I’m Reading Atlas Shrugged; You’re Invited!!!!

[Primeperiwinkle]

Guys? Stop now. Take it to private pm. We’re here to discuss the book on Fridays not the philosophy of other ppl who read the book.

Thank you!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[csalvato]

Guys? Stop now. Take it to private pm. We’re here to discuss the book on Fridays not the philosophy of other ppl who read the book.

Thank you!

Oh you’re in for a bit of heartache here ... the book is a philosophy book written as fiction. Discussing the philosophy in your other threads will be absolutely unavoidable

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

Oh you’re in for a bit of heartache here ... the book is a philosophy book written as fiction. Discussing the philosophy in your other threads will be absolutely unavoidable

Well if it’s a bunch of ppl trying to figure out what the book says TO THEM, than that’s wonderful. But when someone comes in and says “I’ve read every book ever written and I know what I’m talking about and let me tell you what it all means because you’re clearly wrong” then we’ve passed from First Person discussion to something else.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

Let me make this abundantly clear.

There’s too many ppl in this book discussion for all of us to agree. Person A might say something that is in direct opposition to what Person B got out of the book.

That’s ok.

Just don’t use the word “you”. Use “I feel” “I read” “I think” and we’ll all be fine. Ask questions. Cool.

The majority has NOT read the whole book so there’s no way any of us can say decisively what the entire book is about. Yet.

On FRIDAY we will discuss Chapters 1&2. If anyone who has read the entire book feels the need to have a conversation about the personal philosophy of Ayn Rand - please take it to pm. Thank you.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

The short answer is that faith is anti-reason.

If faith is anti-reason what is pro-reason? Atheism?

 

[csalvato]

If faith is anti-reason what is pro-reason? Atheism?

Faith is anti-reason.
Reason is the anti-faith.

You cannot reason your way into faith. You cannot have faith in reasoning.

Atheism, religion, agnosticism, etc. are simply conclusions people draw depending on how much they are willing to jump to a conclusion based on the evidence they experience.

In other words, Atheism (and other religious conclusions/beliefs) is the outcome of faith and reason.

 

[Fox]

Alright alright - the hype worked. I’m in!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Supercar]

If faith is anti-reason what is pro-reason?

Reason is. The desire to perceive reality, think logically, and to rely on your own conclusions.

 

[broswoodwork]

Let me make this abundantly clear.

There’s too many ppl in this book discussion for all of us to agree. Person A might say something that is in direct opposition to what Person B got out of the book.

That’s ok.

Just don’t use the word “you”. Use “I feel” “I read” “I think” and we’ll all be fine. Ask questions. Cool.

The majority has NOT read the whole book so there’s no way any of us can say decisively what the entire book is about. Yet.

On FRIDAY we will discuss Chapters 1&2. If anyone who has read the entire book feels the need to have a conversation about the personal philosophy of Ayn Rand - please take it to pm. Thank you.

I'm just going to follow your lead on this one.

The last time I discussed the book, and its philosophy, it was with a group of communists on facebook back in 2011. Seemed like a cool group until that point... Turned out to be a bunch of Occupy zombies.

Presumably, any discourse here will be more civil and rational than that.

 

[Kak]

You cannot reason your way into faith. You cannot have faith in reasoning.

You can’t reason your way out of faith either without logical fallacies.

That is why it is ironic that a belief in a God is called faith, but non-belief isn’t considered an equal form of faith.

I for one would argue that Ayn Rand’s writings in Atlas Shrugged were primarily economic in theory. I can’t recall much of a religious argument at all the last time I read it.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[csalvato]

You can’t reason your way out of faith either without logical fallacies.

That is why it is ironic that a belief in a God is called faith, but non-belief isn’t considered an equal form of faith.

I think you're conflating faith with religion.

God is not called faith. A belief in God, however, requires faith.

That is, religion and theism requires faith as a mechanism. Faith, in and of itself, is not religion or a belief in god.

An Atheist who is sound in their logic will say something like "There are claims of god, but no proof. I can't believe in a god until there is proof. When you provide proof, I can re-evaluate my belief." This is a logical conclusion to make.

An Atheist that has made a faith-based, and unsound logical argument will say something like "The proof that there is no god is that my dad died in a plane crash, and people are starving in Africa. Such atrocities wouldn't happen to good people if a God exists." This latter atheist requires a leap of faith in their discernment because the premise is disconnected from the conclusion.

I'm not telling you that your faith is incorrect, nor that Atheists are correct. I am simply teasing away the conflation that God + Faith are intertwined.

I for one would argue that Ayn Rand’s writings in Atlas Shrugged were primarily economic in theory. I can’t recall much of a religious argument at all the last time I read it.

The book at its core is a philosophy book.

Philosophy doesn't discern between economics and religion.

Philosophy is an exploration of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence. Both economics and religion are within that larger superset (all well as everything else we can experience).

Rand's premises in the book are fundamental. The notion that `A is A` is a fundamental, philosophical, logical argument.

Among other philosophical notions expressed in the book, the conclusion that `A is A` clashes hard against religion in almost every way.

To reconcile the two would be very difficult. It seems that to do so, you have put these assertions in separate cognitive `boxes` – religion in one box; economic theory in another.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

Alright alright - the hype worked. I’m in!

YAYAYAYAYYY! I’m so glad!! Happy to have you!

 

[Kak]

I think you're conflating faith with religion.

An Atheist who is sound in their logic will say something like "There are claims of god, but no proof. I can't believe in a god until there is proof. When you provide proof, I can re-evaluate my belief." This is a logical conclusion to make.

I am actually conflating the two. You’re right. I agree.

Atheism is making a claim that there is no God in the affirmative. They are claiming that there is no God the same way a Christian would be making a claim that there is one.

So I do disagree that the lack of proof affirming the existence of god somehow creates a logically sound argument for an atheist when contrarily the lack of proof that repudiates the existence of god doesn’t give Christians a “logically sound argument.”

My point, Christians, like myself, are more than happy to call our beliefs “faith.” Atheists, on the other hand, claimed a monopoly on the word “reason” with nothing, but logical fallacy to support its use.

As far as super in depth philosophical meaning within the book. Maybe I didn’t catch it the first time around, but I will be looking out for it this time. For now, the message I got from it, reading it the first time, was economic and anti-political in nature.

Yes, I am happy to separate the two belief systems and have done so for years. There are communist Christians and anarcho-capitalist Christians. There are communist atheists and anarcho-capitalist atheists... and everything in between. Nothing here is mutually exclusive.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Primeperiwinkle]

I'm just going to follow your lead on this one.

The last time I discussed the book, and its philosophy, it was with a group of communists on facebook back in 2011. Seemed like a cool group until that point... Turned out to be a bunch of Occupy zombies.

Presumably, any discourse here will be more civil and rational than that.

Thank you. I’ve happily conversed with all manner of ppl who disagree with Christianity.. but it isn’t until they realize that I genuinely care about them that we come to a deeper understanding. I wish I could tag my atheist friend who is super brilliant.. he still says I’ve impacted him more strongly than any other healer. He’s not on the forum but the discussions we have are fascinating.

Anyhoo.. maybe we should just label everyone now, put it each other in bright sparkly boxes and then decide ahead of time how we’re going to feel about the whole book. *rolls eyes

I’ve decided to loathe Ayn Rands entire philosophy while ADORING every single thing about her book. Now I’ll have cake.
(and eat it too! Ha!) ^joking

 

[csalvato]

And yes, I am happy to separate the two belief systems and have done so for years. There are communist Christians and anarcho-capitalist Christians. There are communist atheists and anarchy-capitalist atheists. And everything in between. Nothing here is mutually exclusive.

Yep! I wasn't coming down on you for putting these in different boxes.

I was only stating that it's difficult to reconcile the book's philosophies with religion, and that's how you seemed to do it.

If you've found a way to do that in a way that makes you happy, keeps you productive, etc. then more power to you.

The debate on the logical soundness of my first Atheist is can of worms that may be best left alone for now.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

The debate on the logical soundness of my first Atheist is can of worms that may be best left alone for now.

Phew! It’s snack time. Would you like some cake? I have extra. Rofl

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[BizyDad]

A book I've always been meaning to read. Faith. Reason. Economics. Politics. Religion. Good characters. Differing perspectives. Excellent narrative. Structured discussion. There's a chance some people are going to get cut.

And there's cake? I can't not be in. Looking forward to Friday.

 

[MitchM]

I’m in since I’ve been meaning to read it and this seems like a fun community event. Let’s do it

 

[Kak]

Yep! I wasn't coming down on you for putting these in different boxes.

I was only stating that it's difficult to reconcile the book's philosophies with religion, and that's how you seemed to do it.

If you've found a way to do that in a way that makes you happy, keeps you productive, etc. then more power to you.

The debate on the logical soundness of my first Atheist is can of worms that may be best left alone for now.

Maybe Ayn Rand and objectivism is incompatible with religion, I don‘t know enough about it to argue one way or the other. On the other hand, the economic and political messages I have long loved Atlas Shrugged for are not. I personally didn’t care for Fountainhead, as it was a pretty depressing book, whereas with I was energized to support the achievement of others after reading AS.

I have NOT read her nonfiction works and I have never considered myself an objectivist. So maybe that is how I “reconcile.”

Breifly looking up John Galt himself on Wikipedia, which is a democratized encyclopedia where the “facts“ are basically an equilibrium of overall thought on the topic, it discusses, like I have been saying, mostly political and economic theories and lauding individualism over collectivism and egalitarianism.

I think reading JUST Atlas Shrugged and concluding “OBJECTIVISM” was the underlying theme or idea is a bit of a stretch.

I think those that are claiming objectivism are probably more developed in their knowledge of all of Rand’s works.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kruiser]

I'm in too! Thanks for putting this together! I am enjoying it so far - I read almost no fiction, so it is a really nice change of pace.

I've never liked Ayn Rand. Or rather, I used to be so annoyed by the folks who read Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek and thought they had attained the summit of all possible human knowledge that I never actually read her stuff.

But I'm enjoying it. Thanks again!

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

A book I've always been meaning to read. Faith. Reason. Economics. Politics. Religion. Good characters. Differing perspectives. Excellent narrative. Structured discussion. There's a chance some people are going to get cut.

And there's cake? I can't not be in. Looking forward to Friday.

Yay! Your sense of humor will be relied upon!

I’m in since I’ve been meaning to read it and this seems like a fun community event. Let’s do it

Glad you’re here!

I'm in too! Thanks for putting this together! I am enjoying it so far - I read almost no fiction, so it is a really nice change of pace.

I've never liked Ayn Rand. Or rather, I used to be so annoyed by the folks who read Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek and thought they had attained the summit of all possible human knowledge that I never actually read her stuff.

But I'm enjoying it. Thanks again!

I’m nodding my head. So. Much. Glad you’re here.

 

[doot]

I'm curious to see how these threads go. I'm a recently converted Christian who was an atheist through most of his childhood and an agnostic until a year or so ago. I used to think religion and reason couldn't coexist, but changed to agnosticism when I realized atheism is the faith in having no god and blind religion is the faith in having one. I've switched to Christian because I choose to believe in the face of a lack of evidence in either way.

Obviously empirical evidence one way or the other would change that.

But I'm curious to see what this book does for me.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Successful Steve]

Reason is. The desire to perceive reality, think logically, and to rely on your own conclusions.

You can only believe in creation or evolution and it takes Faith to believe in both.

It takes a whole lot of faith to say that every snowflake is unique, every fingerprint is unique and every galaxy is unique and just say all that happened by mere ‘chance,’ ‘evolved’ or ‘Big Bang.’

It takes less faith that there is a ‘Supreme Creator.’

So everyone is using reasoning from a faith based perspective. You have absolute faith every unique thing in our world happened through evolution by believing what scientists tell you took place 10 million years ago or you have faith in an invisible creator.

 

[broswoodwork]

Haha. The faith/ religion aspect has really taken center stage.

I'm with @Kak , in that I didn't see faith/ religion vs reason as a primary focus of the book. Maybe I missed something?

Full disclosure: I'm a seeking agnostic, if that factors in somehow.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

I'm curious to see how these threads go. I'm a recently converted Christian who was an atheist through most of his childhood and an agnostic until a year or so ago. I used to think religion and reason couldn't coexist, but changed to agnosticism when I realized atheism is the faith in having no god and blind religion is the faith in having one. I've switched to Christian because I choose to believe in the face of a lack of evidence in either way.

Obviously empirical evidence one way or the other would change that.

But I'm curious to see what this book does for me.

If you haven’t read Mere Christianity I would humbly suggest that as well.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[csalvato]

This thread is dangerously close to getting off the rails into a full on religious debate.

I'm with @Kak , in that I didn't see faith/ religion vs reason as a primary focus of the book. Maybe I missed something?

Since the book is a philosophy book, it's axioms apply to all of existence, which is why religion factors into the equation.

It's very easy to read this book and not apply any of it's axioms to religion, and why many read it purely as an economics-focused fable.

Though some would argue that you can't cherry pick where you apply a fundamental philosophy such as those being put forward in Atlas Shrugged.

 

[broswoodwork]

This thread is dangerously close to getting off the rails into a full on religious debate.



Since the book is a philosophy book, it's axioms apply to all of existence, which is why religion factors into the equation.

It's very easy to read this book and not apply any of it's axioms to religion, and why many read it purely as an economics-focused fable.

Though some would argue that you can't cherry pick where you apply a fundamental philosophy such as those being put forward in Atlas Shrugged.

I get that, and I suppose I'm an inconsistent and economically focused cherry picker, despite being an agnostic personally.

Take what works (for me) and leave the rest isn't the worst thing in the world, right?

 

[csalvato]

Take what works (for me) and leave the rest isn't the worst thing in the world, right?

I have no opinion on this

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

Since the book is a philosophy book, it's axioms apply to all of existence, which is why religion factors into the equation.

It's very easy to read this book and not apply any of it's axioms to religion, and why many read it purely as an economics-focused fable.

Though some would argue that you can't cherry pick where you apply a fundamental philosophy such as those being put forward in Atlas Shrugged.

I agree that it is a philosophy book... For now I believe it is a political and economic philosophy book. The fundamental philosophy being personal achievement, free market capitalism, freedom, and a disdain for central political control. To the point of complete abandonment of society as it was becoming.

We have been very civil in our discussions, but I am starting to feel like some of you guys want to weaponize this against believers anyway.

So Ayn Rand was an atheist objectivist. We all know that; it was mentioned very early in this thread. That doesn’t mean Atlas Shrugged is a manifesto against religion like perhaps some of her other writings may be.

Nevertheless, this is a discussion about Atlas Shrugged, not Objectivism, not Ayn Rand and not religion. I will eat my words if this book somehow surprises me with dominant anti-religious precept.

 

[Supercar]

The strongest message that I got from this book was about ethics and morality, especially in difficult economic and political times. How what is ethical and moral can be inverted slowly over time without most people noticing. How this must be untangled.