Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonist
In any case, like it or not, Rand is a very influential author, and any 20th century overview, which does not mention her work, would be deficient.
|
She only has "popular" influence in the US (and to a lesser extent in the UK). I doubt anyone outside that sphere knows her.
Quote:
|
From a philosophical (or political) standpoint the book was written over 50 years ago, but we are still struggling with many of the themes that Ayn addresses in Atlas Shrugged and the book still feels fresh and relevant.
|
As Robert Solomon said once (in a teaching company course): Rand hates Nietzsche, mostly because he's said everything she did better.
Of course the things she touches on are relevant; We still live in the same, capitalist, world. That said, I have the feeling there are infinitely more productive authors to read than her.. Charles Dickens, for all I care (not that I have anything against the guy's writing).
Again, the "problem" she mentions is the specifically economically conservative/libertarian viewpoint that noone should be forced to pay for anyone else; as such, it mostly seems to be used as a facile "defense" or rationalization for those people (Alan Greenspan and his economic "policy" comes to mind here). And it is facile especially because it ignores the entire social dimension of life in communities/societies/yada.
As Nietzsche (and Plato) already pointed out: once
the masses come out of the woodwork and combine their power, the "type A" personalities will just die, because they are too few, and will have antagonized everyone else too much for their outlook to still be a tenable. Sure, this "philosophy" works for some, but only because they can keep the effects of their behavior a relative secret (the effects of white collar crime are widely underreported, for instance). Once they're outed, it's over.
Sure, it wasn't meant as a coherent defense (it's "only fiction"), but it is used that way, and I'm quite sure she was very happy about that, too.
(disclaimer: I have no beef with a differential reward scheme, but one so entirely oblivious of the social implications of a winner-takes-all world..)