Escape as an Objectivist theme

Posted by LWinn 8 years, 11 months ago to Books
41 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by 8 years, 11 months ago
    Why do you think Rand used escape as a device for plot resolution in Anthem, We the Living, and Atlas Shrugged, but did not do so in The Fountainhead?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 11 months ago
      In The Fountainhead, there was nowhere to escape to. Roark's courtroom speech and Toohey's harangue to Peter Keating both refer to the dominance of collectivism in the rest of the world.

      Also, in fact, Roark did "escape" in closing his office and working in the quarry. He could have gone to work for another architect - any second-rate shop would have taken him for his skills - but that was no longer possible for him internally.

      When things don't work out, you leave. Simple as that. You don't try to change other people. You do not coerce them, argue, plead, convince, convert... You just go your own way.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 8 years, 11 months ago
        yes, I would have also said this-that working at the quarry was a type of "escape." Also, I would add that "escape" and "evasion" are not the same. May be mott in this discussion, but L did not give us context for their question
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 11 months ago
          He didn't escape. There was no confinement or external threat to escape from. He couldn't find customers to remain in business doing what he wanted to. He was driven out, but did not give up. He took an honest job to work his way back up (and as arranged for in the script to meet Dominique under a great contrast in social position). A plot requires conflict. That doesn't make it "escape".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 11 months ago
            No. As I said, he had other options. And he was not looking for "an honest job to work his way back up." Architecture has all kinds of work that pay better than being a laborer in a quarry. He was waiting for the right kind of person to find his work and find him. He also did not want to work at a good-paying job in a purchasing department where his efforts would benefit his detractors and destroyers. For him, the quarry was a kind of strike.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 8 years, 11 months ago
        You got this last statement RIGHT. When things dont work out, you leave (if you can). Trying to change other people over maybe 12 years old, especially in our "democratic"(mob rule) country, is a thankless task and doomed to failure. They need to learn for themselves (although in Venezuela even that doesnt seem to work).

        Life is too short to spend time trying to make people change, just is.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 years, 11 months ago
      Ayn Rand did not use or advocate escape as a central theme or device in anything. As a consequence of advocating reason and individualism she did support leaving hell-holes like the Soviet Union for something better.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 11 months ago
        The original question was not the statement that you replied to.

        Why do you think Rand used escape as a device for plot resolution in Anthem, We the Living, and Atlas Shrugged, but did not do so in The Fountainhead?

        "A device for plot resolution" is indeed a device, and is not a central theme. The central themes are well-known. (1) Individualism versus Collectivism, (2) Man against the State, (3) The Mind on strike.

        Lwinn did not suggest escape as a central theme. As much as I admire your insights, this was not one of them.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 8 years, 11 months ago
        Or Venezuela if you live there, or maybe San Francisco or Seattle if you live there. When all those refugees flee from Syria, you know something is wrong. Germany was stupid to take them in for humanitarian reasons.

        I think that the USA should look to refugees that are smart, industrious, rich perhaps, and who will improve our country. Forget that freeloaders, violent muslims, and others that just detract from what we have built here.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 11 months ago
          The primary qualification should be immigrants seeking to live as American individualists in a free society regardless of how smart, industrious or rich they are -- and not those who pose a physical threat coming for welfare in whole or in part, spreading disease, or seeking to overthrow American government for sharia or socialism. Those who meet that basic requirement are coming by right as individuals who have the same moral rights as human beings regardless of where they are, not to "improve our country" which is a collectivist standard.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 8 years, 11 months ago
            I am not even sure that I have any say in whoever moves here to start with actually. I guess if they can buy land from someone already here, they can come. That said, I would certainly feel better about an immigrant if he brought something positive to the community. Hence the comment about money, intelligence, and interest in working at something productive.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 11 months ago
              The response was to your post on who should be allowed. Now you say you have no say in it. Which is it? Are you discussing the criteria for immigration or not?

              No, they cannot come just by buying land. They are either allowed into the country or they aren't by the standards of immigration and of temporary entry into the country, whether they own, rent or are nomads.

              You can assess what you think of them or anyone else, but what you "feel" about someone is irrelevant to their rights versus being a physical threat. The conservative criterion that has been circulating, based on "contributing to the country" to the satisfaction of others, is a collectivist standard.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 8 years, 11 months ago
                As a practical matter, I have little or no say as to who comes here. The popular reason to allow refugees to come here is a very altruistic one- let in the ones who are worse off. I dont think it is proper to force people (me) to pay for them and settle them in with welfare.
                Our standards of immigration are set up by mob rule of the majority. They are what they are.

                Immigrants are typically discriminated against when they first come, and its up to them to prove that they can be productive members of the society. Thats not going to happen with muslim refugees from Syria, in my estimation, but who am I to judge. If it gets too bad, I will just move somewhere else.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 8 years, 11 months ago
                  A reverse refugee out of the pan and into the fire?

