Having an Open but Critical Mind. RE: Atlas Shrugged

[Arakasi]

One thing I've noticed over my admittedly short time on this earth is people's capacity to reject things that they have no concept of. Their rejection primarily seems to be based upon horribly incorrect second-hand knowledge, or spurred by prior bias.

Why can people not manage such a simple task as to keep an open, but objective mind?

Now I could be speaking about a number of things here; the preacher who tries to convert the atheist devil without ever understanding the meaning of 'atheist', the woman who writes-off a a program for its apparent childishness without ever watching the show or the man who rejects an idea without first checking the premises of his own.

As it turns out that I am speaking of the latter. Having just finished reading Atlas Shrugged I find myself quite highly satisfied with its use of logic to convince the reader of the Objectivist ideology. The reason I chose to pick up the book in the first place was that I could hear no source of information telling me that it any good, I heard nothing but unspecific negativity, and so I decided that I should judge it on its own merits instead of simply taking everyone's word for it. (Before we continue I should also note that reading it has not converted me to Objectivism.)

I'm not going to say it was a perfect book, it may have a little trouble with the almost straw-man like nature of the opposing characters, it's idealisation of the capacity of average human thought, the occasional apparent sexism (it was written in the 50's by a female author) and it having a basis in an outdated idea (free will).

So what I am going to say is that it is a brilliant book. It's use of philosophy as well as the characters and setting to promote the ideology is used to the greatest effect I can see being possible whilst remaining comprehensible, and it is the only good example of this technique that I can think of (not that I won't be searching for more).

So for every time I see a web comic telling the readers that one has terrible taste for liking a book, every time I hear a video-creator crack a joke about people yanking-off to a work he doesn't like, every time I hear someone tell me that they despise something and yet are unable to explain why, every time I hear someone tell me that something is wrong simply because it is, this my friends, is when I shall decide for myself.

I am left to conclude that for all the people who espouse the philosophy of not judging a book by its cover, few actually don't.

----
So, here's my question: What things have you liked or disliked that you think didn't get a fair judgement? Do you try to judge without prejudice? Can one judge without prejudice?

Well the thing is that making any judgements predjudices you over time, as you grow from what you decide and experience.

Well the thing is that making any judgements predjudices you over time, as you grow from what you decide and experience. [/quote]
Agreed, but it is important to try to look past that.

Most people who dismiss "Atlas Shrugs" and the works of Ayn Rand without having read them, or truely familiarized themsevles with the subject matter, do so because they hear that they are bad from sources they generally agree with, and given the sheer amount of time it can take you to familiarize yourself with objectivism, whether it's from reading the books OR through other sources summarizing it, it's deemed to not be worth the trouble.

Agreed, and I'd be fine with that, if they didn't then go force their ill-considered authority based viewpoint down others' throats, which they feel it's fine to do, it's safe and acceptable because they are in a sphere where they are right by virtue of the majority.

The point here not being to argue about objectivism, so much as to say that I sort of "get" why so many people rag on it without actually understanding it in detail. That's not an ideal state of affairs, but I understand why that happens.

I can understand it, but I can also bring up so many arguments why the vision you provided is incorrect, and as a result I can't accept it.

Speaking for myself I tend to be more to the right wing on most issues than the left, but I do not agree with Objectivism on some general principles. One of the reas where I actually lean leftward for example is on the issue of worker's rights, and my believe in unions and things like that.

I do agree with the concept of unions. I think a form of union was mentioned in Atlas Shrugged, there was a group of workers who Hank Rearden hired for significantly more than he normally would hire anyone, because they were very good at what they did. As for the general union that results in large scale strikes and so on, I can see why the person would just fire them and hire others that aren't union, so long as they get the same quality out of their work. However for something like teaching where you need specialists, it is right that they should be able to form a union and strike.

I believe whole heartedly in capitalsm, but at the same time believe there does need to be limitations on it, to prevent a few greedy jerks from ruining it for everyone else (so to speak). As a theory Objectivism is interesting, but I do not think it's functional in a practical sense, nor does it really account for human nature. That said it is a step up from a lot of philsophies I have heard.

