Quotes From Atlas Shrugged
« Is School Wasting Your Money? || Only Suckers Follow the Rules »
Over the last two weeks I’ve been churning through Ayn Rand’s epic novel, Atlas Shrugged
Here are some choice quotes:
On money…
“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia, “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?”
“Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek.”
“The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.”
On the difference between thinking and feeling…
“I don’t feel that you’re right, so I know that you’re wrong.”
“How do you know it?”
“I feel it. I don’t go by my head but by my heart. You might be good at logic, but you’re heartless.”
“Madame, when we’ll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart won’t be of any earthly use to them.”
Rand’s views center on the supreme right of the individual. That means that taxes, trade restrictions and charity are all forms of evil which punish the strong to sustain the weak. While I’m not sure I agree with Rand’s philosophy when applied to politics as a whole, there are more than a few individual lessons I’ve gathered from this book.
A few thoughts that I came across when reading this and Rand’s earlier book, The Fountainhead:
- The Virtue of Independence. Few virtues are more important to Rand than independence, meaning that you survive, not on charity, but on what you have earned.
- Profit is Virtuous. To most people making profit is a dirty, selfish indulgence. Rand claims the opposite, that it is the reward for creating value. As long as you don’t steal, coerce or con profit from your victims, then profit is a sign you are contributing value.
- Love Can’t Make 2+2 = 5. Feelings of love, pity and charity can’t put food on the table or create progress in society, only production can. Who really contributes more–the person who cries for charity, or the person who creates value?
I can’t say I agree with everything Rand says, but the book is definitely thought-provoking.
Jaan said,
January 2, 2008 at 8:14 am
Ayn Rand is a great writer, I just finished reading the Fountainhead, highly enjoyable.
Is this also for her foundations essay contest?
I’m in 11th grade so I’ve gotta do the Fountainhead. $10,000 sure is enticing though.
Good luck!
Gideon said,
January 2, 2008 at 11:51 am
Rand is… well, she’s kind of the Stephen King of the philosophy world. Many people may like her, but professionals tend to sigh sadly whenever someone brings them up in a class room, for instance.
That is not to say something cannot be learned…. but it’s important to keep reminding oneself when reading Rand that, like all philosophy, reality must step in and assert itself after the thinking is done - and you are left with a lot that is either trite or crap.
For something along these lines with a bit more chops, I suggest you read Nietzsche. I don’t agree with him on a lot of things either, but his ideas are more sophisticated and he’s MUCH more fun to read and there is a great deal more wisdom in his other thinking, as well.
A quick slap at the thinking, which kind of cuts down to it, is here:
http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif
You can find a lot more by looking around, criticism of objectivism, etc (there is no shortage of it, though professional philosophers rarely give it the time of day anymore). But really, like all philosophy/theology, etc. to my mind the litmus test is what kind of person does it make you if you follow it, what kind of society arises from such thinking.
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather sit next to a fundamentalist christian, a rabid atheist and a politician than next to an objectivist on a plane. I’ve never met someone claiming to be one that wasn’t an absolute horror of a human being.
That being said, one could see a form of “enlightened self-interest” providing a moral system that works. To quote Emerson, “nothing is good for the bee that is bad for the hive” which is the core of the enlightened bit, and what most objectivists simply do not get. The other problem is it implies people are enlightened enough to work in such a system, and they’re not. If you assume people are rational and will make the best choices for themselves all you have to do is look at the condition of this country to see how that is not the case.
suvine.com said,
January 2, 2008 at 11:55 am
SHE NEVER SAYS CHARITY IS A FORM OF EVIL, JUST THAT NOONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO. CHARITY IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE RELEGATED PRIVATELY OR THROUGH CHURCHES, NEVER MANDATORY. BEFORE WELFARE WHEN A FARMER LOST HIS LAND HE WAS RICHER THAN BEFORE BECAUSE OF THE COMMUITY, WHEN IT BECAME A RIGHT, THAT IS WHEN ALL THE PEOPLE COME OUT AND SCAM AND PRODUCE LESS.
Favela Cranshaw said,
January 2, 2008 at 12:51 pm
“I can’t say I agree with everything Rand says, but the book is definitely thought-provoking.”
It confounds me that so many addend this proviso to their expressions of agreement with Ayn Rand. It can only be seen as the fear of disapproval of the others who read your blog. It almost sounds confessional: Forgive me, father, for I have begun to think for myself.
Kali said,
January 2, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Thanks for the link on Objectivism.
Mike Stankavich said,
January 2, 2008 at 4:04 pm
An interesting side note - while reading Alan Greenspan’s new book I discovered that he considered Ayn Rand a close friend. He said that he found her to be very intellectually challenging.
nada said,
January 2, 2008 at 5:29 pm
@Gideon: “I’ve never met someone claiming to be one that wasn’t an absolute horror of a human being.”
Funny you should mention that. I lived with one for several months, originally attracted to what I believed was someone who truly embodied what they preached. In the end, I discovered exactly that - Objectivism had become the excuse to rag on life for being so “misguided” while at the same time being pretty ineffective at it by refusing to play.
The world doesn’t necessary make sense, but to succeed, you need to learn to play by its rules enough to win on its terms, not yours. The “cult of the individual” may appeal to an ego-centric society or person - and philosophically Rand has her moments - but she’s cherry picking at the extremes. Most of the real Howard Roarks of the world never get out of the proverbial rock quarry. I read a quote somewhere about there being nothing more common than unappreciated genius. It was a humbling point. Humility in general is not something that fits well into Rand’s framework.
Marina @ Sufficient Thrust said,
January 2, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I love that quotation about money. I think it’s one of the most powerful things I’ve ever read, and it definitely strongly shapes my work as an entrepreneur.
No philosophy can ever be fully-realized. There will always be some flaws, somewhere. (Actually, probably a lot of flaws.) I think it’s important not to wash our hands of it because we can’t achieve perfection, however, and instead focus on working towards the goal. Our society could certainly benefit tremendously if more people took responsibility for themselves and believed in the power of their own two hands (typing counts!).
Scott Young said,
January 3, 2008 at 7:17 am
Thanks for the comments,
As to my disagreements with Rand, I hesitate to agree with her believe that the individual is supremely important. I tend to lean more towards Objectivism (which is ethical egoism, not just a pragmatic adaptation of the utilitarian principle) than Utilitarianism, in that the individual is important.
My distinction with Rand is that I’m not certain that the individual is supremely important in the sense Rand describes. I’m not quite sure how to bridge the gap without compromise, so therein lies my debate.
As for Rand’s political philosophy, I disagree with her on matters of the environment. The environment is an area where the pursuit of self interest could eventually lead to our own destruction. And I believe that governments are necessary to pay for things where the benefits can only be applied to society as a whole and not individuals.
I also object to the perfect-world Rand portrays in her book. This is speculation, not experiment, so it should be taken with a grain of salt.
So, no I don’t agree with everything Rand says. Then again I never agree with anything, anyone says in full. But that definitely doesn’t mean I haven’t started to think more.
-Scott
Scott Young said,
January 3, 2008 at 7:22 am
Suvine,
Rand’s book is a moral philosophy — what one “ought” to do. Of course, she says that everyone is free to give charity if they want to. But if you follow her philosophy closely, any pure form of charity (where your own benefits are not the main goal) goes against the idea that man is a purpose unto himself (or herself).
Yes, I would say Rand believes that it is unethical for governments to “loot” the money of the rich to give to the poor. But it would be a lesser evil to give charity since this embodies the selflessness that Rand strives against.
Aaron Simmons said,
January 3, 2008 at 8:33 am
This is absolutely one of my favorite novels of all time. Especially in a capitalist economy like the United States, it should be read more often — our entire livelihood is based on the principles and ideas discussed in this book.
No philosophy holds 100% of the time, and I’m sure others will agree that her capitalist utopia is a bit over the top, but it helps put a lot of things in perspective. Basically, you have two options — you can whine about how you don’t have any money, or you can get out there and do something that’s worth paying you for. Ironically, the second option is both selfish AND benefitting others at the same time.
Enjoy the book!