                  We don't say who can come but there is a national debate on it right now being framed in a false alternative.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 8 years, 11 months ago
                    I don't want card carrying muslims with their wacky intolerant and violent leanings
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 8 years, 11 months ago
                      That is a physical threat and should not be allowed. That and the collectivist "only let in people who we think will contribute to society" is a the false alternative currently being promulgated. Neither covers the innocent individuals who have a right to emigrate to a free society (not for welfare).
                      .
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by term2 8 years, 11 months ago
                        But the altruistic standard is being applied. Oh these poor people. We must help them because they are weak. Listen to Hillary. It's disgusting. You want strong and productive people in the lifeboat, not weak and frail
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 11 months ago
          Here in Texas, two families of Syrians entered from Mexico. They found the border patrol and turned themselves in. They had paid $50,000 each to be smuggled in. These are people of means, producers.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 8 years, 11 months ago
            Coming here to make a good life is what made our country great once. I am not really thrilled by the intolerant and violent dogmas of Islam tho. Bin Laden was of means too
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 11 months ago
      Roark never tried to escape except by ignoring. Not a bad method.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 8 years, 11 months ago
        "Escape by ignoring" is not an escape. If you can simply ignore something there is nothing to escape from.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Maritimus 8 years, 11 months ago
          It seems to me that ignoring is a kind of withdrawal, abstention from conversation, or confrontation, or interaction of some kind.
          Escape to me means removing oneself form within the range of control or from power reach of somebody or something.
          Two different concepts, I agree.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 8 years, 11 months ago
            The concept of 'escape' can be strained to include all kinds of actions, but the straining avoids essentials. "To someone who only knows how to use a hammer everything looks like a nail." 'Escape' was not a theme or central plot device throughout Ayn Rand's writing.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Maritimus 8 years, 11 months ago
              Even though Ayn Rand left the Soviet Union, which some might consider an escape, in "We the Living", her first novel, which, I read somewhere, she described as "the closest thing to an autobiography that she will ever write", Kira's attempt to escape is not the central plot. The novel is primarily a vivid, realistic (I can personally testify) and utterly condemning description of the life and the society shortly after the communists take over.

              In my opinion, shrugging into the Gulch is not an escapist plan. They all want to cause a profound change in the country and the only method available to them is to hasten and precipitate an economic collapse.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dwlievert 8 years, 11 months ago
    Discern and deal with reality as you best determine it to be, and then act accordingly in your own self-interest - as best you determine it possible.......
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 8 years, 11 months ago
      Its not my responsibility to "make" others accept reality. I have quite enough on my plate just running my own life.

      I will engage the freeloading bums that ask for money sometimes. I ask them why they think that I should work so they dont have to. That ends the discussion right there.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by blackswan 8 years, 11 months ago
        I merely point out that the only people who have a right to ask me for money are my parents, wife and children. If he or she isn't one of them, then NO.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 11 months ago
          I never felt that way, and neither did my parents, wife, or child. My mother told me about Atlas Shrugged, though she never read it, actually. My wife had read The Fountainhead just before I met her. Of course, our daughter would be in accord with all of that.

          That said, our daughter also did the math, and offered to buy us a condo near her when we are too old to fend for ourselves. She said that it was the least she could do in return. But she offered: we did not ask.

          That is the difference between benevolence and sacrifice.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ root1657 8 years, 11 months ago
          Why should this extend to your parents? Surely you did not ask for parents, and did not willfully enter into the relationship with them... While it may give you personal pleasure to assist your parents, and if doing so makes you happy, then doing so is for your gain. Do not make the mistake of thinking it is their right.

          As for the spouse and kids, I agree. By an measure, you willfully entered an arrangement with a spouse, and it goes with the territory. With minor children, you caused them, you care for them. Again, you may enjoy that, which adds bonus value to your life, so good. Once they cease to be children, they should be capable of self care, and if not, it should be your responsibility to correct the problem, and not anyone else to take care of them, unless that person enjoys doing so to the extent that they believe it is worth the expense to them. While I'm sure your kids are lovely, I have no desire to support them, so make sure they are capable of self support and care. I'll do the same with my kids, and maybe some day we can sit around an old folks home and when other complain about their kids, we can remind them that the child has no objective obligation to the parent. (however, it would of course be my hope that I've been such an awesome parent that my smart and capable children are filled with joy to visit me and find that a relationship with me continues to add value to their lives.)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 8 years, 11 months ago
    As I recall, Ayn Rand did not say that it was neces-
    sary to escape. Not yet. Of course, she died 33
    years ago, and things have gotten worse since
    then. She named certain conditions under which it
    would be "time to quit." I don't think we have
    reached that point yet, but we must fight, and
    fight hard, to keep from getting there. But
    I just do not think Trump is the answer. Praising
    eminent domain, getting chummy with Putin...
    what's next?! No, I'd rather have Cruz. He's
    certainly not ideal, but he has shown a real dis-
    position to fight on the Senate floor. And at
    least he's not a blowhard cross between Ross
    Perot and P.T. Barnum.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo