should respond with lethal force against those who use or threaten me with lethal force", "I should not steal, because that increases the chances that I myself will be robbed of the necessities of sustaining my life".
From "I want to live and be as unencumbered as possible in attaining or keeping whatever else I choose to value" you can build up most or all of what are called "negative rights". As someone who is Objectivish, I would say that that lays the groundwork for maximizing goodness, since everyone will have their own conception of what is good in life.
As for universality, it's aiming for it among humans, though it could easily extend beyond. In those methaethics sequences there was a proposed hypothetical species that highly valued murder, and was barely constrained by a strong code of honor to keep the society from imploding. An objectivist would attempt to argue with a member of that species, that if it wanted to maximize it's own survival chances, it should attempt to get mutual anti-murder agreements with all other members of it's species, and limit it's cannibalism only to those who first violate the agreement. But that would only be accepted if that member valued it's own survival more than the pleasure of murder.
u/traverseda [+1] With dread but cautious optimism (23 hours later)
anti-murder agreements with all other members of it's species
You're talking about the babyeaters? They've already survived childhood. There's not really, from what I can tell, any objectivist reason they shouldn't eat babies.
It's a non-trivial risk, going against the group. And it's not going to affect their future negatively if they continue to eat babies.
That's a pretty un-optimal thing, from a perspective of life in general. There are a lot of situations like that as a result of objectivism. Wherever there's any significant power differential really.
Take slaves as a very basic example. If you're not part of the easily identifiable salve caste (let's say black people), there isn't really any reason to try and help the slave caste. You're never going to become a slave. The safest/best route is to simply stand back. Don't gain any of their ire, but don't fight for them either.
u/traverseda [+4] With dread but cautious optimism (24 minutes later)
This is entirely off topic, but I'm going to it here anyway. I feel like it has the right mythic resonance.
u/rthomas2 [+2] (6 days later)
How does this sound for constraints?
John Galt is still: a) A mysterious, underground figure, somehow known to all but only by name; b) A man who has dropped out of mainstream society to create his own, better version; c) Dedicated to winning others over solely through reasoning and demonstration of the fruits of his improved society--and still big on the long speeches d) Unfailingly adherent to his own moral code
John Galt is no longer: a) A possessor of any Informed Traits/Abilities--any feat he works must be demonstrated/explained to the reader b) A two-dimensional character--his emotions and psychology must be realistically written
The Strikers are still: a) Composed of talented individuals from every walk of life b) Centered around Objectivist tenants
The Antagonists/other characters are still: a) Opposed to Objectivist tenants at the story's outset b) The majority
The Antagonists/other characters are no longer: a) Strawmen b) Unrepentant c) Only antagonists or heroes; there are people in between the extremes.
The plot still includes: a) The gradual abdication of society by its most talented members b) The resistance of one such member to said abdication c) The attempt of all the heroes to fix society d) The eventual success of this mission e) The Speech.
The plot no longer includes: a) Anything that would not realistically result in those elements happening and working.
u/Empiricist_or_not [+4] Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm (5 hours later)
Atlas Shrugged gets a lot of excessive flak because it isn't viewed in time it was presented. Rand IIRC, despite her flaws, was a refuge from communism alarmed at seeing it's potential to spread to the refuge she's found. I've skimmed some good critiques of the utility of capitalism, but to paraphrase Churchill it's the least worst system so far.
That said this is an interesting project but one I'll have to look at again in about 3-4 years.
u/None [+0] (a day later)
You cannot fixfic Atlas Shrugged.
He's supposed to be the smartest man in the world, but he's not more insightful or imaginative than Ayn Rand. I can accept rational!Galt still being largely an Objectivist. Maybe even a purified Objectivist, with all of Rand's personal biases, foibles, and stupidities stripped away. I can accept him not going out to optimize the world. canon!Galt was basically offered a dictatorship of the world if he would fix it, and he turned it down.
He turned it down because selfishness is the whole point of Objectivism. It's an ideology holding that when someone offers you total dictatorship and world-optimization capacity, to create what you will, you turn it down because that means getting involved with other people in a context of government.
Maybe his understanding of the human utility function means that post-scarcity humans would fail to achieve eudaimonia, and that is more valuable to him
No, he just wants to do his own personal thing. He really does not want to be concerned with the larger world and its affairs.
John Galt's engine could effectively produce free, limitless energy and end scarcity, but he instead cripples industrial civilization
Yeah, because he and the author are immature children trying to Make a Point about how a selfish dick is the best thing you can be, even when "benevolent god-king" is on the menu.
Sputnik was launched the same year as the novel was published, but there's no mention of space travel
Publication dates usually don't give you time to rewrite like that.
the good industrialists live in a world that can support endless growth because the plot/her philosophy demands it
Welcome to Objectivism.
u/trifith [+2] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (3 days later)
You cannot fixfic Atlas Shrugged.
I was tempted when I first saw this post. Now I'm moreso. I may have to do this, just because you said it can't be done.
Mind you, a fixfic would tear up 90%+ of Objectivism. And best of all, no verbatim 3 hour long radio speech in act 3.
u/None [+1] (3 days later)
Mind you, a fixfic would tear up 90%+ of Objectivism. And best of all, no verbatim 3 hour long radio speech in act 3.
In which case it is no longer Atlas Shrugged, but some other novel entirely.
u/rthomas2 [+1] (6 days later)
That's actually a really interesting question...where is the line between fixfic and new work?
u/rthomas2 [+1] (6 days later)
Two disagreements. First: as was well stated above, "selfishness" as Rand uses the word roughly means "rational self-interest"--a terrible, confusing way of writing, but certainly not unique among philosophers. Second: in the case you're mentioning, Galt turns down dictatorship because it was offered conditionally: have all the power you like, so long as you allow us to remain irrational and evil. His entire mission is to deprive those who disagree with his values of his help in reinforcing their own; he's not against joint efforts (re:Galt's Gulch) but rather against helping those whose actions are, he believes, destructive. And he in no way assails them--he simply steps away and leaves them to their own devices.
Rand's work is hard to read, because of her insistently idiosyncratic language and ceaseless vitriol. She creates a world filled with impossibly incompetent/evil people, so that she can tear them down. Granted, she certainly had enough trauma in her life to explain her need for catharsis, but still--doesn't mean the book is thereby justified in its many, many faults. However, its roots are mostly good. Her key idea is: people should live by what's actually provably true and good, and should be free to determine their own values and lifestyles.
So whereas your points are good and accurate critiques of what Objectivism sounds like superficially--due to Rand being intentionally awful at explaining herself, to near-Nietzschean levels--they really don't accurately describe the book, or her views.
u/None [+1] (6 days later)
Her key idea is: people should live by what's actually provably true and good, and should be free to determine their own values and lifestyles.
Then how does that explain the demonization of everything other than anarcho-capitalism?
u/rthomas2 [+1] (6 days later)
The fullest explanation I can find of her view on capitalism is here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html
But to paraphrase as best I can: Rand takes laissez-faire capitalism to mean the system where everyone can make whichever choices they deem best, insofar as they don't limit other people's ability to do the same. Whether or not that's true of capitalism is a long and involved discussion that I'm frankly not qualified for. But her reason for advocating it was because she believed--having come out of early Soviet Russia, and seeing a lot of lives ruined by people who claimed to be "communists"--that "capitalism" was simply the name for the system wherein participants were free to make their own decisions.
It's probably important to note that her idea of capitalism bears little resemblance to our economic system, which we usually call capitalist. Again, I don't know which usage of the term is correct, though I'd bank on it not being hers, given her track record.
tl;dr: Because she often misuses words.
u/None [+1] (6 days later)
Rand takes laissez-faire capitalism to mean the system where everyone can make whichever choices they deem best, insofar as they don't limit other people's ability to do the same.
That's nice, but it still doesn't explain the connection to capitalism, not actually-existing capitalism and not theoretical anarcho-capitalism either. You need to cross a vast gap to get from, "People should live for their own values and not enslave others" to "therefore the only acceptable ethical and political-economic system is one based on the sole and unopposed principle of private property."
u/rthomas2 [+1] (6 days later)
True. And if you're saying that she's wrong, then I don't think I'd be able to give a good counter-argument. But just as far as explaining how she tries to bridge that gap: her view is that a person's ability to live in accord with their values requires them to be able to make any consensual, uncoerced contract with any individual/government that they like. And of course, one of those contracts might be (and often is): "Hey--I'll do x y and z for you if you'll give me permanent rights to use this thing over here however I like, provided I don't hurt anyone but me in the process."
In her view, capitalism is the ethical and political-economic system based on the sole and unapposed principle of freedom to consent or not consent to agreements. Private property, while an aspect of capitalism that sticks out to most who discuss it--including whoever named it--is of secondary importance in her view. It matters, but only because it's one of the implicit possible consequences of freedom in making contracts, which she considers the defining principle of the system.
u/None [+1] (6 days later)
Look, I'm not saying she didn't have some kind of trail-of-thought, that she was just somehow mad. I am saying that what she thought "fell out" as a necessary consequence of letting people live for their own values, to me... simply never enters the story as an inherent logical consequence. So her rantings about capitalism, government, etc just end up sounding like utter tosh, because she starts from a few legitimate-sounding axioms (and we all know how legitimate axioms usually are...), proves a few things that sound somewhat reasonable, and then spins off into strange other things for no apparent reason.
u/rthomas2 [+1] (10 days later)
In that case, I have to argue that what you're saying is just very much YMMV. In my experience, all of Rand's premises and her full chain of logic is either stated or explicitly implied. There are definitely times when she doesn't connect all the dots for the reader--and also times when the dots are ridiculosly far apart. But she always gives all the information necessary to connect them ourselves. The problem I have is that her picture is often innaccurate, and that since we've put much of it together ourselves, it feels true without necessarily being so. But she certainly gives all the information we need in order to move from her premises to her conclusions...it's just that sometimes it takes several steps to get from stated point to stated point, going through implied ones along the way.