The Soul of Atlas

The Republican Tea Party is Evil?

2011-09-15T00:33:00.001-04:00

The Republican Tea Party is Evil - Topix

... Rand despised Christianity becuase it teaches love and compassion, attributes that Rand thoroughly detested. Ayn rand said, "Christianity is a ...
www.topix.com/forum/city/utica.../T0EN8USONH9RSM195

A Catalog of Abysmal Reviews by the Hollywood Establishment

2011-04-30T20:53:00.001-04:00

Whereas 85% of Flixter users liked--and by "liked," I mean "loved"--only 9% of critics liked it. The critical voices that are captive to the Hollywood establishment are nearly unanimous in their denigration of the film.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/movies/atlas-shrugged-part-i-ayn-rands-opus-review.html#

Atlas Shrugged: Part I may be set only five years from now, but the world it portrays is completely unrecognizable. It imagines an America in the stranglehold of a Soviet-style government, given to legislating equal opportunity and making it illegal for profitable corporations to lay off employees.

Funny, I think Rand would have applauded agreed with the movie's depiction of our potential future, based on our current track. Hayek defined the collectivist ideology as 1) redistribution of wealth, and 2) centralizing the means of production. Ever-increasing entitlements (healthcare overhall) and recent government bailouts (Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac, AIG, TARP for Bank of America and Citicorp) and seizures (GM).

Rolling Stone:

Ayn Rand's monumental 1,168-page, 1957 novel gets the low-budget, no-talent treatment and sits there flapping on screen like a bludgeoned seal.

The New Yorker:

This comically tasteless and flavorless adaptation of Ayn Rand’s bombastic magnum opus delivers her simplistic nostrums with smug self-satisfaction.

The Washington Post:

The first in a proposed trilogy, “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1” is nearly as stilted, didactic and simplistic as Rand’s free-market fable.

The Wall Street Journal:

[The movie] doesn't give the book a fair shake. In terms of craftsmanship it's barely professional...

San Francisco Chronicle:

...a low-budget film with more than a whiff of amateurism in its writing and direction. The story (unless you know the book well) is almost impossible to follow, and often you can feel both the presence of the camera and the director's abandonment of the actors.

Philadelphia Inquirer:

Speechy, preachy tale of a decaying America. I arched eyebrow, scrunched forehead, yawned.

Boston Globe:

Even fans of Rand’s 1957 antigovernment manifesto may balk at having to endure dialogue that would be banal on the Lifetime channel, along with wooden performances...

Box Office Magazine:

Lifeless as entertainment and incoherent as ideology, Atlas Shrugged: Part I is less a film than an invitation to the 9 million Tea Party members to prove their hunger for explicitly conservative entertainment.

Movies.com:

Sharktopus-budget-level cheap, badly-acted, clumsily-written and stiffly-directed movie...

The LA Times printed this, after an interview with one of the movie's producers:

"Critics, you won," said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," which covers the first third of Rand's dystopian novel. "I’m having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2."
"Why should I put up all of that money if the critics are coming in like lemmings?" Aglialoro said. "I’ll make my money back and I'll make a profit, but do I wanna go and do two? Maybe I just wanna see my grandkids and go on strike."
Aglialoro, who is chief executive of the exercise equipment manufacturer Cybex, said he is not completely finished with Hollywood, however. An avid poker player who won the U.S. Poker Championship in 2004, he has a dramatic script called "Poker Room" in development. "Maybe the critics will be kinder to that one," he said.

The application of all this? Get out and see the film. Speak about its best aspects, and encourage others to engage with the ideas that Atlas Shrugged (the book and the movie) put forth.

Keynes v Hayek: Round 2

2011-04-28T09:21:00.000-04:00

The continuing debate between the economic philosophies of Keynes and Hayek is being played out in our political discussions about the economy, and the actions that surround them. I have attached Round 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc) here:

This video is a sequel to an earlier version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk).

Atlas Shrugged the film has over-performed in Atlanta, New York, Nashville!

2011-04-24T19:37:00.000-04:00

I couldn't resist this article from the Washington Times. A refreshing take, in the midst of some rather strong sentiments against Atlas Shrugged, Part 1.

CHICAGO, April 29, 2011 — By current Hollywood standards, it is a movie that should never have been made. Imagine this story pitch to progressive movie execs: "we have a female heroine, genius entrepreneurs disappearing, and a government conspiring to control its people and their creations. In short, a powerfully persuasive anti-government message."

Not exactly “Iron Man 3” is it?

Yet, despite (or because of) Hollywood’s best efforts to keep the movie down, “Atlas” is racking up dollar signs at the box office. With a hearty $5640 per theater in its opening weekend, “Atlas Shrugged,” based on the influential Ayn Rand best-seller, has left Hollywood insiders dumbstruck to explain its success.

The Hollywood Reporter has reported that the film will expand its release from 299 theaters to 425 this weekend and to 1,000 by the end of the month.

What is the explanation? Rand Power. “Atlas Shrugged” remains one of the best-selling books of all time. More than 7,000,000 copies of the tome have been sold since it was first published. It is currently #4 on the Amazon best-seller list.

Fervent fans of Ayn Rand – or Randians as they are called – have been packing theaters where the film is being shown. According to “Atlas” executive producer Harmon Kaslow, the film has over-performed in markets like Atlanta, New York, Nashville, generating as much as $12,000 to $25,000 per theater. That’s Rand Power.

So, why was it so hard to get the film made? Randians would answer, "Well, who is John Galt?"

“(Executive Producer) John Aglialoro got the rights 18 years ago,” explains Kaslow at the film's Chicago premiere. “At that point, a survey had just come out that said that this was the second most influential book behind the Bible and he (John) said that obviously a Hollywood studio would just jump at the chance to produce, own, and distribute the movie. He was able to attract interest from world renowned directors and world famous actresses yet we could never get the film greenlit.”

So is it the film’s message that Hollywood is so opposed to? In the Age of Obama, Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” may be resonating more than ever before and that can’t be sitting well with Hollywood progressives.

A New York Times poll this week showed a 73% disapproval of Congress. A Gallup poll showed President Obama’s approval rating plunged to an all-time low of 41%.

“People are hungry for what these characters are saying,” says executive producer John Aglialoro “They’re telling the government, ‘Just leave me alone. Let me hang onto my life and pursue my passions and rational self-interest. That’s what will benefit society.”

That message is what is driving the success of “Atlas Shrugged.” Although it was written more than fifty years ago, Rand’s unabashed defense of individualism seems more relevant than ever before.

“We’ve touched a nerve with people,” agrees Kaslow. “Really it is all about the (Rand) brand. Here we haven’t diluted it with any names of anybody. It simply stands up there on its own because it means so much to so many people. Everyone is Atlas Shrugged. Everyone is carrying a weight on their shoulders.”

The film has unusual meaning for me, as you may recall. I am hoping for a wildly successful run. As always, I'm interested in your comments.

Now Showing == > Atlas Shrugged, Part 1

2011-04-24T17:34:00.001-04:00

Reviews of Atlas Shrugged, Part 1

2011-04-22T11:34:00.000-04:00

Based on my observations (for six years, I was paid to analyze the U.S. media industry by the European investment bank I worked for in New York), the general sentiment of the media is against capitalism. Most of my readers would agree. So, it's not surprising to me that the media has panned Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 on stylistic and artistic grounds. NY Post got it partially right, and I have posted a portion of Kyle Smith's review here:

The subjects the film deals with are fascinating, important -- and almost completely ignored at the movies. Even "The Social Network," the most acclaimed business movie of last year, placed the building of one of the world's most valuable companies in the background of a personality dispute and some whining about club membership. "Atlas Shrugged" wants to start an argument with you, to force you to (in Rand's often-repeated words) "check your premises."
It would be easier to do no such thing, to laugh off the stilted dialogue and stern, unironic hectoring, so that's what most viewers will do.

Grassroots Marketing !?!

2011-04-20T13:25:00.001-04:00

The "picture of the day" from the Atlantic Mobile, where FreedomWorks President and CEO says this about the approach of Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 producers' unorthodox promotional tactics.

FreedomWorks, the Washington-based tea party organization headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, has undertaken a massive campaign to push the movie into as many theaters as possible. So far, they've lined up 63 for opening day in major cities nationwide; FreedomWorks hopes to push that number to 300. ...

That number is already up to 425, and climbing, with the $5,640 per-theater average opening.

[FreedomWorks President and CEO Matt] Kibbe is hoping that the movie will attract more people to the tea party's small government philosophy. He says the unorthodox marketing effort for the movie is fitting: "Like the movement itself, its distribution efforts will be from the bottom up."

Hollywood Reporter quote on Atlas Shrugged, Part 1

2011-04-20T12:52:00.000-04:00

From an article in The Hollywood Reporter entitled How 'Atlas Shrugged' Shocked Hollywood's Marketing Machine

It's a passionate bunch that didn't need much encouragement. On Monday, for example, a caller to Dennis Miller's radio show said he saw the film opening night and purchased another ticket on his way out of the theater that he didn't use, just to support the film.

Great article overall.

If you're wondering about theaters...

2011-04-13T17:26:00.000-04:00

Since I last posted about distribution, the number of theaters showing Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 on April 15th has jumped to 300! (I'm told that opening in 1,200 theaters effectively blankets the country.)

To see where Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 will be showing near you check out the movie site: http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/theaters.

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 by director Paul Johansson

2011-04-13T13:12:00.000-04:00

I think Paul Johansson's commentary is interesting and supportive of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I am looking forward to seeing his work this Friday. Hopefully, it will draw many into the conversation between like-minded enthusiasts of individual liberty in Christian, Objectivist, and Libertarian camps.

I first discovered Ayn Rand’s works at the age of seventeen. The hair was standing up on my arms as I finished Atlas Shrugged. It stirred something inside of me that has shaped my life in a way no other book has since. I discovered a different kind of hero, one who had chosen to live his life by reason and rationality, threatened only by other men’s evasion of reality. Subsequently I delved deeply into her other works and found great inspiration in her ideas.
I met the producers twelve days before principal photography was to begin. After the meeting I was fully aware of the obstacles that would have to be overcome. They wanted the story contemporized. There was no cast. And I had to figure a way to create a cinematic experience in a non-traditionally structured script. In fact, the story was open-ended as the producers had decided this film would be released as a trilogy. I knew even under the perfect circumstances, with all the time and money available, this would still be a project held to great scrutiny.
I went home after the meeting and decided not to do it. But I woke up the next day and realized it was a moment in my life I couldn’t let slip by. It was an opportunity to recreate in others that feeling I had at age seventeen. By choosing to become a director I had an obligation to tell the best stories I could regardless of my circumstances. Despite the dense source material and complex interplay of the philosophy with the characters, the paramount challenge was keeping to the simplicity in the story. I found the idea of making a modern version interesting. Not just with the nuances of dialogue but the implementation of our own current social and political crisis.
I am constantly asked my political affiliation because of my involvement in this film. It is this: None. I am an artist. I tell stories.

Great Review in Barron's this Monday: Big Novel Meets Big Screen

2011-04-10T01:44:00.001-04:00

The movie version of Atlas Shrugged is both entertaining and true to its author's vision, our reviewer says. And guess who the guys in the white hats are.

Leave it to Barron's to write a first class article on such a momentous occasion as the release of Atlas Shrugged to the big screen. Well done. I concur. Finally, the good guys get their due.

Rand's advocates will regard this film as an eloquent statement of her call for individual freedom. Moviegoers interested mainly in entertainment will appreciate its locomotive-like pace, and will be moved by searing images of America in a devastating depression in 2016. Add to that Elia Cmiral's stirring score, and Atlas Shrugged, Part I is a gripping, although unsolved, mystery.

Well said.

Admirers of this vision might expect the movie adaptation to feature A-list actors on the level of Gary Cooper, who starred in the 1949 film of Rand's The Fountainhead, for which she herself wrote the script. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt were, in fact, among the names mentioned during Atlas Shrugged's long journey to the screen. But the major studios saw too little commercial potential in producing a movie faithful to the colossal original. One proposed screenplay even left out the strike, an omission likened by objectivist philosopher David Kelley to filming Gone with the Wind without the Civil War.

The truth is that the studios, writers, and the big Hollywood names generally eschew the message of Rand's philosophy. I wouldn't expect them to get it. Kudos to this guy for getting it done.

Entrepreneur John Aglialoro, who had acquired the film rights in 1992, was determined to hold out for a version true to the novel. But after repeated deal-making snags, he faced expiration of the film rights on June 15, 2010. On June 13 of that year, Aglialoro started shooting, with a self-financed budget of only $20 million.

I would be delighted to hear that all of the studios that passed regret it bitterly, but I wouldn't be surprised to read "sour grapes" stories in the Hollywood press. But perhaps it's too early. Let's keep that "underdog" persona alive until after the opening weekend box office gross has been tallied. Let me know your thoughts.

The Soul of Atlas: A Discussion of the movie, Atlas Shrugged, Part 1

2011-04-05T19:47:00.000-04:00

Come join us to discuss the Gospel and Objectivism on Wednesday, April 13th: two days before the movie hits the theaters.

Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, is coming to theaters on April 15th. Since 1957, this novel has been the second most influential book in the lives of readers. The Bible is #1. Despite the widespread influence of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and the pervasiveness of Christianity in Western culture, these two world views have never engaged with one another.

On Wednesday, April 13th, Mark Henderson will discuss the Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, the movie that his stepfather has produced. He will surprise the audience with his discussion of Atheist Objectivism and Gospel Christianity, show scenes from the movie, and tell his own story in context. There will be ample time for questions about all topics.

Background:

Mark Henderson develops a long-overdue conversation between these two world views. Raised in an Objectivist home, he relates the development of his own world view through his two fathers. John is a businessman, an Atheist Objectivist, and the Producer of Atlas Shrugged, Part 1. Dad is a Christian and a simple farmer with a PhD in physiology. His fathers approach the world from different perspectives. Mark introduces a unique world view, born of their agreements and contradictions.

Come see Mark at Willowdale Chapel on April 13th at 7:00 pm.

Check out the Event Page on Facebook: The Soul of Atlas: A Discussion of the movie, Atlas Shrugged, Part 1.

Fear Not! See the movie!

2011-04-03T11:33:00.000-04:00

“There was little time left for even truncated versions of Rand’s hallmark speeches. We are left with protagonists who seem to hold Randian views but we never hear why… The movie version of Atlas Shrugged feels flat because we are given so few opportunities to get inside the heads of the characters and empathize with what they are feeling.”

Jim, from the google group Christian Objectivists, saw this review and said, "Exactly what I was afraid of."
He then asked, "Can anyone who has seen the movie let us know if they agree with this author’s opinion of why 'the movie version of Atlas Shrugged feels flat'?"

I responded this way:

I have seen the movie, and I enjoyed it immensely. I don't think anything that follows the book so closely could disappoint. That said, I can see her point. On the "feels flat" comment, keep in mind that Rand's characters (in Atlas and her other fiction) are fairly flat. That's how she writes. Her heroes have few, if any flaws; they are nowhere close to the more fully-developed, rounded characters of more postmodern writers that form modern screenplays. The movie, on the other hand, did a better job of presenting believable, well-rounded characters. Dagny (Taylor Schilling) could have used more passion, but she pulled it off; Rearden (Grant Bowler) was great, as were James Taggart, and Ellis Wyatt. Lillian was perfect. Ellis Wyatt (Graham Beckel) did a great job, though I was expecting a taller, thinner, Colorado-style rancher. James Taggart was (no kidding) handsome, contrary to what I expected, but the actor's skill (Matthew Marsden) drew out my distain for the character. The actors brought more life to her characters, and I think she would have been delighted.

Regarding the exclusion of even "truncated versions" of Rand's hallmark speeches. Not all, but some. And I am grateful because I think they are unrealistic, and "literarily irresponsible." Rand is a genius, but the speeches are best left for the page.

Francisco (Jsu Garcia) speaks to Rearden briefly at Lillian's anniversary party. As a fan, I would have loved the money speech, but the producers made their choices, and we will need to pick up where they left off.

John Aglialoro, producer of Atlas Shrugged, interviewed on Fox Business News

2011-04-03T11:11:00.000-04:00

John Aglialoro, producer of Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, was interviewed on Fox Business News, Friday. The show is Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano. His questions were good, like he truly understands the message. The clip from the movie was Orren Boyle, James Taggard, Paul Larson, and Wesley Mouch, hatching political plots against Hank Rearden.

Behind the Scenes: Atlas Shrugged, Part 1

2011-04-03T00:18:00.000-04:00

The Origin of the Universe

2011-03-27T17:08:00.000-04:00

For the forty years that I have known him, John has described himself as an “atheist,” not an “agnostic.”
“The question about God’s existence is not open for discussion. We don’t need God to explain the origins of the universe. Let’s move on with our lives and not concern ourselves with what is an irrelevant waste of time, and unnecessary at best! What I do know,” he says, “is my own life. I can observe reality through my five senses. I have the capacity to reason, to take what I know and organize it into concepts and categories so I can survive and thrive. To that end, I can create value.”
In John’s worldview, there is no need and no room for faith. Ayn Rand was emphatic in one of her published letters.

I regret I have even less sympathy or interest than you have in anything relating to the mystical, to the "other-dimensional," the irrational or "super-rational." (I don't believe there are any such things or realms.) I am an atheist. Therefore, I cannot follow you at all in your definition of why the existence of a finite world presupposes that it was created by God. It doesn't.

Dad’s understanding of the Universe was totally different. He said, “At the center of the universe is an omnipotent Designer who created and sustains everything.”
“That just seems so arbitrary,” I said.
Dad startled me. “Arbitrary!” he said, “is exactly what it’s not.” His voice trailed off. “The order in the universe was designed, by an Intelligent Designer, as opposed to chance.”
I knew about Aquinas. At least, I studied the cosmological or “First Cause” argument for God, among others. Since everything was caused by something else, it stands that the universe was caused by something, so the universe itself requires a first cause. That’s God. But it seemed simplistic. “If everything in the universe requires a cause, why is “God” an exception?” I asked.
“That’s why He’s God.”
“If you’re making an exception for God, why does the series of effects and causes stop there? Why couldn’t it stop earlier in the regression, with the appearance of the universe itself?”
==========================
I'm not sure there is a good answer to this question, but it doesn't stop the discussion. There are compelling reasons beyond the origins of the universe to discuss God's activity in the world. As always, I am interested in your thoughts.

One of the worst opinion articles I have read...

2011-03-25T20:06:00.000-04:00

It has been a while since I have read an article so misguided. Nicolaus Mills seems like an intelligent person, but he seems oblivious to his philosophical bias. I appreciate his appeal for patriotism. He assumes that his readers will desire patriotism, and I like that. But he presumes that he or anyone else is more qualified to determine the best use of someone else's wealth. He writes

In Bronxville, the typical homeowner pays $43,000 in annual property taxes. Why an additional $100 to $200, which is the tax figure being discussed these days, would matter is hard to explain.

He questions (as if it's unusually curious) that an individual would resist any of their property being confiscated in any amount. He assumes the individuals in Bronxville, NY are uncharitable, but he confuses taxes with charity. They are not. Any time a person is forced, under penalty of law, to relinquish their property--that which contributes to the survival or enhancement of their lives--it cannot be considered charity.

An individual has a right to their own property because taking away that which serves my life is tantamount to taking my life. The founders of our country believed in charity. Separately, they believed in taxes (though they would have would have been appalled at the extent to which citizens are taxed today). Please, Professor Nicolaus, check your premises. Separate charity and patriotism from taxes.

Interview with John Aglialoro, producer of Atlas Shrugged, Part 1

2011-03-05T23:20:00.001-05:00

In an interview with Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 Producer John Aglialoro, Amanda Carey of The Daily Caller asked ten questions. My personal favorite, having seen the film and met Nathaniel Brandon and Barbara Brandon at the screening, was this one:

10. What do you think Ayn Rand would think of the film?
I’ve pondered that question a long time and I’ve been waiting for many, many years to go and visit her grave and say, ‘Well we did it.’ I never met her and I certainly would not have the answer. But I was very fortunate last week when I did see Barbara’s reaction because she knew [Rand] for so long and even at the end she knew her so well. And I said, ‘Barbara, what would Ayn have thought?’ And she hesitated for the first couple seconds or so and then she said, ‘I think she would’ve loved it.’ So I can’t give you that answer but Barbara can.

As I said in a previous post, the movie exceeded my expectations.

First Look at the Movie: A Review of Atlas Shrugged, Part 1

2011-03-03T22:44:00.000-05:00

I attended a screening on Thursday, February 24th (actually two screenings) at Sony Studios in Los Angeles. The movie exceeded my expectations.

Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 opens with the accident that threatens Taggart Transcontinental, and by extension, the rest of the country which now (2016) depends on rail transportation more than ever because of the high cost of gasoline and the terrorist threat posed by air travel. From the beginning, the movie is fast-paced and action-packed. For those of you who have not read the book, do not fear. Not only is there still time until the April 15th, 2011 premier, but the movie itself stays remarkably true to the first part of Ayn Rand's 1957 novel. As I told my son, feel free to see the movie, and then begin reading Part II. (Just kidding! Read the whole thing!) Rand's novel is conveniently partitioned into three parts, with ten chapters each: perfect for a trilogy.

Dagny Taggart is as convincing as she is beautiful. In the movie trailer released earlier in the month, Dagny (Taylor Schilling) appeared to be mousy, unlike Rand's heroic producer. However, Schilling pulled it off. While not hiding her feminine charms, she showed us the confidence and determination that makes Dagny Taggart the most sought-after female role in literature.

James Taggart (Matthew Marsden) was another surprise. When I saw the casting back in June of 2010, I was somewhat disgusted that the producers had chosen such a handsome actor to play the role of the heinous villain. His British accent didn't bother me because I have seen other actors play the American flawlessly (Hugh Laurie, Damian Lewis). As an aside, it also works the other way (Gwenyth Paltrow). It's just that I had always pictured James Taggart as an oily Newman-esque character rather than a dashing young model. Again, I'll give the casting directors credit! Matthew Marsden pulled it off with flair. From his first scene, I felt my distain for James Taggart mounting, and I cheered audibly when Dagny told him off: "If you double-cross me, I will destroy you."

Rand's message of rational self-interest came through, as did the sentiments of her detractors, the movie's antagonists. The banter between them was intelligent, and I sensed more nuance in the development of the characters on film than in print. With few exceptions, Rand's characters were flatter than the real life postmodern literary heroes I grew up with. Black or white, take your pick. She didn't keep you guessing, and she didn't give you too many choices. In the movie, however, you see real people, characters with rounded edges who are believable, if no less loathsome. The dialog was intelligent, but not assuming too much from viewers who have never heard of Ayn Rand.

In short, I was pleased. I'll have more to say, so stay tuned. As always, I welcome your comments. Check out http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com for more movie details, and see my other comments on http://www.soulofatlas.com.

Hank Rearden, and the first look at the bracelet

2011-02-27T04:35:00.000-05:00

Nice clip of Hank Rearden, coming home to an ungrateful family, after a long day at the mill. This is the day that Rearden poured Rearden Metal for the first time. It's perfect.

I saw the movie in its entirety this Thursday. Brilliant. I will be writing a full review soon.

Atlas Shrugged, Part 1: Trailer Transcript

2011-02-17T08:42:00.005-05:00

Of course, the trailer is a lot more than just what you can read in the transcript, but here it is!

Man: Midas Mulligan
Mulligan: Who's asking?
Man: Someone who knows what it's like to work for himself, and not let others feed off the profits off his energy.
Mulligan: Who are you?
Eddie: We found a note.
Dagny: What did it say?
Eddie: It said, Who is John Galt?
[suspenseful music]
Newscast: ...in one of the worst railroad accidents in recent history, a Taggart Transcontinental freight train has crashed and derailed.
Dagny: I have to get the Rio Norte completely rerailed in nine months
and I'm gambling your new metal can do what you say it can.
Rearden: I'm staking my business on it.
James: Nobody's used Rearden Metal.
Why do we have to be the first?
Larkin: Well, they say you're intractable, you're ruthless;
your only goal is to make money...
Rearden: My only goal IS to make money.
Larkin: Yeah, but you shouldn't say it.
Boyle: If we're gonna' bring Rearden down, we should do it from the inside.
Mouch: I am placing a moratorium on all railroad parts.
Potter: We can't afford to allow the expansion of a company which produces too much.
Mouch: A federal tax will be applied to all steel mills.
Rearden: They are not getting my metal!
Dagny: We'll find a way to fix this.
Wyatt: If you and your brother try to undermine me, or go to the government
Dagny: Maybe you should let me...
Wyatt: Maybe you should let me finish speaking!
Rearden: battle. What battle?
Rearden: What is wrong with the world?
Larkin: Why ask useless questions?
How deep is the ocean?
How high is the sky?
Who is John Galt?
Dagny: In order to save my family's business,
I'm going to have to abandon it.
I'm going to take a leave... start my own company.
James: And what are going to call this new line of yours?
Dagny: The John Galt Line.
Brady: I'm not going to allow you to run that train.
Dagny: You can do whatever you want with your men, Mr. Brady, but that train will run if I have to drive the damn thing myself.
Rearden: What we're doing: my metal, your railway. It's us who move the world.
Dagny: If you double-cross me, I will destroy you.
Dagny: To a successful business partnership
Rearden: I'll drink to that.

Not Much Substance in Tyler Cowen's Review

2011-02-13T21:24:00.000-05:00

In response to the release of the trailer last week, Tyler Cowen's post tried to be provocative:

Apart looking like a bad movie, I found this jarring. It should be in black and white, or muted colors, with the palate and overall look of a Visconti film. It has some Art Deco architecture (good), but signs of the modern world intrude at the wrong moments. It should not have high-speed rail (will this confuse conservatives? Did those governors end up cutting Medicaid and coughing up the money?) and it should not postulate unrealistic speeds for freight trains. It should not have 2011 cars and Dagny Taggart should not look like a mousy actress imitating Nicole Kidman playing a local news reporter. "If you double cross me, I will destroy you" doesn't ring true. Hank Rearden's line about only wanting to earn money comes across as either a parody of Gordon Gecko or as something worthy of Gecko's parody. To be properly post-Wall Street, Rearden must somehow contain and yet leapfrog over Oliver Stone's vision; a pretty boy look will not suffice.

Unfortunately, there is no substance to his marginal criticisms, and more inflammatory than substantive. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he only observed two minutes from the movie, so he doesn't have the background. Rand's novel is set the day after tomorrow. It's both timeless for its political and economic themes, and timely for the challenges that we currently face. To be sure, the themes are even more relevant today than they were in 1957, which is why Atlas Shrugged sold more copies in the last twelve months than in the twelve months after its first publication.

It's here! Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 Trailer

2011-02-11T17:01:00.002-05:00

It's here, and WOW! Check this out! Incredible. I've already watched it over and over. This movie is going to be phenomenal, and my enthusiasm and optimism is at an all-time high.

"To a successful business partnership."
"I'll drink to that."

Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview

2011-02-10T21:34:00.002-05:00

Atlas Shrugged is Coming!

2011-02-10T06:08:00.001-05:00

The trailer is coming this week! It will be everywhere soon, but it will come first to the Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 website. Check The Soul of Atlas (http://www.soulofatlas.com) on April 11th to see a description of the scenes in the trailer, the characters, and how they fit in.

Invictus Expresses Randian Sentiments

2011-02-05T17:39:00.000-05:00

Invictus by William Ernest Henley

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Gallup.Com - Polling Matters by Frank Newport: The Very Religious Obama

2011-02-05T12:07:00.000-05:00

Gallup.Com - Polling Matters by Frank Newport: The Very Religious Obama

Agree More Than Disagree

2011-02-04T17:39:00.003-05:00

More than one person has said that Christians and Objectivists agree more often than they disagree. I think that conclusion depends a great deal on context. It's true that an Objectivist has less in common with an atheist relativist than a Christian, but that may be more relevant in some topic discussions than in others. Christian and Objectivist morals and values end up being similar, while their foundation is very different. To get to the truth, I approached each worldview like I approached everything: from the other side.

Stay tuned to read more, and subscribe to http://www.soulofatlas.com

Happy Birthday, Ayn Rand

2011-02-02T20:58:00.000-05:00

From The Atlas Society, today...

"If Ayn Rand had lived to see her 106th birthday, she no doubt would have been gratified by the surge in popularity of Atlas Shrugged as well as the approach of the premiere of Part 1 of the movie trilogy of her magnum opus.

One reason for that surge is her prophetic insights concerning what happens to a society in which government seeks to control every aspect of our lives, expropriate every penny of our productive efforts, and instill guilt for our every virtuous and fulfilling act of rational self-interest. These days, just reading the news gives rise to the exclamation: “It’s like something out of Atlas Shrugged.”

Christopher Hitchens Explains Why Religion Poisons Everything

2011-01-31T19:55:00.000-05:00

Atlas Shrugged, Part 1

2011-01-30T16:55:00.000-05:00

Visit the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Web Site!

A new way to fix debt crisis: Unchain Atlas :: The Atlasphere

2011-01-30T16:43:00.000-05:00

A new way to fix debt crisis: Unchain Atlas :: The Atlasphere

The federal budget deficit for December came in at around $80 billion. This was the 27th month in a row that our government ran a budget deficit. As it regularly does, year after year, Congress is now considering raising the “debt ceiling” — the total debt the federal government is permitted to assume. A poll today, however, reports that 70 percent of Americans oppose raising the debt ceiling, only 18 percent approve raising it, and 12 percent are perhaps honest enough to say they don’t know. But Timothy Geithner, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, said this week that failure to raise the debt ceiling would lead to “catastrophic consequences” — that is, the federal government might default on paying existing debt; the government can only meet payments on existing debt by taking on more debt. Can We Really Expect to Cut Spending?

Read the rest of the article here.

Independence

2011-01-30T14:20:00.000-05:00

The Atlas Society published this article on www.atlassociety.org. The author talks about the virtue of independence. Rand, and the author of this article, rightly encourages "first-hand living." The article is thoughtful and helpful. Too often, however, people do not see how Reason leads one to embrace of Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, I read the article (below) with interest.

Question: I was raised in Christian community but now have doubts and am learning about Objectivism. How can I be sure I really do understand myself, or even Objectivism, if so many people tell me I don't? Is the real answer that they don't really even know and it's up to me to find out?
Answer: One of the hardest virtues to practice is independence. Independence, wrote Ayn Rand, “means one’s acceptance of the responsibility of forming one’s own judgments and of living by the work of one’s own mind” (from "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness). It means living first-hand, with your independent judgment of the facts as your primary guide to action. It means not letting the say-so of others trump your thinking. It means not thinking of others as the standard by which to judge yourself.
Independence is a hard virtue to practice because we benefit so much from the values that others in society provide to us.

One major class of value from others is all the information they provide us, from the subjects we learn in school… to ethical teachings …to scientific discoveries… to hot gossip… to the news we receive from all over the world. Does being independent mean that we can’t trust any of these sources? Practically everything we know comes to us through others. Right now, for instance, you are receiving advice from another, namely me.

The answer is that we should distinguish along a range from items of knowledge we are certain about, through claims we can’t really confirm, to ideas we know are false.

The basis of independence is epistemological: knowledge only exists when a rational mind grasps a fact. When someone else tells you that an idea is true, they may or may not really know it, but you certainly do not know it until you have independently understood it and understood what facts make it true (or if none do). When you have confirmed a truth through experiment, through your own experience, or through your grasp of history, mathematics, or logic, etc. —that’s the gold standard of knowledge. That’s what keeps scientific and technical progress advancing today, though it didn’t advance in the past. Heck, it’s what makes communication itself possible, since if you couldn’t understand the objective meaning of words, all talk would be meaningless gibberish.

Remember: it’s your grasp of the facts that makes your judgment objective; it’s not the strength of your belief that matters. Belief is the state of mind that says “I regard this idea as true.” Certainly, you should believe everything you think is true, but believing more strongly will not make up for the fact that an idea isn’t true in the first place. Nor will belief in an idea make up for your not knowing whether it’s true or false.

With the gold standard of independent, objective knowledge in mind, we can start to make sense of all the information and advice we get from others.

The best teaching from others lets us check and confirm the truth of what we are learning ourselves: that’s what science labs are for, and geometry proofs, and reading primary sources in history. Then there is the vast range of claims we should accept provisionally: reports from experts that we can’t check, for example, or advice from professionals with specialized knowledge. When your car breaks down, you take it to a mechanic. If you are like most of us, you can’t fix the car yourself and you probably don’t understand how it works well enough to really check the mechanic’s claims. Instead, you should check whether what he says squares with what you know is possible. You should take his advice in the context of the market, knowing if he has good reason to give you good service, and knowing you could probably sue him if he were seriously negligent. And you should judge his work by its effects: does your car run once he has fixed it? But still, it’s hard to find a good mechanic sometimes, and they don’t always give you good advice. The same goes for all sorts of experts—doctors, lawyers, investment advisors, and accountants, for example.

So to function well in society and get all the benefits it has to offer, we have to use the flood of information that is available and, when we can’t settle the matter ourselves, judge the trends and patterns of what others offer to see who seems to be the most consistent, who achieves the best practical results, who has incentives for telling the truth, and who seems open and responsive to changes in context. In this way, we can learn a great deal and extend our mental reach, but conditionally.

For example, everything I know about the liver falls in this category. I’ve never studied anatomy seriously. I’ve never tested a liver. I’ve eaten them. I’ve read about anatomy. I’ve played “Operation.” I have honest friends who are medical doctors, and they tell me what the liver does and how. I’ve read news articles about taking care of my liver. Everything I know is consistent, but only bits and pieces of it are really first hand. But since everything in reality is related to everything else, this broad consistency of claims and facts gives me a great deal of confidence that I’m acting appropriately with regard to livers, both my own and those I eat.

Now let’s turn to your particular problem. You are in the process of questioning beliefs that you were taught in childhood. The theory seems straightforward: take everything you were taught as provisional, until and unless you can judge the truth of the matter for yourself. Among those issues you cannot settle yourself, try to judge which ideas are most consistent, what practical effects they have, etc.

But it’s hard, in practice, because you probably like and respect many of the people who taught you your childhood beliefs. One of the most difficult aspects of living independently is untangling different kinds of social benefits. Friendship and love, with their basis in our need for psychological visibility, are important values. But they don’t give others a license to dictate the content of your mind. If other people value you, they have to value your ability to think for yourself. Otherwise, they are loving a lie, demanding that their loved ones lobotomize themselves mentally. In that case, they want the appearance of agreement, not the reality. As Ayn Rand put it in The Fountainhead, “To say I love you, one must first be able to say the ‘I’.”

If others tell you that you are confused, listen to them. Just don’t believe them. Assess how sound their information is. Are they sensitive to your context and able to understand your arguments and your point of view? Do they offer plausible counter-arguments to your positions? Are they straight talkers, who report the facts come what may? If they are sensitive, logical, and frank, then maybe you are confused. But if they aren’t, maybe you aren’t confused after all. We can benefit greatly from others even when we disagree with them, because their doubts and questions can challenge us to think through our own case more clearly and make sure we have considered all the facts. But for that to happen, they have to be essentially rational in their approach to the issues.

In the end, you can be sure that you understand yourself by looking, really looking, at yourself. Recognize your strengths and weaknesses. Practice the virtue of pride: judge yourself and work to improve yourself morally, which means practically. Reach your own judgments, then see how they square with other facts you know and how they work in practice. If this is how you live and think, then you will have a solid bedrock of objective knowledge and sound judgments on which to base all your actions—and from which to respond to the criticisms of others. When people tell you that you don’t understand anything, or say that you don’t understand yourself, listen to them, for sure, but realize, too, that it is possible that they don’t want you to understand. In that case, they probably don’t deserve all the respect that they demand from you.

✓✖ ■ Roger Ailes battles an upstart online-only newspaper

2011-01-30T13:16:00.000-05:00

Compliments of Randex:

✓✖ ■ Roger Ailes battles an upstart online-only newspaper: " The current New Yorker has an arresting feature entitled “Fox among the chickens” about an independently owned weekly newspaper which for over a century had focused exclusively on local events with nary an Editorial, the Putnam County News & Recorder, being bought by Roger Ailes, the chairman of Fox News, who put his wife Elizabeth in as the publisher. [....] Shortly after assuming ownership in 2009, the Ailes began to radically change the coverage and focus of the PCN&R as the weekly was known locally. While some readers had observed a new religiosity in the paper, others became offended by what they saw as a turn to hyper-patriotism. The beginning was the weekly’s first-ever editorial quoting Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” thesis as the pattern Washington should follow. — Walter Brooks, Cape Cod Today - Media Watch # Categories: Atlas Shrugged

Tax Cuts Illustrated

2011-01-29T18:02:00.000-05:00

Thanks for your patience with the inordinate number of posts lately. I am experimenting with some new delivery methods, and hoping to capture more of the cross-talk between "Ayn Rand" mentions on Christian sites and "Christian" mentions on Objectivist sites. Neutral to those two worldviews, take the time to watch this. Brief, clear, and well done.

I have embedded the video in www.soulofatlas.com, and pasted the link below. As always, I invite your thoughts.
http://www.youtube.com/user/10000Pennies#p/u/9/cWt8hTayupE

After Statue Removal Threat, Obama Family Trip To Indonesian School Where He studied Islam, To Announce "Partnership" With Largest Muslim Country - Atlas Shrugs

2011-01-29T15:06:00.000-05:00

After Statue Removal Threat, Obama Family Trip To Indonesian School Where He studied Islam, To Announce "Partnership" With Largest Muslim Country - Atlas Shrugs:

I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline. Particularly when one can't see the details. Just the shapes. The shapes and the thought that made them. The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need? And then people tell me about pilgrimages to some dank pesthole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage. Is it beauty and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel. When I see the city from my window - no, I don't feel how small I am - but I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body. --Ayn Rand

Announcing the Egosphere!

2011-01-29T11:58:00.000-05:00

From ObjectivismOnline.net:

Announcing the Egosphere!: "It is my pleasure to introduce a new blog alliance, The Egosphere! The alliance will be hosted by Objectivism Online's meta-blog engine and is for bloggers that are advocates of the philosophy of Objectivism as a closed system. The following bloggers are current members: Awake and Free (http://www.erandror.com) (Eran Dror) Benjo Blog (http://asonofliberty.blogspot.com) (The General) Charlotte Capitalist (http://www.charlottecapitalist.com) (Andy Clarkson) dAnconia Online..."

What Do Lolita and Freakonomics Have in Common? - NYTimes.com

2011-01-29T11:48:00.000-05:00

Interesting commentary on the Freakonomics Opinion blog of the NYTimes. First thought: This is the third or fourth time I have seen references to Ayn Rand on this blog. Second thought: It's interesting to discover the perspective of someone I respect voice an opinion about Ayn Rand and Objectivism. When I read a good argument, I reexamine my own views; in other cases, I lose a little respect for the one who advances the opinion.

=============

What Do Lolita and Freakonomics Have in Common? - NYTimes.com: "Agreed that Atlas Shrugged is for freshman pseudo-intellectuals. I hate to say it here, because I do enjoy this blog, but isn't seeing Freakonomics on that list sort of like looking at a stack of The Economist, Journal of Commerce, .... film based on the best-selling book, brings together some of the world's most acclaimed directors, including Alex Gibney, Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing, Morgan Spurlock, Eugene Jarecki and Seth Gordon. The film is available on DVD. ..."

=============

Quotes Uncovered: Making Money - NYTimes.com

2011-01-29T03:28:00.000-05:00

Quotes Uncovered: Making Money - NYTimes.com: "In Francisco D'Anconia's “money speech” in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (the full speech is online at Capitalism Magazine), the following statement occurs: “If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose — because ... The phrase “a man without a plan is not a man” seems to have entered into popular culture through the film adaption of 'Dick Tracy' (1990). It is given as a quote from Freidrich Nietzsche, though I've never seen a proper reference; ..."

Interview with John Aglialoro

2011-01-29T02:40:00.000-05:00

Interview with John Aglialoro: "Posted on the Atlasphere earlier this week is an extensive interviewwith entrepreneur John Aglialoro, the producer of the upcoming movie “Atlas Shrugged, Part I.” Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart and Matthew Marsden as James Taggart ..."

New interview with Atlas Shrugged movie Producer John Aglialoro ...

2011-01-29T02:37:00.000-05:00

New interview with Atlas Shrugged movie Producer John Aglialoro ...: "Who is John Aglialoro? Probably no one since Ayn Rand has invested so much in Atlas Shrugged. For nearly two decades he has championed the novel — financially, intellectually, logistically — because he was determined to make a movie ..."

Definition of value

2011-01-29T01:50:00.000-05:00

Definition of value: "This is an Objectivist definition of value : 'Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep.' Although it's true, it's not all inclusive. What about metaphysically given values which one doesn't have to act in order to gain and keep-like sunlight, for example?"

A Name to Know In 2011: Atlas Shrugged Producer John Aglialoro

2011-01-29T00:44:00.000-05:00

A Name to Know In 2011: Atlas Shrugged Producer John Aglialoro: "John Aglialoro's production of the film version of Atlas Shrugged makes him a name we'll all know in 2011."

Story and Inspiration from Atlas Shrugged, and The Soul of Atlas

2011-01-27T17:34:00.000-05:00

A beautifully told story is a symphonic unity in which structure, setting, character, genre, and idea meld seamlessly. To find their harmony, the writer must study the elements of story as if they were instruments of an orchestra—first separately, then in concert.

That's a quote from Robert McKee's book entitled Story: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting. I am very impressed with his exposition of the screenwriting process, his endless movie illustrations, and the helpful way he goes about laying it out. I heard about him from Donald Miller (in his book A Million Miles in a Thousand Years: What I Learned While Editing My Life. Then, I went out and watched Adaptation with Nicolas Cage and Meryl Streep, in which Brian Cox actually plays the character of Robert McKee. Then, as I was reading Story, I thought of Brian Patrick O'Toole, the screenwriter who penned Atlas Shrugged, Part 1. And that, as it turns out, is not a random allusion. In the recent screening (first eight minutes) of Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, O'Toole spoke about his approach to the novel and his quest to capture the essence of Rand's message. Not to undersell the rest of the people involved in producing this film, but O'Toole is brilliant. While he's accomplished a lot already, I think we can expect a lot more in the coming years.

With all of this, I'm inspired in my own writing of The Soul of Atlas. For me, the quote below (again, from McKee) resets my own emphasis as I consider putting the final touches on the manuscript. It harkens back to what my friend, Scott, told me early on. Put more of your story into the conversation between these two worldviews. Good advice; that's what I have tried to do.

Given the choice between trivial material brilliantly told versus profound material badly told, an audience will always choose the trivial told brilliantly. Master storytellers know how to squeeze life out of the least of things, while poor storytellers reduce the profound to the banal. You may have the insight of a Buddha, but if you cannot tell story, your ideas turn dry as chalk.

Anticipating Atlas Shrugged, Part 1

2011-01-23T08:33:00.000-05:00

Bob Barr, former Libertarian candidate for President, posted this article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. It's okay. The comments are interesting, too.

New Rail Line Seeks Investors...

2011-01-22T18:17:00.000-05:00

Atlas Shrugged, Part 1

2011-01-21T21:08:00.000-05:00

A great interview this morning with Harmon Kaslow, producer of Atlas Shrugged, Part 1! Harmon is not only a great guy; he represented the movie well. Good questions from Mike Rosen, a big Ayn Rand fan. One of the questions that the host asked the producer was, "How important was it to cast actors whose philosophy aligned with the philosophy of Ayn Rand?" He said, "If you had cast a celebrity with outspoken left-wing political views, you would have turned off a lot of people." For sure. Kaslow said that there was a lot of interest in being part of the film, and those that read for it understood the importance of the message.

The film is complete! Final mixing is happening now. The release will be April 15th, 2011 is the day. Check out the site (http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/) for a countdown. The hope is that the narrow release will demonstrate overwhelming demand, and that will translate into 2,000 theaters across the country.

Lessons from Aristotle

2011-01-17T19:43:00.000-05:00

A great article from FT.com. I think the author hits more than one chord straight on. Martin Sandbu is the lead writer for FT’s economics. His book Just Business: Arguments in Business Ethics has just been published by Prentice Hall. I am delighted to say that I think he nails it! Excellent advice for bankers and business leaders across the board. We have been looking for insights and frameworks to help lead individuals in the pursuit of multiple bottom lines, but for those who do not have a Christian foundation. I posted this in the comment after the article: "Taking her lead from Aristotle, Ayn Rand provides just such a secular perspective. As a Christian, I agree with many of Aristotle's (and Rand's) ethical conclusions, even if my world view stems from a different foundation." You may agree. I have copied the article, entitled "Aristotle - the banker's best friend," in its entirety below.

Aristotle took a dim view of business. Sometimes, of course, business people give the impression of being equally unconcerned with Aristotle’s main concern: living a good life. Just witness the grilling Bob Diamond, chief executive of Barclays, received this week from UK legislators angry at his bank’s bonuses. Yet today’s corporate titans would do well to pay the Greek philosopher more respect than he did to their predecessors. Indeed, reading his works may be one of the best investments they can make.

Aristotle was not against a certain degree of greed, especially in the context of managing a household: household heads accumulate possessions for their usefulness. But he saw the aim of commerce simply as increasing wealth without end, or making money for the sake of accumulation. Aristotle admonished those who were "serious about living, but not about living well". Mr Diamond would probably not have escaped his scorn.

Beyond living well, philosophical inquiry can also be good for business. That is particularly true of moral philosophy. I do not mean here to join the soppy chorus of calls for business to be more moral or "socially responsible". True, business does indeed need to be more moral than it often is. But much debate on business and morality is too sentimentalist to be useful. What is needed is more hard-headed thinking.

It does not occur to most people that moral philosophy should have a contribution to make to our understanding of business. This is partly the fault of Aristotle’s modern heirs. By staying silent throughout a financial crisis featuring a considerable amount of questionable conduct, moral philosophers have granted impunity to lazy thinking. And the result is a debate soaked in such inanities as "giving back to society" or putting "people before profit." Fine phrases, but they mean little and in practice will achieve even less.

Most attacks on business immorality conjure up villains in corporate boardrooms plotting their next evil deed. The real problem is harder. Most business people are like most people everywhere: wanting to do the right thing but confused about what the right thing is in a complex world.

This is where moral philosophy, done well, can help. One thing it helps counteract is cognitive dissonance: the tendency, when the reality of what one does grinds too uncomfortably against one’s beliefs, of the beliefs to creep so as to fit one’s conduct rather than the other way round.

An example is the conviction with which otherwise sophisticated business people profess that doing well and doing good are always compatible. From Gordon Gekko’s "greed is good" to company reports vaunting spare change spent on do-goodery as part of the bottom line, too often businessmen conveniently rule out any conflict between ethics and profits.

But, of course, assuming that a process of reasoning will reveal no problems with a course of action – and so deciding that one need not engage in reasoning at all – is just intellectual cowardice. That goes for both moral and monetary affairs.

Criticised businessmen such as Mr Diamond would do well to read the great moral philosophers, with the courage to follow their thinking wherever it might lead. Bankers whose inquisitiveness matches their acquisitiveness might, for instance, ponder Aristotle’s view that the virtues of a profession are what fulfil its social purpose. That could prompt a reflection on how to forge a new ethics for investment banking along the lines of the medical or legal professions.

Or one may question whether corporate conduct must be justified by its social usefulness. Is business really responsible for the common good? Or is it enough to respect the rights of others while pursuing profits? To ask that question – surely a fundamental one – is to enter a big philosophical debate midstream, for which reading John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant is better preparation than any number of management books.

Plato wanted states ruled by philosopher-kings. That is unacceptable to us modern democrats. But more philosopher-executives would be no bad thing. Moral philosophy sharpens the mind, ferrets out sloppy thinking, and clarifies the ends one aims for and the means by which one may pursue them. What are these if not leadership qualities?

On this Aristotle and Mr Diamond could surely agree.

As always, I am interested in your thoughts.

The Soul of Atlas, A Story

2011-01-17T19:42:00.000-05:00

The Soul of Atlas is a story about two world views. As with most stories, the reader will be tempted to see one of these world views as the protagonist and the other as the antagonist. With that story line, the conflict is directed toward the villain of the opposing world view. That's not the way this story goes; it's more like a conversation than a story. Instead, is the protagonist is actually me, looking for a world view that reconciles my two fathers? Or is it "Truth" trying to find itself, seeking its own identity?

In a good story, you need to make the protagonist likable, at least something about him. If that's me, then I need to make myself likable: rather a tough assignment. On the other hand, who doesn't like "Truth?" Sure, different human beings may not like particular truths, but Truth as an idea is hard to dislike. I think we all want it, whether or not we think it can be had.

Coming to Terms

2011-01-16T21:57:00.000-05:00

Ayn Rand would have enjoyed the kitchen table conversations of my adolescence. Aristotle, himself, envisioned the process of disparate worldviews coming to terms. It has taken me some time to get to this starting point, and it would have saved me a lot of frustration and confusion along the way, if only I had taken Aristotle’s advice when the Conversation began for me back in high school.

Long before the movie The Truman Show, my sneaking suspicion was that everyone around me was an actor. I am the only one who thinks it is real life. I’m the butt of the joke, the only one who’s not part of the script. I spent most of my adolescence and early adulthood feeling alienated and misunderstood. I wanted to belong, but I was living in another world, out of place in the scene around me. I was living in another world, when I really just wanted to belong. To my teammates on the wrestling squad, I was a drama-geek; to my fellow choir members and student actors, I was a jock. The phenomenon transferred to university setting, where I picked up the debate between Atheism and Christianity. Each side considered me an advocate of the opposing viewpoint.

The workplace has its divisions, too. In the companies I’ve known, the culture of IT is opposed to Sales and Manufacturing is excluded from Marketing and R&D. I have played multiple roles at multiple companies. In each case, the same sense of not belonging haunts me. In a film called School Ties, Brendan Fraser played David Greene, who gets an unusual scholarship to become the starting quarterback for St. Matthew's Preparatory School so that the team can beat its perennial rival. David, however, is from a working class background, so he isn't really "one of them", but he's very successful at making friends. David is a Jew, and he keeps this secret from his friends for fear of being rejected. The tagline on the trailer read “Just because you’re accepted doesn’t mean you belong.” David Greene was me.
Social groups have always been a mystery to me. I have tried to break in, but most of the time my social or relational skills have fallen short of the task. With Ayn Rand, it was a challenge that held out some hope of inclusion, and it depended on my intellect. The prospect of overcoming that barrier gave me hope.
While it sounds sad and dysfunctional, the idea of always being on the other side taught me to empathize with the contra position, whatever it was. It didn’t matter whether we were talking about corporate strategy or picking teams. I always took the other side. Always being on the other side brought with it some credibility. Each side wanted my opinion. “Hey, you’re on the other side. What do you think of this?” To engage in a conversation, each worldview needs to be understood on a mutually acceptable level. Taking the other side can be great strategically, but disastrous relationally.
Taking the other side of the argument does not always work out for me. My wife, Kristin, and I were ready to go out with another couple, Bruce and Claire. Kristin started talking about how uncomfortable it makes her feel when they talk about their kids. “They’re perfect. They never act up, they’re always respectful, and they always do everything right.” Of course, it was true. But I foresaw disaster, so I did what I always did. I took the other side. “Well, maybe Claire just wants to be positive about her children so that she won’t be intimidated by everything about your “perfect” life. It’s just Claire’s way of coping, emotionally.”
“Why can’t you understand how hard this is for me!? You’re always against me!” Long silence. I slept on the couch that night.

Ayn Rand and "whimsy"

2011-01-14T21:15:00.000-05:00

I asked Bob what was the key to living such a great story, and Bob seemed uncomfortable with the idea he was anything special. But he wanted to answer my question, so he thought about it and said he didn’t think we should be afraid to embrace whimsy. I asked him what he meant by whimsy, and he struggled to define it. He said it’s that nagging idea that life could be magical; it could be special if we were only willing to take a few risks.

In a passage from Don Miller's book, A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, I came across this quote. I couldn't help wondering what Ayn Rand would have thought about "whimsy." In the quote, Bob's experience of anticipation and childlike wonder seems to add a dimension to life that many people miss. In another quote, Miller implies that something happens when we miss out on "whimsy."

I think this is when most people give up on their stories. They come out of college wanting to change the world, wanting to get married, wanting to have kids and change the way people buy office supplies. But they get into the middle and discover it was harder than they thought. They can’t see the distant shore anymore, and they wonder if their paddling is moving them forward. None of the trees behind them are getting smaller and none of the trees ahead are getting bigger....

As always, I'm interested in your thoughts.

Altruism

2011-01-07T21:21:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Jordan for this quote from, of all places, the AOL homepage of a French Buddhist monk:

People assume altruism may make them unhappy. Your primary motive is to help others, but it's also the best way to be happy yourself. Ayn Rand said that you should be selfish and should not sacrifice any part of yourself. She didn't get the point. Altruism is the best way to make yourself happy. If you look at living beings and see how your actions can contribute to a more compassionate society, you flourish.

Self-Interest Among Christians

2011-01-07T16:29:00.002-05:00

I can't get over the instances of self-interest among Christians, and that, in the best possible sense: seeking one's own pleasure in God. John Piper quotes David Brainerd, a missionary and a man of God.

[Brainerd says that] "love is a pleasing passion; it affords pleasure to the mind where it is" But the object of love is never that pleasure. The object is God and the love is pleasurable. This is why it is confusing at times when we speak of seeking pleasure. It sounds as though pleasure has taken the place of God. But this is not the case. As Brainerd says, God's glory and our happiness become one common interest. We week pleasure in God. Not from God.

John Piper, Desiring God (p.209n12.)

The Discussion

2011-01-07T16:27:00.000-05:00

Thanks for your support and encouragement. My discussion Tuesday morning went well, but before I mention the details, I think I should explore why this was such a big deal.

I'm sure there's a lot of psychology behind why this discussion has been difficult for me. There's got to be more to it than "hasn't been the occasion" because it's not as big a deal to discuss this with others. I think the reasons are twofold, but I invite any armchair psychologists to weigh in. First, I have always desired my parents' approval. It's simple, but it goes beyond an ordinary desire and traverses into the inordinate realm. In many ways, I have defined my worth by my mom's assessment, instead of what I know in my mind to be true (that's another discussion relating to what Jesus Christ says about me that is so radical that it defines who I am.)

The second reason that this was a momentous discussion there is a sense of pride that comes from my fear of failure. And that fear gets exacerbated with my mom. Generally, I didn't tell anyone that I was writing a book because I thought to myself, "If I can't see this project to its completion, I don't want anyone to know that I have failed at something that was important to me." That feeling of embarrassment or shame is compounded with my mom. But, regardless of how I'm feeling about it now, that train left the station when I decided to take a leave-of-absence. But I'm not standing on the platform, waiting to see what happens. I'm actively shoveling the coal into the furnace to propel the engine down the track. (Would that locomotive be on a Taggart Transcontinental line?)

Response to Atheism and Objectivism Seminar at Radiate 2010

2011-01-02T21:34:00.000-05:00

At Radiate 2010 in Baltimore, The Soul of Atlas seminar and the talk entitled "The New Atheism" were extremely encouraging and motivating to me. The two talks were back-to-back in the afternoon, with more students expressing interest than I expected, by a long shot. The conference scheduled the talk in a room that seats fifty. Within ten minutes of the start time, there were seventy-five students filling the seats, standing in the back, and sitting on the floor. When we switched with another speaker, 125 students filled the larger room! Questions and answers were enthusiastic, and people came with more in between sessions.
"The New Atheism" is a phrase coined by the media to characterize the authors of several best-selling books: Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris. Their central message is that religion makes no sense. That's not what's new. Atheists have been saying that for centuries. But the new atheists say that religion should be disrespected and ridiculed.
The arguments themselves are actually not new, and many are fairly easy to refute. We simply need to write books that do so. But we don't need to yell, as if it's about power and not truth. The former approach has characterized both sides to a large degree. Ironically, that's a very Nietschean approach: one that venerates power because there is no Truth.
The second seminar was a case study in the new atheism. It won't be surprising to readers of this blog that Ayn Rand's Objectivism was the case. That is, how do we approach a new atheistic argument (I think one of the better ones)? Listen to understand, articulate her arguments as best as possible to demonstrate understanding, and engage in conversation. Sometimes (most of the time), the conversations are informal. Occasionally, there are opportunities for formal debate. These talks were neither, but I hope they inspired the students who attended.

Happy New Year! Lessons from Rocky

2010-12-31T23:59:00.000-05:00

Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get it and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done! Now if you know what you're worth then go out and get what you're worth.

This Week: Approaching the New Atheism

2010-12-27T20:20:00.000-05:00

This week, Mark Henderson will be addressing the Radiate 2010 Conference in two seminars on Wednesday, December 29th at the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront. His first talk is entitled "The New Atheism." What is the new atheism and how does it differ from the atheism of past decades? What are its unique characteristics, and how may this generation of Christians approach the new atheism? The second seminar is entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness? Atheism Meets the Gospel." Readers of this blog will immediately recognize the title, alluding to Ayn Rand's famous apologetic for her philosophy of Objectivism. Henderson will use Ayn Rand as an imminently relevant example of the new atheism. Despite the age of greatest novel, Atlas Shrugged, sales of her work are topping the charts even today. With the political and economic climate of the decade, and the much-talked-about movie version of her novel scheduled for release on the big screen for the first time this coming April 15th, Rand's philosophy has seen a resurgence.
If you are interested in attending either seminar, post a comment to this blog.

Atlas Shrugged: The Making of a Movie

2010-12-17T14:40:00.000-05:00

With the first excerpts released last week at an Atlas Society event, Atlas Shrugged movie speculation has surged and opinions are heating up websites all over. A week after the event, I spoke with John Aglialoro, producer of the movie Atlas Shrugged. His optimism about the message and the quality of the film is crystal clear. The message is not just consistent with the novel in a passive sense; Rand's philosophy has motivated Aglialoro from the very beginning. By Aglialoro's reckoning, Rand's message demands a quality production: one that is driven with the speed and precision of a Taggart locomotive on tracks of Rearden Metal. Talk with him and you see why John Tammy of Forbes Magazine calls Aglialoro "A Name to Know in 2011."
Not surprisingly, people who have been impacted by the novel--the second most influential book in people's lives, according to a Library of Congress poll--have strong opinions about how the characters in the movie will be portrayed. I sense the passion surrounding Ayn Rand's philosophy every time I read a new post. Rand's protagonists rally in the face of insurmountable barriers--economic, political, and ethical--that read like today's headlines. None of this is lost on Aglialoro. A life-long proponent of rational self-interest, his work surrounding the production of the movie has been an extension of his passion for her message. Rand's message resonates with everyone who sees the parallels in the situation that we face today in the economics, politics, and ethics of the Western world. That's why I agree with the moderator's reference to Tea Partiers--a mix of secular and Christian political conservatives--as supporters of the movie's message. Tammy even compared the movie to Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, not because it has a religious message, but because its message is clearly outside of the Hollywood mainstream. He says

And much as Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ exposed a flat-footed Hollywood studio culture that shunned a film it deemed too religious (along with massive box office receipts), so will Aglialoro hopefully once again expose a system too rooted in the formulaic over the philosophic. Atlas Shrugged’s devotees are legion, and Aglialoro’s $8 million production will deliver on a heretofore unmet consumer need.

From left to right: John Aglialoro, John Orland, Harmon Kaslow, Mike Marvin, and Brian O'Toole.

Rand Excerpt: On Christianity

2010-12-12T10:23:00.000-05:00

I found this on the Objectivism Reference Center. The following excerpt is from a letter to Sylvia Austin dated July 9, 1946, in Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 287:

There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul).

All emphasis was in the original. All punctuation and spelling is from the original. There is a lot to say about this quote.

Atlas Shrugged, Part 1: Review of the First Peek at the Movie

2010-12-10T16:11:00.001-05:00

On Tuesday night, at an Atlas Society event, we saw the first eight minutes of the movie, and a special trailer. Wow! Before the event, I was cautiously optimistic. After the event, I was inspired! The first scene sets the context: the world on September 2, 2016. Gas is over $30, trains have become the dominant form of transportation, the Dow is under 4,000. Taggart Transcontinental is losing business, and Dagny (Taylor Schilling is amazing) confronting the battle of rebuilding the railroad. A lot to cover in a short amount of time! But it has to move quickly in order to cover so many pages on screen.
I was emotionally riveted. Chills ran through me as a close-up of Dagny showed her response to the massive train derailment. The musical score was temporary, but the effect of it was substantial in all the right places. I'm no movie critic, but this is going to be great.
I've probably oversold it. Consider that I am much more invested than the average movie-goer. (As a reader of this blog, you probably are too!)
After the clip, there was a panel discussion entitled, "Atlas Shrugged: The Making of a Movie." The panel was moderated by Stephen Moore, economist and editor of The Wall Street Journal and John Fund, journalist for The Wall Street Journal. Fund asked the great questions. I was very impressed with Brian Patrick O'Toole, the primary screenwriter. During the panel, he described his approach to the script. (I have always viewed the task as a heroic pursuit, if not an impossibility.) Among the three elements, he discussed drawing out the heart of the message in the scenes he recreates. His brilliance is obvious, even from his short descriptions. I think Ayn Rand's message is in good hands.
Michael Marvin, John Aglialoro, Harmon Kaslow, and John Orland were among the other panel members. John Aglialoro was the man of the hour, but he emphasized the indispensable team effort that makes a production come together.
This is not, by far, the last time we will be discussing movie developments. It will be out soon. Narrow release is set for Tax Day, April 15th, 2011. Tea Partiers, get ready!

P.S. Please view http://www.SoulofAtlas.com if you're having difficulty with the links in this post.

First Peek at the Movie!

2010-12-03T22:10:00.000-05:00

I'm headed to the first peek at Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 on Tuesday in New York. I expect to listen to a panel of speakers associated with the making of the movie and to see a clip from the movie itself. I will be sure to post my observations afterward.

What questions should I be sure to ask?

Facebook Link: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Atlas-Shrugged-The-Movie/144777702200729

The Time Has Indeed Come!

2010-11-17T15:51:00.000-05:00

Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest was to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform ... In all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

A Constitutional Convention - this is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come. And, with the advent of modern communication, the process can be moved along with incredible speed. There is talk out there that the "government" doesn't care what the people think.

That is irrelevant. It is incumbent on the population to address elected officials to the wrongs afflicted against the populace...you and me. Think about this...

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.

I'm asking each reader to share this post to a minimum of twenty people.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .."

The Meaning of Freedom

2010-11-16T07:46:00.000-05:00

Freedom doesn’t mean without restriction. The fish outside the restriction of water, it is not free. When the fish is confined to the water, only then does it have the freedom to move about and thrive. Both Objectivists and Christians feel that they are the truly free ones, and that the other is in some kind of slavery. Objectivists sense that a Christian is enslaved to his consciousness.
One of my Objectivist friends expressed some pointed opinions about Christians. She said (I'm paraphrasing), "Christians believe in a God that does not exist. They are, therefore, limited and not free. Christians are trapped because they refuses to go beyond their own consciousness, back to the first principles of existence. They have let the imagination capture the intellect and now they must conform to some “higher standard” over which they has no control whatsoever." She went on to say that Christians are relegated to the realm of “faith,” where there is no room for freedom. In contrast, Ayn Rand sees the only path to true freedom as that which frees the mind from all constraints which cannot be substantiated through observation, integration, and reason.
Christians say the Objectivist is obsessed, and therefore enslaved, to achievement. Because the Objectivist puts himself as a Producer at the center of his identity. Consequently, s/he must continue to achieve in order to prop up that identity. Hence, the slavery. The conversation continued. I will share more later. Meanwhile, what are your thoughts about freedom?

Living as People of Faith

2010-11-14T01:47:00.001-05:00

People who live by faith have a particularly accute sense of living "in the middle." We beleive that God is at the beginning of all things, and we believe that he is at the conclusion. He's "the Alpha and the Omega, which are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. Translated into our alphabet, it would be "A to Z."
We know that the beginning was good ("God looked over everything he had made; it was so good, so very good!" [Genesis 1:31, The Message translation]). And we know that the conclusion will be good ("I saw Heaven and earth new-created" [Revelation 21:1, The Message]). That would seem to imply that everything between the good beginning and the good ending will also be good. But it doesn't turn out that way. Or at least it doesn't in the ways we expect. That always comes as a surprise. We expect uninterrupted goodness, and it's interrupted. I'm rejected by a parent, for example, or coerced by a government, divorced by a spouse, discriminated against by a society, injured by another's carelessness. All of this in a life that at its beginning was very good and at its conclusion will be good. Between the believed-but-unremembered beginning and the hoped-for-but-unimaginable ending, there are disappointments, contradictions, not-to-be-explained absurdities, bewildering paradoxes--each of them a reversal of expectation.

When we read a novel, we have an analogous experience. We begin the first chapter knowing there's a last chapter. One of the satisfying things about just picking up a book is the certainty that it will end. In the course of reading, we're puzzled, sometimes in suspense, usually wrong in our expectations, frequently mistaken in our assessment of character. But when we don't understand or agree or feel satisfied, we don't usually quit. We assume meaning, connection, and design even when we don't experience them. The last chapter, we are confident, will demonstrate the meaning that was continuously hinted at throughout the novel. We believe that the story will satisfyingly end, not arbitrarily stop.

Confessions of a Former Tyrant

2010-11-13T22:22:00.004-05:00

From A Slice of Infinity, I had to excerpt this article. Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM) is a positive influence on the world, showing that Christians exercise reason and logic. The work of RZIM exemplifies intellectual rigor. Stuart McAllister does a great job entering the life of the Apostle Paul "into evidence."

Fifty percent of the New Testament writings were written by the apostle Paul. His writings were essential in the development of Christian thought and doctrine. His ministry among the earliest churches was also widespread and influential. His life's story is perhaps lesser known, but equally compelling.

Paul, whose given-name was Saul, came from a background of intense religiosity. He was raised as a strict Jew in first century Palestine. He became a Pharisee, an expert on Jewish Law and its requirements in the lives of Jews. Those who were outsiders to this religion and heritage were deemed unclean and untouchable.

To Saul, the idea of Christianity was entirely blasphemous. To think that this man, Jesus, who died a shameful death on a Roman cross claimed to be the Son of God was a travesty and an insult. It became his mission to put an end to the movement of Christianity.

Saul soon became the great fear of Christians in the region as he began a campaign of violent opposition, entering house after house, dragging people off to put them in prison. In the courts, he cast his vote against Christians to send them to death, and he went so far as to ask the leaders for special permission to imprison anyone in Damascus who claimed belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

It was in the midst of such persecution, on his way to arrest Christians, that Saul had an amazing encounter on the road to Damascus. He stood blinded before the risen Jesus and became a Christian himself. As the story is told in Scripture, a light flashed around him such that he fell to the ground. There, he heard a voice saying, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

"Who are you?" Saul replied. And the voice called back, "I am Jesus, the one you persecute."

The change was immediate and dramatic, and indeed, as is often the case in God's work among men and women, God gave Saul a new name: Paul, which means "asked of God." In an irony that begs the hand of God, Paul was chosen by God to bring the news of God's forgiveness and love to those outside of Jewish tradition.

Maybe you are wondering why you should believe Paul really had an encounter with Jesus. Maybe it makes just as much sense to claim he had a change of heart. While this may seem likely in a world ruled by personal preference, even preference seems to fall short. Consider what Paul went through for the sake of his faith: He was imprisoned and beaten innumerable times, often to the point of death. Five times he was lashed with a rugged whip. Three times he was beaten with rods; other times he was stoned. He was shipwrecked three times, spending a night and a day in the middle of the sea. He spent untold hours enduring the rigors of travel, in danger from robbers, spies, wild animals, and enemies who wanted his head. He endured starvation, extreme cold, and exposure.

What could possibly have given this man the will to choose Christ, and with joy, no less? I suggest only a real encounter with Jesus explains the behavior of one who was once a fervent persecutor only to become a fervent follower. Paul's was an encounter so powerful that he was willing to endure such hardship, and indeed such blessing. And this same Jesus is ready to meet you on the road wherever you find yourself today. As Christ himself assures, "Whosoever will may come."

Stuart McAllister is Vice President of Training and Special Projects at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

Both True and Wonderful

2010-11-09T06:14:00.001-05:00

A friend forwarded this to me. She may have felt compelled to be both encouraging and provocative. The result is that I am encouraged and provoked (in a good way).

It’s easy to get focused on what’s wrong in life, what we don’t have, and how big our obstacles are. If we’re not careful, we’ll lose sight of all the good things God has done. We’ll take for granted our family, friends, health and the opportunities God has blessed us with. We’ll get so busy and stressed out that we won’t appreciate the gift of today. What’s happened? Our perspective has gotten off.
Perspective is all about how we see a situation. There’s power in your perspective because you will draw into your life what you constantly meditate on. Business may be slow. The economy may be down. The wrong perspective is, “I’ll never make it. It’s just too much.” The right perspective is, “God is supplying all of my needs. He said He would prosper me even in a desert.”
Today, I encourage you to evaluate your perspective. Choose to lift your eyes to God the Father no matter what is happening in your circumstances. Remember, as you set your perspective in the right direction, your life will follow. When you keep an attitude of faith and expectancy, you open the door for His blessing in every area of your life!

Don't Curb Your Ambition!

2010-11-07T23:04:00.001-05:00

This week, I was speaking with a woman named Kate about her Christian experience. She began explaining how she views herself. "I think I'm unique," she said. "I feel like my passion for life and my curiosity, maybe even my personality and the way I'm wired, is more extreme than the experience of the garden-variety Christian." Her conclusion was that her passions were too strong to be satisfied by the limits of what the church and the Gospel have to offer her. As a consequence, she wants to test the limits, to "play the edges," of the grace of God and the Christian experience. She feels an emptiness, a longing inside herself that the Christian life cannot satisfy. She wants something bigger, something extraordinary.

She thinks his answer could lie in having sex with multiple partners, or maybe doing some kind of mind-altering drug, or achieving certain success in her business. "Whatever the answer," she said, "it's beyond the traditional Christian experience." I understand where she's coming from. She has grown up in the church. She has seen and heard people talk about Jesus all of her life, and she hasn't seen, in their testimonies, the same passion for life that she observes in herself. So, she figures that the satisfaction of that passion lies outside of the church's walls. That's logical, but--like Ayn Rand says--when you encounter something that doesn't make sense, check your premises. I think at least two of her premises are questionable. First, she believes (implicitly) that she sees the true state of the lives of these men and women who call themselves Christians. Second, she believes that, when she has observed these people, their experience reflects the outer limits what Jesus does in a person's life.

I can identify with Kate's conundrum. In searching for answers to these questions, Reason certainly plays a vital role. I hasten to add, however, that Faith is also an important part of the equation. Referencing Faith, the ultimate question is whether we trust Jesus and his description of the kingdom of God. For example, Jesus validated the life and experience of Moses. Moses' life with God was literally a "mountaintop experience." He saw God's glory and lived to tell about it. His experience of God was so intense that he glowed for days afterward, and he didn't even see more than the smallest portion of it! Jesus also validated Jacob's experience of God. Jacob experienced a fuller sense of God's presence through a dream: angels ascending and descending. When I express faith in Jesus, I am trusting that his description of these followers of God is true, and that he meant it as normative for us today.

Kate's problem is not that her desires are too strong. It's not that she is, in any way, overly ambitious. Ayn Rand was spot on when she said, about all of us, that our desires are too weak! Many of us are not passionate and ambitious enough! We should nurture and pursue greater passion. Even Ayn Rand, however, didn't go far enough. By extolling human achievement and the mind of the individual as the greatest virtue and production as the individual's most satisfying goal, Rand exchanges the ultimate for the penultimate.

God, through Jesus Christ, is the final satisfaction of our deepest longing. A relationship with him is the totality of what we are designed for.

Do I paint a clear picture, or do I exaggerate? I eagerly await your best thoughts.

Idolatry

2010-11-05T06:21:00.000-04:00

It wasn't until I began to search my heart with the Biblical category of idolatry that I made the horrendous discovery that all my supposed sacrifices were just a series of selfish actions. I was using people in order to forge my own self-appreciation. I was looking to my sacrificial ministry to give me the sense of "righteousness before God" that should only come from Jesus Christ. People make idols out of money, power, accomplishment, or moral excellence. They look to these things to "save them" -- to give them the sense of purity, value, and acceptability that only Jesus can give. In my case, I was using ministry (and my own people) in this way.

Without the category of idolatry -- a good thing turned into a pseudo-salvation -- I would never have been able to see myself. Nothing but the concept of counterfeit gods could have blasted me out of my illusion of virtue and superiority. I thank God for this life-saving insight -- though I still struggle with the implementation of what I've learned.

Chocolate and Peanut Butter?

2010-11-01T21:46:00.000-04:00

When Reese's Peanut Butter Cup first came on the scene (it was a while ago), there were commercials that showed an innocent chocolate lover and equally mild-mannered lover of peanut butter colliding accidentally. That's my contrived way of introducing Objectivist Christianity, or Christian Objectivism. Of course they stand on their own separately, but there are aspects of each that taste great together. I revisited an article reviewing Nathaniel Brandon's book, The Art of Living Consciously: The Power of Awareness to Transform Everyday Life. This passage got me thinking. Please read it, and let me know your comments. I have some words to say at the end of the post.

A few months ago, a friend invited me to his church to hear him "witness" on the subject of awareness. Though I had to struggle to separate the objective wheat from the mystical chaff, I came away feeling energized and full of new resolve.

How, I wondered, could a gathering dedicated to the worship of God have such an effect on an atheist? In striving to understand my response, I came to a hypothesis that may help shed light on Christianity's explosive success.

Perhaps the first evangelists of Christianity were brilliant psychologists. Understanding the need to conceptualize and integrate the nameless fears and desires that make up the ground of every human mind, they gave their converts prayer and confession. The self-knowledge and self-acceptance that resulted from those practices may, in turn, have produced an inner joy (such as I experienced in the church), which Christians termed "the grace of God" and offered as "evidence" of the power of their faith.

If that hypothesis is accurate, then surely Objectivism's growth has suffered from the lay psychology that has evolved among certain of its adherents. Rejecting "negative" emotions as morally reprehensible, this psychology necessarily rejects many of the facts of life.

In Anthem, for example, heroes do not even privately acknowledge their pain. In his account of the burning of the Transgressor, whose tongue has been torn out for speaking in the first person singular, the protagonist expresses great admiration: "There was no pain in [his] eyes and no knowledge of the agony of [his] body. There was only joy in them, and pride, a pride holier than it is fit for human pride to be".

Whatever Rand herself intended by such passages, my experience with Stoic Objectivists indicates that they are widely understood to mean that people who acknowledge unpleasant facts, are at best suffering from a bad sense of life, and are at worst malicious villains acting on the premise of death; and people who act as though unpleasant facts do not exist are well on their way to becoming heroes.

That is not how it works, says Nathaniel Branden. In ALC, he is out to show why rejection of any fact is damaging to the mind, while rejection of any part of internal reality is also rejection of the self, and thus doubly damning. In his view, any denial of any reality is an error. And to deny the reality of suffering is analogous to administering anesthesia-each is effective against pain only if the possibility of pleasure is blocked in the process. Thus, in constructing a sorrow-free self-concept, the Stoic Objectivist must also relinquish belief in the benevolence of the universe. The real acts of heroism in this context are those aimed at exposing and obliterating such errors.

The review of the book belies an incomplete and inaccurate assessment of both Objectivism and Christianity. The Designer of the mind, and of the human mind and Reason itself is not out to damage or destroy the mind. Instead, consider the evidence for the resurrection, and consider it honestly, without bias. Conclude with many others that the historical facts point to Jesus' true identity. Perhaps you want to reference the same historical evidence and conclude something less reasonable. That is the right of every individual. But please, thee is no room to view Jesus as a "damager of the mind." It's simply not a reasonable conclusion.

Objectivism and Christianity

2010-10-24T00:44:00.000-04:00

Through Piper’s Desiring God, I saw the beginnings of Objectivism applied to Christianity. Piper’s Christian Hedonist applies the principle of seeking one’s highest pleasure—the highest possible occupation of the human soul for its own delight and happiness—to the doctrines of Christianity. The conclusion of many Christians through the centuries, and the testimony of the Christian Bible, points to God Himself as the highest, most glorious occupation of the human being. Throughout, Piper extends and exhausts C.S. Lewis’s exhortation not to settle for anything less than all God has created humanity to enjoy to the fullest:

When infinite joy is offered us, [we are] like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in the slums because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.

Throughout my first, second, and third encounter with this amazing discovery, the mantra of Ayn Rand’s reality-based quest toward happiness echoed on every page. To me, it became clear that the Creator, the One who created Ayn Rand and every Objectivist, the Author of Ayn Rand’s “non-contradictory joy,” was displaying the passionate fulfillment of Objectivism’s spiritual dimension.
I had seen the volatility of an Objectivist-Christian discussion before, largely due to the spiritual fervor on both sides. Both parties see that the stakes are high because of 1) the vital relevance of philosophy in general (what we refer to as “worldview”), and 2) the implications of Objectivism and Christianity in particular. Because of the fervency of the attacks on Ayn Rand’s writing (her fiction) and ideas—by academics and the popular press alike—I began to see my own emotional conflicts played out on a broader horizon. The aspect of the two worldviews that struck me most was the sense in which Christianity is the fulfillment of Ayn Rand’s worldview in its simplest objective.

The most profound difference between Objectivism and Christianity is their perspectives on humanity’s highest occupation. What is man’s purpose? Objectivism teaches that man’s highest value and moral purpose is his own “rational self-interest.” For Rand, “virtue” consists of doing what “secured” your life and well-being. Through the writing of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, David Kelley, John Piper, Tim Keller, C.S. Lewis, and Jonathan Edwards—to name a few—I found that understanding the two worldviews together deepened my understanding of each worldview separately. The Conversation did that for me.

Life with God: Suffering or Joy?

2010-10-22T21:25:00.001-04:00

Joy and suffering. I have experienced my share of both. In my early years, my parents divorced and my life was torn apart. As an adolescent, I survived cancer through radiation therapy, and a related brain tumor as an adult. I have known the joys of family, marriage, fatherhood, several opportunities to apply my mind to challenging careers. All of these have been enriched through my relationship with Jesus Christ.

Ayn Rand characterizes the philosophy of her detractors, the looters, as a philosophy of suffering and doom. Any worldview that places an arbitrary entity (an entity other than the self) above the self, is quenching/inhibiting the joy of the individual. It must be. But Ayn Rand doesn't consider ALL of the ways that joy comes to individuals.

The premise of John Piper's book, Desiring God, is that God is the ultimate fulfillment of our longing for joy. He puts that longing in our heart, and leads us to the only stream that flows with living water: Himself.

The prayer of Augustine reflects that longing: "Lord, our hearts are restless until we find our rest in Thee."

Rational Self-Interest vs. Rational Sacrifice ?

2010-10-12T22:48:00.001-04:00

At Brown, I studied the Middle Ages. Some call the period the "Dark Ages," because of the violence and disease. A lot of that was perpetrated in the name of religion. In that midst of the chaos, I found the behavior of the monks refreshing. When they left their cloistered habitat to participate in the the lives of the people, they went about the work of another kingdom. The monks' inventions, scholarship, art, and building of hospitals renewed society and improved lives.

So often, I hear the loud and clumsy proclamation of the way things should be, a kind of evangelism or proselytizing, whether it's Objectivism or Christianity. In contrast, the monks were busy doing excellent work. If anything, they were earning the right to be heard. But, even without being heard, the Gospel was being proclaimed in what people saw.

When it comes to the sacrificial life, there is a subtle but crucial difference between the motivation of self-interest and God-centeredness. If you accept a more broadly recognized definition than Ayn Rand uses, sacrifice has a place in Objectivism. According to the common definition, sacrifice is not subjecting a greater value to a lesser; it's making the often difficult choice to forego a good value for a great one. In the case of the monks, they were putting their own lives (of great value to themselves) at the disposal of God (a much greater value). God, in turn, directs his work for the benefit of those whom he loves. At face value, the monks are putting others before themselves and this looks like Altruism. Whereas the motivation of Altruism is its own end, the monks' end is glorifying God.

Happy Birthday, Atlas Shrugged

2010-10-10T23:06:00.000-04:00

Atlas was published on this day in 1957. I don't know that I can do better than Bob Felton, on his blog. Civil Commotion (http://www.bobfelton.com/?p=11163)

A Cautionary Tale

2010-09-28T21:48:00.001-04:00

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control Department and hired two people: one to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" They created two positions, and they hired someone to keep time, and someone manage the payroll.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people: an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $918,000 over budget, we must cutback." So they laid off the night watchman.

Remember the reason given for the establishment of the Department of Energy... during the Carter Administration? Bottom line: We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency... the reason for which most people cannot remember. It was very simple..and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate. The Department of Energy was instituted on August 4, 1977, to "lessen our dependence on foreign oil." Thirty-three years later, our budget for the Department of Energy is $24.2 billion a year. It boasts 16,000 federal employees and approximately 100,000 contract employees. I don't think anyone would have taken the first step if they could have foreseen this inevitable calamity. Thirty-three years ago, 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.
Today, we are in the process of turning over the banking system, health care, and the auto industry to the very same government.

2010-09-21T06:17:00.000-04:00

An article in the New York Times this morning reports the mood of frustration with the Obama administration. The Times described the disappointment emanating from the crowd: "it sounded like a therapy session for disillusioned Obama supporters."

Excerpt:

“I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for,” said the first questioner, an African-American woman who identified herself as a chief financial officer, a mother and a military veteran. “I’ve been told that I voted for a man who was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class and I’m waiting sir, I’m waiting. I still don’t feel it yet.”
A 30-year-old law school graduate told Mr. Obama that he had hoped to pursue a career in public service — like the president — but complained that he could barely pay the interest on his student loans, let alone think of getting married or starting a family.
“I was really inspired by you and your campaign and the message you brought, and that inspiration is dying away,” he said, adding, “And I really want to know, is the American dream dead for me?”

I don't begrudge the audience an opportunity to vent, but I wonder whether the crux of the problem goes beyond even Obama's political ideology. While Obama's policies have not been the solution, I don't believe that political ideologies are ever a solution. Christians and Objectivists may not agree on what will fix the world's problems, but we can agree that government is not the answer.

The Universe: A Simple Answer

2010-09-20T19:52:00.000-04:00

“Reality. That’s the simple answer to your question, ‘What is the nature of the universe?’ John always likes to start with something provocative. He knows I will continue to pursue it, not just let it drop. He’s stating that truth is objective and existence exists apart from how I perceive it. “But, how did the universe get here, and what is the meaning behind it?” I ask. “I don’t know. It just is. Not to say that there is no meaning to it, I just don’t have any evidence about what that is, except what I observe and reason.” In John’s Objectivist worldview, there is no reason to believe that the world came about through a Creator, or any other Intelligent Designer. “Maybe we got here by chance; I don’t know.” Peikoff said, “The universe is all that exists and all that has ever existed.”

Ayn Rand didn’t spend her writing on the origins of the universe. Instead, she viewed her philosophy “for living on earth.” She crafted her understanding of a universe, without God at the center. She reasoned to existence without the need for God, and certainly without the need for a Person creating and sustaining the universe we live in.

For the forty years that I have known him, John has described himself as an “atheist,” not an “agnostic.” “The question about God’s existence is not open for discussion. We don’t need God to explain the origins of the universe. Let’s move on with our lives and not concern ourselves with what is unnecessary at best, and irrelevant.” “What we do know,” he says, “is that my life is that I can observe reality through my five senses, and that I have the capacity to reason, to take what I know and organize it into concepts and categories that allow me to survive and thrive. To that end, I can create value.” In John’s worldview, there is no need and no room for faith.

Yaron Brook, from a CNN Post

2010-09-17T10:11:00.001-04:00

Consider how just two fundamental ideas have ushered in the modern world. Rewind a scant 600 years, and modern science doesn't yet exist.
Men and women live and die in squalor and filth, largely ignorant of the germs that ravage their bodies and of the natural laws that govern the universe, instead imploring an alleged supernatural force to help them navigate this vale of tears.
But thanks to minds such as Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur and Charles Darwin, this is not how we face the world today. They taught us our method of knowing: careful, mathematically precise observation, step-by-step inference and generalization, and systematic, evidence-based theory building.
They had the courage to challenge entrenched authority, toss aside superstition and defy popes. As others followed the trail the first scientists blazed, human knowledge advanced dramatically.
Thanks to a second idea, this explosion of knowledge broke the confines of the laboratory and ivory tower. Another daring group of thinkers challenged political authoritarianism.
Kings and aristocrats were swept aside to make way for the rights of man. This idea gave birth to a new nation, our beloved America, in which the individual was free to think and pursue his own happiness. A new person arose: the industrialist.
Slandered as robber barons, what these individuals actually did was earn fortunes by studying the discoveries of science and commercializing them.
A mind-boggling array of inventions and products ensued: automobiles, oil, radios, antibiotics, refrigeration, electricity, washing machines, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, airplanes and on and on, to our present world of personal computers and cell phones.
Try to imagine life without all of this. It's not easy.
But as far as we've come because of these two ideas, human progress demands implementation of a third idea to complete the scientific and political revolutions. We're still beholden to the past in ethics.
Although few of us would turn to the Old Testament or the Quran to determine the age of the Earth, too many of us still turn obediently to these books (or their secular copies) as authorities about morality. We learn therein the moral superiority of faith to reason and collective sacrifice to personal profit.
But the more seriously we take these old ethical ideas, the more suspect become the modern ideas responsible for human progress. The scientists in their laboratories did not demonstrate the superiority of faith. Thomas Jefferson in his Declaration did not proclaim the superiority of collective sacrifice. Why should we think these ideas are the path to moral enlightenment?
Perhaps, of all the damage these antiquated moral ideas do to human progress, the most significant is how they distort our conception of moral ideals.
Ask someone on the street to name a moral hero; if he isn't at a loss, he'll likely name someone like Jesus Christ or Mother Teresa. Why? Because they're regarded as people of faith who shunned personal profit for the collective good. No one would dream of naming Galileo, Darwin, Thomas Edison or John D. Rockefeller.
Yet we should. It is they, not the Mother Teresas of the world, that we should strive to be like and teach our kids the same.
If morality is judgment to discern the truth and courage to act on it and make something of and for your own life, then these individuals, in their capacity as great creators, are moral exemplars. Put another way, if morality is a guide in the quest to achieve your own happiness by creating the values of mind and body that make a successful life, then morality is about personal profit, not its renunciation.
Monetary profit is just one of the values you have to achieve in life. But it is an eloquent representative of the whole issue, because at its most demanding, as exhibited by a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs, making money requires a profound dedication to material production.
The fact that earning money is ignored by most moralists, or condemned as the root of evil, is telling of the distance we must travel.
In effect, we need to turn the Billionaire's Pledge on its head.
The world grants, at best, no moral recognition to Gates and Buffett for the personal fortunes they've created, but it awards them a standing ovation for giving their profits away. But the standing ovation belongs to the act of creation, the profit they brought into their own lives and anyone who traded with them.
If morality is about the pursuit of your own success and happiness, then giving money away to strangers is, in comparison, not a morally significant act. (And it's outright wrong if done on the premise that renunciation is moral.)
Science, freedom and the pursuit of personal profit -- if we can learn to embrace these three ideas as ideals, an unlimited future awaits.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate.

Comments on Ayn Rand Biography

2010-09-05T13:51:00.000-04:00

In Bloomberg article (interview) with a Rand biographer, the author says this:

For people who are passionate about what seems to me to be an unrealistic view of radical individualism, she makes the strongest possible case.What she lacked was empathy and a sense that there’s a social contract.

The interviewer betrays her view in the question, "Don’t Rand’s views seem incredibly naive?" Without reading the book, I think the interview is unfairly slanted against Rand and her philosophy. I'm guessing that's the point. Still, "Don’t Rand’s views seem incredibly naive?" is not an argument. It's simple, inflamatory propaganda.

Response to "Ayn Rand: Goddess of the Great Recession"

2010-08-30T07:51:00.000-04:00

The article I just read was not complementary to Ayn Rand. It was a slam, not necessarily inflammatory, but Gary Moore did misunderstand Ayn Rand. Furthermore, he placed too much emphasis on the person, and not enough into understanding the merits of Objectivism as a philosophical framework. What can I do to remedy that situation? What is it that Christians can take away from Ayn Rand? And what can Randians get out of Christianity? A lot.
First of all, it's the rational self-interest part that hangs everyone up. Rand called it "selfishness" and that didn't help. What she meant, and referred to elsewhere, was a focus on the individual, one's own highest possible good, in a way that Reason supports. Reason, according to Rand, supports activities that support one's own survival and thriving. Those activities are virtues. Without the activities that help us survive, there would be no values, virtues, or vices. According to Rand, anything that detracts from our ability to survive and thrive is a vice. Got it. This definition of virtue and vice makes sense, given that the individual is the center of the universe. And for Rand, the individual life is the lead in the play of her own life. What could be more obvious? But the message of Jesus is that God is the lead in the play of my life. He is the highest possible occupation of my soul, and my own life and thriving happens on a cosmic level only to the degree that I worship and serve the living God, the true God, the God of the Bible.
The author of the article in Christianity Today, August 27, 2010, speaks of Rand's anti-Christian posture as if she truly understood the Gospel. I don't think she did, and her writing makes that clear.
Rand's idea of Christianity was Kantian, wrapped around the idea of duty. When I first read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, I was affronted by her blasting distaste for all things religious, and I wasn't even a Christian! When I continued investigating her philosophy through her nonfiction, I understood what she reacted to the most was the notion of subjecting what she understood to be the highest possible value (her own life) to a very low value, something she didn't believe existed, a "non-entity." Christians don't view their own lives, or God, that way. John Piper, in Desiring God, made it as plain as anyone ever has. He talks about God delighting in our delighting in Him. In following our deepest desires for satisfaction, fulfillment, and thriving, God delights when those desires are met, recognized, find their conclusion in Him. In fact, He designed us that way.
The best illustration I have heard plays out when I think about my relationship with my wife. It's our anniversary. I have worked everything out, from the flowers, the chauffeur, the quiet table in her favorite restaurant, and a romantic ambiance. As she takes it all in, she is delighted. She turns to me as says, "Thank you. You went to a lot of trouble, and it's beautiful."
At that moment, I can respond in one of two ways that represent two very different heart conditions. I can say, "Think nothing of it. I'm just doing my duty as a husband." Or, I can say, "There is no place I would rather be than here, right now, with you." It's obvious which one of these heart motivations is the most honoring to her. She may even be dishonored by the first, feeling that I don't really love her, but it's all about fulfilling some idea that I have about my own husbandhood. In contrast, when I let loose and seek the greatest possible delight for myself, I go all out for her happiness because it makes me happy.
The Bible is full of commands to seek our highest delight in God because only He can fulfill our deepest longings and highest fulfillment. Does that mean that Gospel Christianity is the fulfillment of Objectivism? What a thought!

Creator and creators

2010-08-28T06:37:00.006-04:00

Ayn Rand wrote this in The Fountainhead, through the voice of Howard Roark:

"The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself.
"And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind." -- Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, page 679

Man's creative capacity is the means of his survival. Acting is his own rational self-interest, his own delight and satisfaction, the individual has achieved glory. To what extent would the Christian substitute individual "creators" for the "Creator"?

The Creator was not selfless. It is the whole secret of his power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A First Cause, a Fount of Energy, a Life Force, a Prime Mover. The Creator served nothing and no one. He lived for Himself.
And only by living for Himself was He able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind.

I had not thought of the Creator as acting for his own satisfaction and delight until I read John Piper's book Desiring God. The subtitle, "Meditations of a Christian Hedonist,"could easily have read "Meditations of a Christian Objectivist." His entire argument seemed to say that God is self-centered. God is the highest, most glorious, focus and occupation that anyone can enjoy, and so he is focused on himself. Where Piper, consistent with the biblical theme, differs from Rand is that Rand would say the individual is the highest, most glorious focus and occupation that anyone can enjoy, so he should be focused on himself. As always, I am interested in your thoughts.

The Killer Proposal

2010-08-27T06:52:00.004-04:00

I've talked about the proposal before, but now it's becoming that time. The elements that I am compiling are 1) the "Grab" Sheet, 2) The Table of Contents (TOC), and 3) the Sample Chapter.

The Grab sheet is about 6-10 pages designed to sell the book to a publisher: Why should we pick this up? Who's the audience? What are you trying to do here? Who are you and why should you write this book? Why now? and other good questions. In addition, I talk about the competition. What else is out there and how is this different?

The TOC is a chapter-by-chapter treatment, kind of a narrative walk-through of the book. What is each chapter about and how does it serve a purpose? What is the point or argument in this chapter, and how does the chapter communicate that?

Finally, the sample chapter. I'm not even sure whether this is an actual chapter. I haven't written anything that qualifies yet. It's supposed to be a writing sample that is chock full of examples, like a trailer that gets you wanting to see the movie. In some cases, you've seen the whole movie by watching the trailer. For a movie, that's a bad trailer. In the case of the sample chapter, so I hear, that's a good thing, to a point. That is, you want your prospective publisher to get an full idea about your climax and punch line, but you still want her interested in the book.

Right now, I am writing all of these pieces at the same time. We'll see how it goes.

This is fun!

2010-08-27T06:21:00.001-04:00

I have to say, "This is fun!" Sure, I'm up late and I'm sweating a [self-imposed] deadline. But, the challenge of formulating an argument that is complex and yet hangs together; that's energizing.
Today, I focused on putting together an in-depth mental plan for the first chapter, entitled "How does the Objectivist View the Nature of the Universe?" I know, it's kind of heady, but that's where the book needs to start if it's going to compare Objectivism and Christianity.
Especially at this foundational level of philosophy, I am finding that I have to go back and read more philosophical, and specifically Objectivist, literature. Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have thought long and hard about these issues("existence exists"), and I have been drawing on their articulation. After all, I'm not trying to "reinvent the wheel;" I want to present these concepts in an accessible, educated-layman's framework.
So, I find myself asking questions like "How should this chapter flow?" "What are the questions that need to be answered?" "What level should I aim for, and what depth does that require?" That process has overwhelmed me, to say the least, but I am really juiced about what I envision as the final product.
And, I know that it's somewhat odd and a little freaky that I would get excited about it, but I suppose it's a good thing that I am, or I would be the wrong person for the job.

Narrative Nonfiction

2010-08-25T20:36:00.000-04:00

My writing to this point has been a left brain activity. I have been outlining the points that will accomplish each chapter's purpose, their appropriate juxtaposition, etc. My right brain gets involved as I consider how to express these points creatively, in a way that will engage the reader. Here's where I'm finding the need to interject my own experience.

A recent article on Suite101.com suggested the idea of a narrative approach to nonfiction. I like it, and I can see its usefulness. First, it draws people in by making the dry content more human. Second, it allows concrete illustrations of some abstract philosophical concepts. And, third, it breaks up the discussion. It provides a transition between to topics of comparison by virtue of a common denominator: my experience.

As a matter of curiosity, I am interested in others' thoughts. Do you think narrative content has a role in nonfiction (of the sort that I am writing)?

2010-08-25T07:00:00.000-04:00

I can't help but write about a new resource for writing. It's a tool that has motivated me to get writing. It's the "butt in chair" method for writing. Simply showing up and writing is the surest way to write. So, I have begun a journey of writing something every day. To help, I have been tracking it on 750Words.com. To be more accurate, the website has been tracking it. But not in a Big Brother way; in a playful, more helpful way. From the picture that I have inserted with this post, you can see a couple of the elements that the website tracks, specific to my writing every day. These are the stats from today, August 25th. The first thing I see is that I am a Patron. That means that I contributed $4.00 in the last 30 days to the site via PayPal. That's strictly voluntary; the site is free across the board. Secondly, I have written over 25,000 words this month and written each day of the month (all 25!). "Completed" means that I have written at least 750 words each day. You can write as many words as you like, but to "complete" a day, you need to write 750 or over. That's about three pages.
The third aspect I appreciate on this page of stats (there are many more, by the way; check them out at http://750words.com/entries/stats/245619) is the badges. Those are the cutesy, corny cartoon pictures in the middle. You are "awarded" badges every time you hit a milestone (e.g. writing 30 days in a row, something I have yet to do). Finally, to wrap up this little tour of 750Words.com, there is the writing progress on any given day. When did you start? How many interruptions did you encounter? It's all there. In a previous post entitled "Self-Importance and My Private Writing," I talked about the stats that track my "subconscious" as I write (http://www.soulofatlas.com/2010/08/self-importance-and-my-private-writing.html). And there's more. As always, I'm interested in your thoughts.

"Longing" in Atlas Shrugged

2010-08-23T05:52:00.000-04:00

Dagny Taggart is a tireless worker, a driven achiever and producer of value. All her life, she has aspired to reach her highest potential and become superlative example of rational self-interest. She longs for something that she cannot yet articulate. She wants it badly, but the world system of looters and moochers fights her with their collectivist policies and their actions against individual liberty. She finds herself alone, nearly despairing, but refusing ultimate hopelessness. A person personifies her longing. A person represents all that she believes, hopes, and expects. But her vision eludes her.

You—she thought—whoever you are, whom I have always loved and never found, you whom I expected to see at the end of the rails beyond the horizon, you whose presence I had always felt in the streets of the city and whose world I had wanted to build, it is my love for you that had kept me moving, my love and my hope to reach you and my wish to be worthy of you on the day when I would stand before you face to face. Now I know that I shall never find you—that it is not to be reached or lived—but what is left of my life is still yours, and I will go on in your name, even though it is a name I'll never learn, I will go on serving you, even though I'm never to win, I will go on, to be worthy of you on the day when I would have met you, even though I won't.… She had never accepted hopelessness, but she stood at the window and, addressed to the shape of a fogbound city, it was her self-dedication to unrequited love. -- Atlas Shrugged, page 633

C.S Lewis puts it so well when he talks about a longing. It’s a deep longing inside of us that the highest sense experience of nature, or success, or relationship cannot satisfy. Nothing in this world can satisfy; it’s beyond this world. Rand herself longed for it, but it wasn’t to be found. C.S. Lewis and others conclude that the longing doesn’t prove that we’ll get it. But if we have a longing that nothing in this world can satisfy, it follows that we were built for another world. Our longings point us to another world.

Warming Up

2010-08-20T11:47:00.000-04:00

The Artist's Way (kind of like a 12-step program to "recover your creativity") suggests writing three pages every day from the top of your head. Brainstorming, stream of consciousness. Pick your euphemism. I have thought of it as "warming up" to write rather than actually writing "The Soul of Atlas." But I need to take this warming up process more seriously. I am doing it to see where it leads. What I need to do is go beyond it. What's next after the warm up? If you warm up, it's for a race. If you don't race, what good is the warm up? Maybe stretching is good, but you know what I mean. So the next step is to pick up my manuscript and read it through, taking notes. What is each chapter missing in terms of flow, and write to fill the gaps. I am afraid of throwing things away, my writing that is, what I have written so far because I am afraid I will need it and want it later, saying "Oh no, I threw that away. Now it's gone!". Of course, I have already printed it out, so I am sure that I could go back and retrieve it somehow. What seems to work is this, and I will plan for it: Go through the manuscript with all of my changes (not throwing anything away). When I have gone through (and I should highlight anything that is in doubt, or suspicious, so that I will trim everything down). Then after I have gone through, made changes to the text (from my hard-copy notes), and highlighted all of the text that I am tempted to throw out, I can go back and see where, if anywhere, these highlighted portions might fit. If nowhere, be ruthless. Maybe Ruth can help me with that. I can see the crack of light at the end, and I am excited about the prospect.

