Atlas Shrugged

[siouxz72]

so, I've decided to expand my reading from Star Magazine and the Twilight Series...

Can anyone tell me if I have to read The Fountainhead before reading Atlas Shrugged?

Thanks ya'll!!

[Dr T]

I've read Atlas Shrugged but not Fountain Head. I'd say no.

[siouxz72]

Yay!! Thank you! I appreciate it..Ima steal Matty's copy then before I leave tonight!

[prisonchaplain]

No...I've read both...they are totally separate stories, though many of the same themes run through both. Atlas Shrugged is a more exhaustive story, and best offers Rand's philosophy. IMHO, Rand's error is the same as that of Marx--she assumes that human nature is basically good, rather than corrupted by sin.

[Dr T]

IMHO, Rand's error is the same as that of Marx--she assumes that human nature is basically good, rather than corrupted by sin.

I agree with you PC. I admire the concepts (a lot) but they simply do not work imo.

[dazed-and-confused]

yeah...i read it years ago.....and although it's nice to believe that people can take care of themselves.......well........hope you enjoy it siouxz....i did when i read it.....but like i said.....LONG time ago

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

Rand's error is the same as that of Marx--she assumes that human nature is basically good, rather than corrupted by sin.

So we are probably better off reading Thomas Hobbs then.

[prisonchaplain]

Moksha...or maybe the Apostle Paul?

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

No...I've read both...they are totally separate stories, though many of the same themes run through both. Atlas Shrugged is a more exhaustive story, and best offers Rand's philosophy. IMHO, Rand's error is the same as that of Marx--she assumes that human nature is basically good, rather than corrupted by sin.

Hi PC,

Sorry--another lecture from Elphaba.

When Siouxz started this thread, a small bell started ringing in my head. I had taken a Philosophy course where we had to read both books, which were amazing to me. The only thing I remembered concretely was her invention of "Objectivism."

So, when you stated she "assumed human nature is basically good," that was not how I remembered it exactly. So I ran a google search, and came up with the following four points she outlined when describing "Objectivism."

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute--facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals and foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but historically has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, I would disagree that she thought man was basically good; in fact, I think she thought the opposite, except for those industrious and innovative individuals who remained true to their visions.

I distinctly remember my "aha" moment while reading Fountainhead. She wrote of skyscrapers (obviously), and said man should be praised by society for such phenomenal accomplishments, rather than be dismissive.

I hope this made sense. For all I know, I remember it completely wrong. I'm really basing my memories on the four-point explanation of her "Objectivism." So, if someone proves me wrong, I would not be surprised.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by siouxz72

so, I've decided to expand my reading from Star Magazine and the Twilight Series...

Can anyone tell me if I have to read The Fountainhead before reading Atlas Shrugged?

Thanks ya'll!!

In my opinion, definitely Fountainhead before Atlas Shrugged.

Fountainhead is an easier read, and while everyone is correct that one has nothing to do with the other, I think Fountainhead plants the seed that explains her philosophy.

That in turn makes it a little easier to recognize the undercurrent that flows through Atlas. But don't let that fool you, because they are completely different novels.

However, I did not catch on to this the first time I read it; in fact, I struggled with Atlas. It was on a second read, when I was much older, that it made sense. But as I write this, it occurs to me what I inferred may not be what Rand meant.

My two cents.

Elphaba