I don't think there needs to be limits on capitalism per se, there just needs to be a very strong idea of what is right and wrong within Ccapitalism, such as having it be illegal to lie to the consumer in advertising.

 

[Parakeettheprawn]

What things have you liked or disliked that you think didn't get a fair judgement?

Bioshock 2 -- It's actually got some neat ideas, and the only reason the game failed to be a great sequel was because of a forced rewrite of the campaign one year into production. There was going to be underwater combat, an optional bartering system, and all sorts of additional content that didn't make it into the game.

Syndicate (2012) -- You know what, screw it, this thing was my FPS GOTY for 2012. It was fun, it has great gameplay, it actually uses dubstep appropriately, has a unique visual aesthetic (somewhere between Blade Runner and Mirror's Edge), and the co-op is still fun when I play it again on my PC, even though I've already clocked about 30 hours in and have a max-rank MP agent. Spare me the "it's an FPS unlike the original!" -- it's still a better and more original FPS than the flavor of the moment that most people will drop in a week.

Uncharted -- Why. Do. You. Keep. Buying. This. Game? It's everything people supposedly want less of (linear to the point of being on-rails shooting sequences, generally unfailable platforming, scripted set piece sequences that are barely even interactive, QTEs, generic narrative, sociopathic protagonist(s)), and yet it keeps getting high scores because "is pretty!" Seriously?

I'm really hoping the Last of Us proves me wrong and shows Naughty Dog actually can do something compelling, because if Uncharted is the high point of their career, I'm not even bothering with the rest of what they have to offer.



Do you try to judge without prejudice? Can one judge without prejudice?

You can't judge without some amount of prejudice. The best you can do is try to account for what you know you'll be prejudiced about and, if possible, get a second opinion from someone you can trust but who thinks differently than yourself.


And if I can add a little more -- I actually did try to read Atlas Shrugged for the same reasons you did, the problem was that it bored the living hell out of me. *Mini rant* Also, I'd add "the atheist who thinks all spiritual/religious people are the same", as that one is an issue I keep seeing a lot more of, and as a cynic Christian who has a number of atheist friends, I don't like that trend, as it's not very accurate to reality. That said, not trying to turn this into a religious debate, just pointing that out there. *Mini rant done*

 

[JasonBurnout16]

Well I've read Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead and Anthem and liked Atlas Shrugged the last out of all of them as a book and for the way she portrayed her message.

I honestly suggest that you read ether of the other two books (Though Anthem is a shorter read with a nicer plot).

 

[Arakasi]

Well I've read Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead and Anthem and liked Atlas Shrugged the last out of all of them as a book and for the way she portrayed her message.

I honestly suggest that you read ether of the other two books (Though Anthem is a shorter read with a nicer plot).

I will get around to her other books, but I've got a few others lined up for now; The Moral Landscape, 1984, Thus Spoke Zarathustra and maybe some non-philosophical fantasy.

 

[SecondPrize]

I tend to find her more of a Romantic at heart... disappointed by people at every turn.

That's not true at all. Shortly after coming to America, Rand found herself a hero, someone to idolize. William Hickman. What she found captivating about him was the pure selfishness that later became a major tenant of her objectivism. About Hickman, she writes, "He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman

 

[CrystalShadow]

I dunno, how much do you need to know about, say, Nazism? Do you have to have read Mein Kampf before you can say it's bad?

To say it's bad? No. To understand it truly and exactly what it means? Yes. And it IS important to understand that on that level. For starters, staunch capitalist conservatives are often called "Nazi's" (see: any debate involving Rush Limbaugh) despite the fact that the "Nazi" party was the "National Socialist Party." Calling Limbaugh a Nazi is like calling bin Laden a Christian. It's so hilariously wrong that you have to wonder if the person throwing the line has any idea of what they're talking about. So yeah, you can say that Nazis are bad from a cursory glance, but to start using it for other things in other contexts? Better crack open Mein Kampf (or similar book, depending on ideology), you'll be surprised at exactly what you'll learn.

While there may be more well-defined reasons why the comparison doesn't add up, do remember that a name is just a name.

For instance, the UK's main 'conservative' political party is called the 'liberal' party. Obviously, if you look into the history of it you can see where came from, but still, are you going to tell me that the liberal party isn't in fact a right-wing conservative political party, just because of it's name?

Without a deeper understanding both of the philosophical ideals of the groups involved, and what the actual practical effect was, dismissing such a comparison based on the name alone is a bit farcical.

For that matter, implying a well-known Muslim is a Christian, has more merit than you might think, if you consider the teachings and apparent history of those two religions... They are after all, much closer to each-other philosophically than they are to several other religions (like say, buddhism, or shintoism, or even the greko-roman mythologies Christianity mostly displaced)

And for the OP, I have a question for you: What exactly makes Free Will such an outdated concept/idea? What would the "modern" idea that should have replaced it with be? Not anything against you, but the only people I've heard say that are people who think that 1984 is a great resource to learn about how to structure government. Is there another idea I haven't heard of (besides "Destiny" or whatever, as well)?

I'm not going to argue that the philosophy of it remains useful, but there seems to be a growing body of scientific evidence that undermines the idea that free will is even possible.
Granted, it partially depends on how you define free will, but the basis for this is pretty straight-forward:

Given that much of physics (even quantum mechanics, despite it's quirks) appears to be largely deterministic in nature, and a human being appears, as far as we can tell to be a collection of molecules that never ceases to be a part of the universe as a whole, there is no point at which a 'choice' can be made, because any apparent 'choice' is the end result of everything that happened up to that point.
The only way to change what a person would do, would be to change what happened.

The only way out of this would require defining some part of human existence that somehow exists outside of the influence of reality.
Because how can you have 'free will', if your decisions are so clearly constrained by a completely deterministic process?

It also doesn't help that experiments have shown that any decision you make tends to already have been made before you become consciously aware of it.
In fact, your conscious 'decision' isn't so much a decision, as it is a post-hoc rationalisation of what you've already started doing.

It's not conclusive, obviously, especially given that there's no real agreement on what precisely free will means, but the evidence isn't promising for quite a large number of definitions...

 

[Full]

SNIP OF LIFE

Wow. I just want you to know that you put into words what I couldn't for my entire life. Thank you.

I have nothing to add to this other than what this person said.

 

[mfeff]

I tend to find her more of a Romantic at heart... disappointed by people at every turn.

That's not true at all. Shortly after coming to America, Rand found herself a hero, someone to idolize. William Hickman. What she found captivating about him was the pure selfishness that later became a major tenant of her objectivism. About Hickman, she writes, "He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman

Ahh that is interesting, thanks for sharing. This doesn't actually surprise me though, "found herself a hero", is not dissimilar to "romantic at heart".

Additionally one guy does not a society make. Now in all fairness, Hickman was "not" The Hero, only aspects of Hickman's personality and Clearly "from a distance".

Rand wanted the hero of her novel to be "A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me.

That being said, I am tossing my words a life jacket on a rescue mission... although I don't think you have torpedoed anything I have said... according to the wiki that you've linked me to; it is obvious that Hickman was a sort of Rand's projection of the F.N. concept of the post-modern ubermensch or noir romantic hero... at least in her mind.

It was fodder for further writings and characterizations, hardly a relationship. Like I said, she lived in fantasy land. May as well of been a "fan fictionalization" of a person she had never met. Top it off she never finished the book that included the character thus reducing it to anecdote... interesting as it is.

 

[Hap2]

I do my best to have an open and critical mind to everything I come across. It's why I'm in philosophy: understanding, to the best of my ability to do so, is an ethical priority for me.

However, Rand's 'theories' are bunk. There is good reason why professional philosophers do not take her seriously: her arguments often read, and are as well constructed, as those of a bitter philosophy undergraduate who doesn't understand the source material they are drawing from. I am not a big fan of Kant, although I understand his significance and agree with parts of him, but in her bizarre attacks on him, she provides no evidence that she knows Kant very well at all. Everything she says suggests otherwise. The same can be said with her relationship to Nietzsche. Nietzsche was not a spiteful man towards life, yet, she reads and writes about him so shallowly, she often ends up portraying herself as a much less intelligent caricature of the mainstream stereotype the public often holds of him.

To be open-minded, and to understand, does not mean to accept something as true, or as the only way of thinking. Every serious self-styled objectivist I have come across seems to forget this. I can guarantee that there will be at least one reply claiming that I "do not understand Rand at all", simply for disagreeing with her, or for pointing out some of her very obvious flaws.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I would honestly advise anyone interested in knowing more about Rand's philosophical views to skip Atlas Shrugged altogether and instead read some of her actual philosophical writings. As a philosopher, she brings some intriguing views to the table that, even if you don't agree, provide quality food for thought. As an author of fiction, she could use a lot of work. Anthem is pretty good and Fountainhead is decent, but Atlas Shrugged just fails under the weight of trying to combine story and philosophy.

 

[Frission]

I wonder, is it close minded to automatically dismiss criticisms on the basis that one has not read the book. Do you need to read the "Origin of Species" to understand evolution after all?

Some people did give some detailed reasons why objectivism is objectionable. From what I read I have formed my own opinion, which is that the book is unrealistic. Anything that might have been good about it, was already stated by other authors and philosophers.
In my own opinion you only read it when you're young, before realizing the reality of the world you live in, which is one where all humans beings are interconnected.

The best criticism I have for Ojectivism is the prisoner's paradox. Read up on that and some discussions on the philosophical implications.

 

[Arakasi]

Well there really isn't much point in reading it if you go into it with that kind of mindset. I think it's better to set bias aside, and judge it on its own merits, if you find a logical flaw, a disagreement, that is more than fair.

Sorry for the late reply, I'd also like to apologize for what I'm about to say next:

Expecting me to read anything about Objectivism and treat it with an "open mind", is like expecting a black man to go to a Ku Klux Klan rally and expect him to be "open to new ideas" as well. Objectivism would promise nothing to me and my family but the yoke of slavery, living in a status equivalent to that of medieval serfs. Objectivism supports everything I oppose, selfishness, greed, unregulated capitalism, every single idea that I stand firmly against is enshrined as sacred in Objectivism.

I'm bigoted, in a sense, I'm wiling to admit that. I utterly despise Objectivism and Objectivists in every form, the closest "relationship" I could have with an Objectivist is as their enemy. It's crazy, but I'm not afraid to burn every bridge with a person if they happen to be an Objectivist. =/

And you are the second person in this thread who has proven themselves not worth arguing with. But what the hell, it's never stopped me before.

So you don't stand against harming others? And you stand against personal freedom? Well if that is true, that's fine, you do stand against what Objectivism proposes. And no, it does not propose your family enters slavery, it proposes the exact opposite. Total freedom provided you do not cause harm to others.

And no, being bigoted and admitting it doesn't make it any better. You're still a bigot.

 

[Arakasi]

And you are the second person in this thread who has proven themselves not worth arguing with. But what the hell, it's never stopped me before.

So you don't stand against harming others? And you stand against personal freedom? Well if that is true, that's fine, you do stand against what Objectivism proposes. And no, it does not propose your family enters slavery, it proposes the exact opposite. Total freedom provided you do not cause harm to others.

And no, being bigoted and admitting it doesn't make it any better. You're still a bigot.

Objectivism provides "freedom" in the sense that you're "free to choose" between dying or living in servitude, make no mistake that is what it stands for.

Servitude only to yourself, what you want, what you're willing to work for.

It argues for Laisez-Faire capitalism, the same system that led to such wonderful things as people dying in coal mines, violent repression of Workers Union, the life expectancy of entire countries being halved and a rich industrialist class you were even more beholden to then the previous land owning aristocracy.

If people don't wish to die in coal mines, perhaps they shouldn't work in coal mines. Maybe they should either find a job elsewhere, don't work for someone unless it is safe, or grow their own food.

When Objectivism argues for "freedom" it really is arguing for the freedom of the upper classes to exploit, to break, and to demean people so they can squeeze maximum productivity from them. Personal freedom? What "freedom" exists in working 16 hours straight for a dollar a day?

The freedom to leave that job any time you want, the freedom to start your own business, the freedom from supporting those who desire to leech from you.

Secondly, Objectivism is hardly a philosophy that endorses the old motto "above all, do no harm". It's more like, "above all, do no direct harm to people". If a man holds a gun to your head and demands you work for a dollar a day, we call that tyranny; Objectivists believe that if the man doesn't have a gun and says "work for me or else you're fired and left to starve and die on the street" then he's still not doing any harm to anyone.

There is no gun in the hand of the hirer, the only gun is that held by those who demand they get paid for nothing. And no, he isn't doing harm, are you doing harm right now when you are typing to me instead of working in a 3rd world country? No. You simply aren't helping.

Let's not forget that the "heroes" of Atlas Shrugged essentially lead to the deaths of millions of people because they consciously decided to let the world go to hell.

So you're saying that slaves should have no right to leave because the slavers count on them? That makes sense.

If I wanted a philosophy about not harming others, I would read Tolstoy (a man I sincerely respect) or Gandhi (a man Rand would probably despise).

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them." - Ghandi.

Finally, Objectivism just doesn't have any soul.

There is no such thing as a soul.

It degrades humans to mere tools for the increase of productivity, if a human is unproductive then they're considered a "bad tool" and discarded like a broken toy.

If they are unproductive then they are left to their own devices. Why should someone hire someone else if they aren't going to do the job properly? People aren't tools for productivity, they are tools for their own happiness. How they try achieve that is up to them, but I doubt it involves being non-productive.

Regardless of what you think of Socialism, at least it sees man as something good, something greater than a mere tool for the advancement of capital.

No, socialism sees a man as a tool for the satisfaction and/or well-being of others.

 

[Arakasi]

Servitude only to yourself, what you want, what you're willing to work for.

No, it's servitude to anyone that can contribute to your continued existence. Water isn't a want, food isn't a want, they're needs. Under a Laissez-Faire system, every paycheck is a battle between life and death. If the rich only act in their self-interest, then what will they do when they've produced and exploited resources so much that their is no conceivable way they can make more profit then they already can? Well they'll begin to trim the wages of the workers, who now exist without any form of government protection or regulations. They'll trim, and cut, until eventually the workers aren't living, merely subsisting. Of course, they'll soon realize that no one will be buying their goods but other rich people, and so in the end they'll increase wages by a small amount, enough so that every paycheck is at least a small net growth.

So what you're saying is that they'll pay the people enough so that they'll be able to buy things? Sounds reasonable.

If people don't wish to die in coal mines, perhaps they shouldn't work in coal mines. Maybe they should either find a job elsewhere, don't work for someone unless it is safe, or grow their own food.

That's the equivalent of saying "If people don't want cancer, they shouldn't get cancer".

You're saying people have no choice in what they do?

Grow their own food? Well in a capitalist society where will they get the money to buy the seeds and the tools to start growing their own food? A loan? Well now they have to work off the loan, how will they do that? Of course they'll have to end up selling the food, and when they sell enough that they can pay off the loan, they'll have to get a new one for more seeds, more tools to fix the broken ones, and so on. This has happened before, in the end farmers became slaves to the debtors, they began to support economic policies that would create massive amounts of inflation simply because they could pay off their loans easier that way.

I meant on a small scale, to appease any left-over need from working a slightly less paid job or something similar. Just as a backup.

And what if no other job was hiring in town?

What if they got stuck by lightning?
Seriously though, move to where there is work.

What if your skills were suited only towards being a coal miner?

Well, that was a poor choice wasn't it.

In a capitalist society, there is always an "Industrial Reserve of The Unemployed", meaning the business leaders are clever enough that they always keep a large supply of unemployed workers. You hate your wage? Well there are a thousand people living without wages who would love to take your job. The entire work force wants to quit in protest? We have scabs to replace them.

Seems wise. Most bang for your buck so to speak.

Finally, what job would be safe? The governments only duty is to make sure no one invades the country and no one is violating a contract. As you said before, you're not "entitled" to help from anyone; you aren't "entitled" to working in a place with proper ventilation, you aren't "entitled" to protective gear if you're working with toxic materials, you aren't "entitled" to know just what is in your food or your clothes or even the water you drink.

Actually, I think you are entitled to know how safe your work environment is, and what is in your food and drink. If you're selling me 'water' that is laced with chemicals, you lied by calling it water, thus violating the contract. Likewise if you tell me if I am working in a mine, but fail to tell me that the mine is infested with mole people you lied in the contract.

The freedom to leave that job any time you want, the freedom to start your own business, the freedom from supporting those who desire to leech from you.

You can leave your job any time you want now, the results will arguably be better then if you left in an objectivist society. Go ahead, leave your job and make sure you take no government aid whatsoever, see how well that works out.

I don't have a job. I am still being educated. Education is one area that I do disagree with Objectivism in.

Freedom to start your own business? Yes, and every business, the ones that are more heavily "rooted" and have more resources have the freedom to slash their prices until you'd have to take a net loss to compete with them.

If they're offering a better service, then you shouldn't expect to do any good. If you have a reason to start a business the only reason is that you think you can do it better, or cheaper than your opponents.

If everyone is thinking rationally and looking after only themselves, why would they go to the business that costs more when the monopoly down the street is selling what they desire at a pittance?

Either because it's better or because they know that supporting a small business may be helpful to them. And if everything is for sale at a pittance because of the system, and the people are getting a pittance, how is that any different from what we have now?

And let's not forget, with the previously established "industrial reserve of the unemployed", this will be one of the few times they could actually afford luxury goods, they wouldn't shop at the more expensive business.

Depends on what they're being paid.

There is no gun in the hand of the hirer, the only gun is that held by those who demand they get paid for nothing. And no, he isn't doing harm, are you doing harm right now when you are typing to me instead of working in a 3rd world country? No. You simply aren't helping.

There is a gun in the hand of the hirer, it's just not pointed at you. It's the threat of death, the fact that he knows you need him more than he needs you.

If you need 'him' more than he needs you, then who are you to complain?

If jobs were scarce and paid a pittance, if there were no government aid to make sure you can at least eat and drink, then why would you give up a contract that demands you do anything a person says so long as he keeps you fed and kept?

If you have a reasonable offer elsewhere? Or you decide that it's not worth it.

If you have a choice between life and death, even if life means and eternity of torture, who would choose death?

I would.

The difference between me not donating to a charity in africa and someone purposely offering the worst deal possible to a man knowing that he would have no choice to take it lies in three facts: I have nothing to gain from either decision (unlike the man offering a job), no one is actively asking aid from me, and while my action may help, my inaction is not sentencing someone to death. You're essentially trying to compare "Heads I win, Tails you win" to "Heads I win, Tails you lose"

I don't think not having a job is the death sentence you claim it to be. There could be various institutions possible within an Objectivist system, like income insurance and such, where everyone within the system pays money so that should they suddenly find themselves without a job they can get some of it back. It would be just like taxes, except it would be optional.

So you're saying that slaves should have no right to leave because the slavers count on them? That makes sense.

What "slaves" live in a golden palace? What "slaves" force their masters to obey them? What "slaves" live a life of luxury no matter if they obey their masters or not? The heroes weren't "slaves", they were the masters.

A slave in a gilded cage is a slave none the less. When you are forced to give away something you earned, something you worked for, that is the essence of slavery.

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them." - Ghandi.

I fail to see how that disproves he said people should not do any harm to others; if anything that just reinforces the point.

Doing nothing to protect yourself promotes other people harming you.

If they are unproductive then they are left to their own devices. Why should someone hire someone else if they aren't going to do the job properly? People aren't tools for productivity, they are tools for their own happiness. How they try achieve that is up to them, but I doubt it involves being non-productive.

You mean if they're "unproductive" or lack productivity in the one thing that is valued at that moment (whether it be labor or entertainment) they're abandoned to starve. If someone is unproductive in the job they applied to, then you have every right to fire them; you have no right to their life however, you have no right to leave them to starve.

Are you seriously saying that someone has no right to walk away from someone 'in need'? In that case, you should really be booking some tickets to Africa.

People aren't tools. Period. Humanity isn't a bunch of cogs in some grand machine, we are men. We're something greater then slaves to a single function that others consider "valuable".

People can be tools, if they choose to let themselves be one. They aren't cogs in a machine, they are individual machines.

Secondly, they are just as much if not more slaves to others under Objectivism. What if someone's greatest joy is helping others?

Then they should help others. Duh.

What if someone desires to do good in the world and help those in need?

See above.

I'll admit, Objectivism creates hundreds of thousands of people in need of help, but it offers help to none.

I fail to see how that's really 'admitting' anything, but okay.

The people who's happiness lie in helping others on a grand scale (say, running or working at a charity) will be utterly forgotten.

I don't know what you mean by forgotten. Chances are those who are helped will remember them.

After all, if everyone values themselves above all else, who will donate to the poor?

Those who enjoy it, or have something to gain out of doing it.

The workers have no money to do so, and the rich? Why would the rich give up a cent to the poor if they've hurt so many people just to keep a few extra dollars?

They haven't hurt anyone. They've provided a job. If people choose to take that job, then they deserve whatever they get for that job. If they don't take it, they don't deserve it. Again the rich could give money to the poor if they enjoyed it, or if it served some other purpose.

If the workers want a place to work for good pay, and they are all that is necessary, then they should simply make their own business. But if it turns out that they did need those in charge, well, I guess they'd be screwed.

In the end, the person who wants to run a charity will be forced to work a low-end job like all other people.

Not if they're rich to begin with, or if they take some of the charity to pay for their job.

Any "profit" they make after paying rent to the landlords, buying food, and maintaining themselves will be so little that it would never make an impact in anyone's life.

Not necessarily. See above.

What of the artist or the writer? If only a few people are wealthy enough to afford their work, what's the point in creating it?

To get paid? Either sell low and get lots of small sales or sell high and get a few higher sales. Where's the problem?

For the joy of creating it? Well how will they afford the materials to write their book or paint their masterpiece? Only a few pieces of culture or art will exist, and it will only be those that are considered "valuable" by a select few, not by the artist.

If I told you I didn't give a shit about culture would it help?

No, socialism sees a man as a tool for the satisfaction and/or well-being of others.

Socialism sees man as a man, not a slave forced to toil away for the good or well being of a single person.

So you're a slave if you work for yourself but not if you are made to work for others? Might need to consult a dictionary on that one.

 

[JasonBurnout16]

Well I've read Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead and Anthem and liked Atlas Shrugged the last out of all of them as a book and for the way she portrayed her message.

I honestly suggest that you read ether of the other two books (Though Anthem is a shorter read with a nicer plot).

I will get around to her other books, but I've got a few others lined up for now; The Moral Landscape, 1984, Thus Spoke Zarathustra and maybe some non-philosophical fantasy.

You haven't read 1984? Well read that next. It can be a bit slow at points but the message is a strong one and it's a very good read. I've yet to read Thus Spoke Zarathustra myself, thats one of the ones on my list.

 

[Frission]

/snip

Okay, I won't do a point by point breakdown of everything you said. I'll leave that to Witty Name if he still has the energy.

Since, you seem to enjoy reading, which is good just take a look at this.

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/106245/confessions-of-teenage-objectivist-ayn-rand

You can maybe read "Germinal", or just try to meet people of other walks of life. Some of your points are incredibly simplistic and naive.

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/01/22/michael-huemer/why-ayn-rand-some-alternate-answers/

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm

Rand was a popularist, not an academic.

EDIT:
Try "Brave New World" and "Candide" by Voltaire. A comparison between 1984 and Brave New World is an exercise most people should follow.