2007-12-23 - 10:39 p.m.
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged
I have read the book "Atlas Shrugged" twice. Very slowly. With much contemplation and criticism. I both hate and love this book at the same time. The reasons for which I hate this book are utterly and completely different from those that make me love it.
I discovered today, much to my dismay, that a Hollywood movie version of the book, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (birth-name being Alisa Zinov-yevna Rozenbaum from pre-Bolshvik Russia and married name Ayn O'Connor) is in pre-production, to be in full production later in 2008. I was further dismayed to learn that they are planning to cast Angelina Jolie as the main protagonist of the story, Dagny Taggart.
If Angelina Jolie does ever read this humble little blog of mine between now and her participation in the film production, I beg her to PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not help make this movie. If you are reading this, Ms. Jolie, I beg you to consider the implications, the hypocritcal implications of this movie (and this book) in view of your personal philosophy for giving to the needy and caring for the poor. You CANNOT make this movie knowing full-well that Ayn Rand's philosophy demonizes you PERSONALLY, while it supports and justifies your mega-superstardom career and the greed with which you would justify your participation in the making of this film. Anyone who reads the book, who may have more than two brain cells to rub together, will see the irony in Angelina Jolie's participation in the making of this film and understand the point I am making.
So why my vehement plea against this movie? Personally, I consider it a ploy. A ploy by the institute named for the author, the Rand Institute (Rand Corporation), to make immense amounts of money. The objective to make money is fine, but the consequences of what that money can buy may be more dire.
Following in the wake of such recent mega-blockbusters as Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings, I can see Atlas Shrugged (the book) flying off the shelves as soon as an Angelina Jolie version of the movie is released. Hence, aside from the royalties gained from the movie, the book sales will make the Rand people trillionaires. These trillions would then go to reinvigotating the coffers of the Objectivist folks (whom I suspect of having a hand in and/or major contribution to the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Gonzales/Pearle/etc. campaign of war on the world for ideological supremacy and world domination). To say that such ideology, especially ideology in the hands of very scary psychos with big militaries in their pockets, is a fundamental threat to the existence of human kind and all of its diversities, is an understatement. Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a basic stepping-stone for these people, and they will use it to brain wash the masses. That is the crucially freakish part of this whole rant that I am putting forward to you.
If you do not know who the "Objectivist folk" are, please read on...
Aside from my issues with the Rand Corporation and their (presumedly) maligned intent, I also have issues with Ms. Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. The Objectivist folks would be the ones running her institution (aka think tank) and anyone else who wholeheartedly subscribes to her philosophy on thought and virtue and morality in the regular world (outside the think tanks).
For those who may not know (or are not familiar with Ayn Rand), Objectivism is a philosohy that proclaims the utmost virtue of greed and complete self-interest. Objectivism calls for a social system where morality is centered on the advancement of the self and the sequestration of the government to roles of protecting the freedoms of the greedy. Objectivism claims that the only real moral expression of human purpose, imgination, art and drive is the physical manifestation of their results for the purpose of gain by the individual. Basically everything we do is supposed to be for our own personal gain only.
This brings me back to the reasons for which I hate this philosophy, this book, this movie and Angelina Jolie's participation in it. Frankly, I hate Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. With her philosophy, she single-handedly and with overt pride murders the concept of UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. Ayn Rand murders the concept of unconditional love with her philosophy of Objectivism, plain and simple. She chooses to put a price on the heads of lovers and on the freedom of imagination for the sole purpose of imagination. She simplifies the reasons for Greedy Capitalist ideology to such a degree that her version of utopia is almost as corrupt as the utopia imagined by the perfect world of the Marxists and the Fascists seen in the past. With finality, she chokes to death the passions and vitalities brought about by "the human condition", regardless of whether they are bad or good.
If anyone ever chooses to read this book after reading my discussion here, I would beg and plead with you to arm yourself first with massive amounts of love. Love for everyone you have ever loved in your life. Love for any pets you have ever had. Love for your caretakers. Love for how you feel when you make yourself feel good when you make someone else happy. Love for how it feels to make a child laugh out with joy and an older person smile at you for whatever you did for them. Love for the simple feelings of humanity. Love for the concept of Aloha.
Why do I say all this? Because Ayn Rand's pompous arguments and very very lengthy diatribe are complex enough and arranged neatly enough to convince a simple mind that she is logically correct in her philosophy. Remember, my argument is that her philophy is fundamentally dangerous because it can (or has) start(ed) ideological wars and it corrupts the virtues of love that have been the building blocks of human society as it stands. Atlas Shrugged, her most central and fundamental book (her Magnum Opus, as they say) is written such that she does not even allow for the contemplation that her philosophy is flawed in any way. Ayn Rand is fully and completely convinced that she is right in every way and does not allow her reader to question her ideas. She does not give anyone any choice, as they are reading her book. Keep in mind that concept of lack of choice.
So why do I love this book? Well, no other book has ever made me contemplate as much, and therein reaffirm, the beliefs that are the constitutional centers of who I am. I say this with the confidence of knowing that I have read some of the major religious texts that make up the canons of our world's major belief systems, and that they do not challenge my belief systems as much because they already preach love and understanding and the caretaking of our fellow human beings.
Taken literally, I am arguing that Ayn Rand's book and philosophy do exactly the opposite...they argue the disintegration of those attesting to the philosophies of love, in favor of a world made completely from human to human competition. Her virtues and moralities call for us to relegate our humanity in favor of the integration of our great gift, the free mind. That ecclesiastical gift that God opposed.
Don't get me wrong. I am not equating Ayn Rand and her philosophy with that of the devil. But remember, even in religious philosophy, it was god that gave humankind a choice and the devil that made only one option the only absolute.
I apologize to those who disdain religious references in philosophical discussions, but I had to make that previous reference here. In fact, there are a few places in Atlas Shrugged where Ayn Rand makes such religious references as well, although cleverly masked. All of those religious references are made by her to denegrate the ideals of religion and spirituality, assuming them antithetical to an ideology of pure thought. She masked these references in her book, I assume, so as to not blatantly offend the smart and not-so-smart religious folks who may be buying her books. She risked offending these very powerful people who would then demonize her book and kill her sales at the same time they killed her philosophy in social forums. I can see in this strategy that she was a pragmatist, that while she held steadfast to her own beliefs in her philosophy, she could not face a challenge as big as taking on the religious bloc head-on by opposing their beliefs outright.
I have a thousand and one other things to say about this book, and the potential disaster posed by the making of the movie version. I have made the crux of my arguments here already. I can only hope that I have some impact with it.
�
�
