Is Atlas Shrugged the New Vibe?
57 comments
·January 18, 2025pfannkuchen
alexpetralia
I find this nicely captures the difference between "rationality" and "reasonableness". A system can be rational but rest on unreasonable assumptions; a system may not be entirely rational but at least can have reasonable assumptions.
scoofy
Axioms are arbitrary, but must be agreed upon. It's a good point to make. Most ethical theories suffer from this meta-ethical problem that people really just won't agree on the axioms at the end of the day.
Molitor5901
That's a very good description. I enjoyed most of the book but it was also tremendously theoretical, never tried anywhere before, and I just don't see how it would ever perform in civil society. Objectivitists are never wrong, and some of the political ideologies that have formed around it have that superiority mindset - the theory is perfect, it's everyone else who does not understand.
No room for contradiction.
analog31
Indeed, all sufficiently mature ideologies evolve towards self consistency. Also, most ideologies have no internal epistemology, so their interpretation is anything you want.
hinkley
It’s also the hallmark of successful cults. Internally consistent is not a virtue. It helps, but it’s insufficient on its own. And kind of dangerous in isolation of other positive qualities.
woodruffw
The Ambrahamic faiths are arguably some of the most "mature" ideologies in existence, and I don't think any (secular) religious scholar would describe them as self-consistent.
(This isn't a slight: responsa are a normal thing in every world religion. But the idea that self-consistency happens when an ideology becomes mature doesn't seem especially borne out.)
freedomben
I agree with you, but I think the parent idea still stands because most of the Abrahamic faiths are self-consistent when the interpreter is sufficiently liberal enough to explain away and reconcile contradictions (i.e. not take a strictly literal interpretation).
For non-believers (I'm in that category) we see a load of inconsistencies. IMHO many of them are so clearly contradictory I wouldn't think there was even debate (i.e. which day did Jesus die? Was it on the day of Passover (Good Friday) as in the Gospel of Mark? Or was it just after noon on the day before the Passover meal is celebrated as in the Gospel of John?), but there is extensive literature written by people bending over backwards to reconcile these things. So, I think the Abrahamic faiths do follow the pattern of converging toward self-consistency.
nindalf
To expand on this, in case there are folks unfamiliar with Ayn Rands works. The consistent structure of her philosophy depends on
1. Metaphysics: Reality exists independently of consciousness ("A is A"), and humans can perceive it directly
2. Epistemology: Reason and logic are the only valid means of understanding reality
3. Ethics: Rational self-interest is the highest moral good
4. Politics: Individual rights (especially property rights) are absolute and capitalism is the only moral system
You can derive some of these from the others. Because reality is objective and we can know it through reason, we should always act only based on reason instead of emotion. Obviously our own happiness and self interest are proper moral aims. Doing that requires individual rights and capitalism.
This is internally consistent. The best part is that the book is fiction and no one comes out and says this in so many words. You need to “work it out” on the basis of the good guys believing this and the bad guys being collectivists. You feel smart when you work it out and you’re also more likely to accept it, because it wasn’t thrust on you. Of course the book throws subtlety to the wind around the end with a 100 page monologue.
As for the assumptions the philosophy rests on:
- Cognitive biases exist. Different people will perceive the same situation differently because of these biases. But objectivists will claim they don’t have any biases. I know at least two who told me they’re completely unbiased. (In fairness both have grown up since they told me this).
- Individual self interest will often conflicts with the interests of others. Game theory shows us that two prisoners pursuing “rational self interest” will lead to a worse collective outcome.
- Markets will often fail, spectacularly. And also, the right intervention can prevent them from failing. There are economics papers that discuss these failures, although in fairness many were published after Rand wrote her books.
alganet
I had a couple of friends who insisted that I should read it. I tried, but found it to be very boring.
I think that's the most incredible aspect about this book. As a novel, it is so incredibly boring and flat. As an anti-ideology morals-first treatise, it is so very ideological.
Maybe I'm biased because I never even finished it, I fell asleep every single time.
The idea of hidden figures sacrificing themselves to provide a good foundation for society is quite nice. A book about this idea is kinda dumb, for obvious reasons (you don't talk about fight club).
kstrauser
I liked it, other than the interminable speeches and preaching. I presume Rand's own internal struggle was to protect her artistic integrity from the oppressive editors who wanted her to strip out the 60 page sermon at the end.
But I also liked "Sharknado". "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" were entertaining reading, but their themes, although initially attractive, just don't stand up to scrutiny by anyone who's ever held a job in the real world. The misunderstood genius who explains nothing to anyone and has only contempt for those who don't immediately understand their grand plans may be the potential savior of humanity, but more often than not they're just a pain in the ass with poor communication skills proportional to their unjustified egos.
foobarbecue
Interesting. I read The Fountainhead and, while I found the idealogy reprehensible and the moralism patronizing, I was very entertained -- cartoonish characters, plenty of action. I haven't tried Atlas Shrugged; thanks for giving me another reason not to waste time on it.
alganet
As I mentioned, I haven't finished it, so don't take my comment as a review. It's just a soft opinion.
Your comment reminds me of the Bible (cartoonish characters, plenty of action, etc). Took me some 35 years to learn to appreciate it. However, what made me like it has nothing to do with popular notions of the book (I'm compelled by the history behind its several edits and compilations).
Maybe someday I'll like Atlas Shrugged too. I don't know, maybe there's something else there, but I find it unlikely, given that it lacks this more profound historical background. It tries to fake it, and in some sense it wants to be it (some historical allegory people book thingy).
trog
Heh I read Atlas Shrugged and had the exact same response as you reading Fountainhead. I recall quite enjoying the writing style, but just found the whole thing silly and the idea that anyone could come out of reading it thinking they'd just stumbled across a great life philosophy funny and depressing.
analog31
My dad read Atlas Shrugged when Reagan got elected, then gave it to me, and I read it too. I couldn't see any way that it was relevant to the society that I lived in.
I didn't get through the Speech.
Later on, I met someone who taught college, and used Atlas Shrugged as a required reading for his course. I asked him if he had actually gotten through the Speech, and he admitted that he had not.
hristov
Atlas Shrugged should be read the same way as Mein Kampf should be read. As a cautious tale about what evil people believe in. It should be read as a way to get into their disturbed heads see what they are thinking to better protect yourself from them.
Otherwise it is a quite boring book complete devoid of artistic merit.
If you are going to read Atlas Shrugged do not buy it new. I like to rummage around used bookshops and atlas shrugged is by far the most plentiful book there. That is no doubt because a lot of people buy the book because of the hype and then sell it because they are bored out of their skulls after twenty pages. So you can always get a pristine used copy for half price.
skellington
It is boring. It's hyper-boring.
It's just more efficient to read her direct works on Objectivism than trying to slog through a narrative form of it.
trhway
>Atlas Shrugged should be read the same way as Mein Kampf should be read.
my thinking is pretty close. For me Atlas Shrugged is the processing of the Ayn Rand's own PTSD resulting from coming of age during Russian Revolution and the following civil war with the bolsheviks coming into full power as a result. Add to that the shock of immigration immediately after that into completely different country/society (and I see similar to Ayn Rand's thinking in many USSR/Russian immigrants, at least in their first 10-20 years here) And so it is boring like a psychologist patient's notes would be.
wslh
I see your point, but comparing Mein Kampf to Atlas Shrugged feels misplaced. Mein Kampf is not fiction: it’s a manifesto tied to genocide and historical atrocities. While both provoke strong reactions, the moral and historical weight of Mein Kampf is incomparable, given the real-world consequences it inspired.
vunderba
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a quorum of users on a site devoted to unbridled capitalism and entrepreneurship immediately flagged this article.
amadeuspagel
What would Ayn Rand think about the podcast economy? All these little boys wanting to grow up to be podcasters. Go create something.
skellington
Isn't it crazy that these topics show up on HN whose audience is generally aligned with the 1% of highly educated, wealthy or wannabee wealthy people, who believe they should all be CEOs and whose actions in their day to day lives are hyper-capitalist?
Ironic.
cjbgkagh
The libertarian right has been supplanted by the authoritarian right. It’s a bit too late to try to bring Ayn Rand back.
I say this as a foot voting libertarian - it’s getting more lonely in this ideology not less.
kubb
Ayn Rand’s books have a cult following, tied closely to a specific political ideology and resonating with aspects of American national identity, particularly its celebration of individualism. However, they present a naive vision of the world, lacking nuance when it comes to morality and human complexity. Human flaws are conveniently absent in her protagonists, while the antagonists are comically incompetent and stupid.
The greatest flaw, to me, is that the triumphs of her characters rely on a world constructed entirely within the books - a world of perfect meritocracy where individual brilliance overcomes all. This creates a circular argument: the virtues the books champion succeed only within the fabricated conditions of Rand's universe, making their application to the real world highly questionable.
skellington
Kind of like Marxist books that work in a hypothetical universe?
Marx and Rand exist as reactions to the perceived problems of their days, but they shouldn't be taken as recipes for utopia.
Ironically, both philosophies depend on everyone in the system being perfectly altruistic. Any 'bad' actors poison their systems and turn them into horrible dystopias.
kubb
This is a misunderstanding of both Rand and Marx:
Rand’s philosophy doesn't depend on altruism - in fact it explicitly rejects altruism as a virtue, focusing on rational self-interest as the driving force of progress. This is of course attractive and expedient to certain political forces, especially in the USA.
Marxist systems also don't depend on altruism. Marx was considering how material interests drive behavior, how systemic change can reshape incentives, and was also relying on ideas like class consciousness, and solidarity. He also didn't need to create a fantasy world for his ideas to work, instead he was basing his theories on analysis of the existing economic conditions during his lifetime.
If you're thinking of ideological systems that do rely on altruism, you should look towards religions, like Christianity or Buddhism, or philosophies like Communitarianism. There were fringe utopian socialist thinkers who advocated for altruism-based systems (Fourier, Owen) but they were opposed both by Capitalists and Marxists.
skellington
I'm not saying that Rand or Marx themselves said that altruism was a necessary component. I'm saying that it is and that neither was aware of that pre-condition/axiom of their philosophies. To be fair, I think Rand was aware, and that she wrote fantasies around what she viewed as the 'perfect man.' Her stuff is more aspirational than practical (same as Lenin, etc.).
From a game theory point of view, both philosophies, in order to work and be sustained, require that most actors within the system behave honestly within the rules of the game. This means, nobody cheats. And it would only take a small percentage of bad actors to break either system.
In this context, altruism is self policing to abide by the rules even when not abiding by the rules would be better for you.
PS I also disagree with your take on religion, if anything, Christianity's (for example) primary philosophy is built around the explicit imperfection of mankind. Also, I would argue that the Utopian Socialists and Lenin were aligned in their goals. They just had different ideas of how to get there. There have been many attempts at the gentler Utopian Socialist version of communism over the years and AFAIK they all fall apart after a while, because people are not altruistic.
wslh
Clearly, this is connected to the political swings, even if the liberalism in Ayn Rand’s philosophy is not identical to what the right (or left) are currently doing. The right, and I focus on the right because it is where the powerful pendulum is now, seems more like a populist right than a liberal right. It is clear that politics exist on a spectrum, except at the widening extremes.
If Atlas Shrugged is about the role of entrepreneurs (to tie this to the HN main topic) as individuals and their creative power in society, I would say that this idea does not seem to scale in reality. The extent to which individuals embrace some kind of power is more closely correlated with where they were born specifically, the country and family they come from. Exceptions clearly exist, and the U.S. does not compare to any other country in terms of business opportunities. However, this is not the same as saying everyone has the same (or even comparable) opportunities based solely on their individual and creative traits. This is not a comment against the book but a 5 cents warning to not confuse a strong idea (the complexity and freedom of the individual) to the reality posed in real politics.
santoshalper
The "vibe" of Atlas Shrugged (other than "fucking boring") is pretty much "Insecure guy who wears a suit to high-school and is on the debate team" or I guess more simply "Ben Shapiro".
So yeah, I guess so.
Mobil1
[dead]
To me, the appeal of “objectivism” is that it’s very internally logically consistent. It’s hard to find a contradiction within the structure, or at least it was for me when I read it and thought about it some time ago.
The issue is that the whole structure rests on a tiny set of simple assumptions which are themselves entirely baseless. It’s basically a beautiful structure floating in mid air.
It’s sort of an intellectual trap, in my view. People who are good at finding contradictions in ideologies bungie into the middle of this one, look around and can’t find any contradictions. So they think, this one must be better than the others. Just don’t look down!