Clouds

2010-08-19T05:59:00.001-04:00

Some of you have seen my postings on Facebook. Each day, I have been writing 750 words. That's roughly three pages. It's at least that number each day, and then I "share on Facebook." The post on the page reads something like this:

Mark Henderson wrote 1,144 words on Thursday August 19, 2010 - 750 Words

To the left of the text, there is some cutesy icon that represents an achievement, like writing ten days in a row, or writing without interruption, etc. Lately, I have been posting clouds, and someone asked why. Interestingly, the website tracks a lot of items about my writing. (Those are available through this link: http://750words.com/entries/share/238407.) One item is the weather during the time that I write. The rationale is that the weather could be affecting the mood of my writing (which the site tracks through an algorithm applied to the content). Am I sad when it's cloudy? or Am I feeling "self-important" when it rains? I don't know yet.
Some have asked, "Are you writing the book in these words?" I started out writing on 750Words.com to add content to my manuscript (it's already 250 pages). That was successful for a while. But the writing I do online is not explicitly related to the book, The Soul of Atlas. It's not related to any book, per se. Instead, it generally helps me get the cobwebs out of my brain first thing in the morning. Kind of a warm up, like stretching before a run, or playing scales before a concert. It's not a distraction because then I move into the heavy lifting and end up writing even more, and more to the point. Thanks for asking. As always, love your comments. By the way, if you don't see any images, take a peak on the Soul of Atlas blog directly: http://www.soulofatlas.com/

Writing is Work

2010-08-17T03:01:00.001-04:00

I haven't yet reached the point of exasperation that William Burroughs describes as "the temptation to tear up your work in little pieces and throw it in someone else's wastepaper basket." It demands patience and solitude from the writer who wants to write well. The compulsion to spend hours writing can deform a normal life. Not to mention, there is the constant question of whether my writing will be any good, or whether I will succeed enough to be able to do it in the first place. Those are the moments when it can help to read the lives and letters of great writers. Isaac Babel has this to say about the hard labor of revision:

I work like a pack mule, but it's my own choice. I'm like a galley slave who is chained for life to his oar, but who loves the oar. Everything about it. I go over each sentence time and again. I start by cutting all the words it can do without. You have to keep you eye on the job because words are very sly. The rubbishy ones go into hiding and you have to dig them out. Repetitions, synonyms, things that simply don't mean anything. I go over every image, metaphor, comparison to see if they are fresh and accurate. If you can't find the right adjective for a noun, leave it alone. Let the noun stand by itself. A comparison must be as accurate as a slide rule and as natural as the smell of fennel. I take out all the participles and adverbs I can. Adverbs are lighter. They can even lend you wings in a way. But too many of them make the language spineless. A noun needs only one adjective, the choicest. Only a genius can afford two adjectives to one noun. Line is as important in prose as in an engraving. It has to be clear and hard. But the most important thing of all is not to kill the story by working on it, or else all of your labor has been in vain. It's like walking a tight rope.

Writing is work.

A Day on the Set of Atlas Shrugged, Part 1

2010-08-16T17:23:00.000-04:00

I had never been on the set of a movie before, let alone Atlas Shrugged, whose scenes I know and love. This was an opportunity that I couldn't miss. And it was thrilling. I didn't bother hiding my naivete about film making, and my enthusiasm for everything Hollywood. In other words, I didn't try to be cool. "Cool" would have been difficult for me. As I mentioned in a previous post, I made it a day trip sandwiched between two red-eyes, long flights from the East Coast.

On this day, the scene being filmed is the one where Dagny (Taylor Schilling, obscured by some extras) considers, with Rearden (Grant Bowler in the far background), the seemingly insurmountable deadlines that they are determined to overcome in order to complete the John Galt Line. The mile-long bridge extends over a steep drop across a Colorado canyon, to reach the oil fields of Ellis Wyatt (Graham Beckel, see below).
Here I am with two of the people responsible for bringing Ayn Rand's novel to the big screen. I'm in the distinctly California color between producer John Aglialoro and his wife, Joan.

I was delighted to meet the actors in Atlas Shrugged. Here are Graham Beckel and Taylor Schilling. Having seen her, I think Taylor will make a fantastic Dagny. Her appearance projects strength and confidence, with an unmistakably feminine flair.

The man on the right in the picture below is Grant Bowler, who plays Hank Rearden. He couldn't be more perfect. Each time I saw him, in take after take, he executed his lines like a time-tested professional, with the consistency and variety that you look for to cast a Randian hero of Rearden's stature.

Morning Pages

2010-08-14T13:24:00.000-04:00

The inspiration for 750Words.com, my latest reason for enthusiasm about writing, is the passage about a tool for creative recovery called "Morning Pages" in Julia Cameron's book, The Artist's Way. Simply, writing. Cameron puts it this way:

When people [in her creative workshop] ask, "Why do we write morning pages?" I joke, "To get to the other side." They think I am kidding, but I'm not. Morning pages do get us to the other side: the other side of our fear, of our negativity, of our moods. Above all, they get us beyond our Censor. Beyond the reach o f the Censor's babble we find our won quiet center, the place where we hear the still, small voice that is at once our creator's and our own.

The sentiments that she shares here--the impetus for writing the morning pages--both explains and calls into question my desire to scrutinize my "self-importance" theme. The take-away? Forget about it. At most, the theme of "self-importance" that comes up in my "morning pages" could be junk that I need to get through (out on paper) in order to begin the real task of creative writing. In my case, it's creative non-fiction.

Oscar Winner, Patricia Neal

2010-08-13T07:39:00.010-04:00

Patricia Neal died Sunday. She was 84. While it was not her most famous role, I remember her as Dominique Franchon in the film version of The Fountainhead. A glamorous socialite and journalist, Dominique is an admirer of Howard Roark's architectural work and opposes the newspaper's turning the public against him. She is engaged to be married to the unimaginative Peter Keating. Dominique falls for Roark before she even knows he's a brilliant architect, and her passion leads her to obsession.
I cannot imagine that Neal's love affair with Gary Cooper during the filming of the “The Fountainhead” was as steamy as that of Ayn Rand's heroine. Still, she was 20; he was 45 and married. After Cooper’s wife found out, the affair ended but Neal discovered she was pregnant. Worried about the effect such a thing would have on her burgeoning career (especially after “The Fountainhead” flopped) and with the urging of Cooper, Neal aborted the unborn child. In her autobiography, Neal makes no secret of the fact that this abortion was the great regret of her life. For the next thirty years she cried herself to sleep over it and wrote:

If I had only one thing to do over in my life, I would have that baby.

I don't know how deep Patricia Neal delved into Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, in her younger years. I have heard that, later in life, she returned to the Catholic faith and became a strong pro-life advocate. Was her return to the Catholic faith a response to deeply felt guilt? Or was it a sincere longing for a relationship with her creator?
The former reasoning often leads individuals to dismiss faith as dysfunctional and unnecessary for healthy individuals, who are strong in their decisions and sense of self-worth. The idea of coming to God out of guilt and the need for a "get out of jail [free] card" leaves me feeling a little dirty, like I would be "using" God to make me feel better, and then move on. In contrast, if I see Jesus Christ as the One who alone satisfies my deepest longing for purpose and completeness, I will experience the greatest of all possible joy in a relationship with him. As I mentioned, I'm not sure which one Neal would have identified with, and we may never know. The question posed by her motivations is left for each of us to ask ourselves.

Self-Importance and My Private Writing

2010-08-12T08:20:00.029-04:00

I have continued to write, despite the "self-importance" ascribed to my emotional/psychological state. The picture that I have posted here shows a frame from the daily feedback I get on my writing. Note the purple bars on the left, showing that my average level of "self-importance" is greater than the rest of the world. As you see, it's the only bar that exceeds the height of rest of the world. To all of you, thanks again for the excellent advice and encouragement that keeps me going. I maintain that 750Words.com is a helpful motivator. I won't beat myself up, but my self-importance continues to befuddle me. (I think I know where Ayn Rand would come down on all of this.) Thanks again, and please, keep your comments coming.

Three Pages

2010-08-10T10:04:00.004-04:00

Recently, I spoke about a writing site that I stumbled across called 750Words.com. After tinkering around on the site, I spotted some feedback on my writing. Not that anyone was looking at my writing; that's all entirely private and no one will see it. However, a computer algorithm has been applied to my writing in order to determine what's going on in my subconscious. There were some surprising aspects of my subconscious, or the way the algorithm interpreted my "subconscious." For example, my writing indicates that I am an introvert. The computer interprets that I am more prone to feeling than thinking. Not surprising to me is that I am more positive than negative in my writing. There were several other aspects of my writing character that the algorithm displays each day. They change, depending on what I write. Some days, I emphasize one sense over another, and then switch back the next day, between touch, hear, see, etc. And, not only does the site compare these elements from one day to the next, but it compares mine to the rest of the writing world! What a hoot.
With all of this analysis and interesting insights, I have been introduced to an entirely new world. Yet, in all of this, I came across a troublesome metric: a descriptor entitled "Self-Important." Just the fact that I was bothered by this descriptor, as it was applied to me, should confirm that I have an overinflated view of myself. Yet, I delved deeper.
How do I write in a way that is less "self-important". What does that even mean? I should look it up. So, between this sentence and the last, I did look it up. The definition on Answer.com was "Having or manifesting an exaggerated idea of one's own importance or merit." To me, that is a scathing indictment. I sense that I am this way, but it's disheartening to hear that it's probably obvious to everyone. Now, I am wondering how the computer algorithm came up with this conclusion. Was it my use of the word "I" to the exclusion of every other word? Should I talk about others more? And, doesn't everyone who writes in a journal end up focusing on their own life, and its importance? I rested in that thought, until I noticed that my sense of "self-importance" is greater than the rest of the world's. So, here I am. Ayn Rand might be pleased, but I don't know that I can say the same. Writers, readers, sages of any kind, please give me some advice.

Three Pages

2010-08-09T22:03:00.001-04:00

Buster Benson, 750Words founder

I came across a great website that offers some motivation to write. Although it comes through the back door, I'll take whatever I can get. The website is called 750Words.com and it encourages people to write 750 words a day, about three pages. Why? Because three pages, written in the morning, is what The Artist's Way suggests doing in order to unlock and pursue your inner creativity. Okay, so I looked into it based on a friend's recommendation (Thanks a ton, Ton!) I started to write material for my manuscript, The Soul of Atlas. I'm trying to explain Atheism to Christians and the Gospel to Objectivists. The topics generally address issues of agreement and disagreement between Atheist Objectivism and Gospel Christianity. As I began to write, I started getting feedback in the form of badges: a badge for starting the journey, another for writing fast, another for writing five days in a row, etc. (Did I mention that donations are encouraged, but that the site is free?)
I'm delighted thus far, and I recommend the site 750Words.com. Nevertheless, I stumbled across one peculiarity. Not with the site itself, but with its assessment of my writing. Stay tuned. I'll share tomorrow.

Chapters One through Ten

2010-08-06T21:51:00.000-04:00

It has been good to hear from you, and I do appreciate the words of encouragement. Thanks to those of you suggested the benefits of considering my progress to date. Of course, no excuse to pause, but you're absolutely right. For those of you who have not been following my progress closely, let me give a brief synopsis of what I have so far.

Atlas, 5th Avenue at Rockefeller Plaza

The chapters of the book have undergone several iterations. Most recently (March 2010), the chapters are grouped into three sections. The first section, entitled "How Does It Happen?" contains the first two chapters. In the first chapter, I lay out my story and the conversation between Atheist Objectivism and Gospel Christianity that has played out in my life. I also introduce my two father figures, who represent these two worldviews respectively. In chapter two, I lay out the two worldviews, more or less through the agency of my two father figures. That is, I articulate these two worldviews the way I learned them. That's how the conversation began. I ask and answer four questions from the perspective of each worldview: What is the nature of the universe? What is the purpose of man? What's wrong with the world? How do you fix it? With a foundational understanding of each worldview, readers with little to no background in either worldview can be on the same page as those who are more familiar.

Chapters three through eight, comprising the second section of three sections in the book, provides the guts of the conversation. Remember, it's a conversation between these two worldviews. I'm playing it out as a dialogue, but not strictly like the dialogue you see on stage or in the movies where two actors speak to each other face to face or on the phone. Instead, this conversation is taking place through an intermediary, an agent of ideas. That's me. My two father figures don't actually talk to one another. On an intimate level, that literal conversation stopped years ago. Over a long period of time (my life time), the ideas that I gleaned from John got played back in my conversations with my dad, and visa versa. The conversation wasn't premeditated or rehearsed; it just happened as I was growing up, searching for answers, seeking my own worldview, trying to survive.
Consequently, the topics are familiar, but weighty. That's especially true as I turn them over and subject the points of each worldview to its counterpart in the other. How does Ayn Rand's Objectivism, John's philosophy, view money? What does Gospel Christianity, my dad's worldview, say about it? How do they interact, overlap, challenge one another? What are the consequences of each view in the life of the holder? There is a chapter for each of these big topics: Money, Sex, Power, Reason, Selfishness, and Capitalism. Within each one of these topics, there are subtopics that I address. I can't avoid addressing Freedom, for example, when I talk about Capitalism. The conversation drifts to Faith when in the chapter entitled "Reason." How does John, an Objectivist, view Faith? How does my dad, a Christian, view Reason? Is Capitalism incompatible with Christianity? What does the Christian say to encourage the Objectivist about rational self-interest?
Finally, in the third part entitled, "The Wrap-Up" or "Take-Aways" or something catchy (ideas?), I conclude the book with chapters nine and ten. In Chapter Nine, entitled "The Impasse, From Start to Finish," I share points of irreconcilable disagreement. There are some issues on which Objectivists and Christians need to agree to disagree. There are not, however, as many as each party might think at the outset of the conversation. That has been one of my life's profound surprises, and the moment continues.
Chapter Ten, the "So what?" answers "Where do we go from here?" I really want to know, and so does the reader. In tomorrow's blog, I will elaborate. Meanwhile, please send me some encouragement and observations. This is me being vulnerable and reaching out. Thanks in advance.

Wanted: Encouragement

2010-08-05T23:24:00.001-04:00

Debbie Downer

Lately, I've been down, and not a little stressed about my progress on The Soul of Atlas. My dad, whose own book will be published in September, laid out a time line for me this afternoon on the phone. He basically said that I need to get this done by November and published in March. Well, at least published by March so that I can get in front of the hype of the movie. Atlas Shrugged, the movie is supposed to be in the theaters sometime in June of 2011, which is a beautiful thing. And, I am very excited. It's just that I wanted to have everything done by then: written, edited, laid out, published, and distributed. And all that, before the movie premiers. Well, let's not be a Debbie Downer. Let's get moving.

What do I need to do to move forward? What are the next steps? First, let's take stock. I have written 250 pages, and they have some semblance of coherence. More than that, I actually have a lot of good material. But, it's not a book yet. What is it? It's a collection of partially-completed chapters that don't quite hang together. I may be overstating that, but I'm feeling kind of overwhelmed about it all.
Please, someone tell me I'm not going totally crazy.

Norwegian Pirate or Prince?

2010-08-04T06:59:00.002-04:00

Ragnar Danneskjöld is not, as some have said, a modern-day Robin Hood. Some have said, "Ragnar is just like Robin Hood, but he is stealing from the poor to give to the rich." I disagree. It is true that he is taking, but not from the "poor" as such. Rather, he is taking back property that has been taken by force from those who produced. In Atlas Shrugged, that property had been the property of men and women of the mind, who created wealth for their own use and survival. Ironically, their freedom, their individual right to property, was violated in the name of freedom and rights. The manifestation of Ragnar Danneskjöld's principles makes him a complex character. His inclusion in Atlas Shrugged raises questions about the use of brute force. His actions are misunderstood at best. Maligned for the wrong reasons, derided, and villainized at worst.

Rand says this through Ragnar Danneskjöld:

"I'm after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men's minds, we will not have a decent world to live in."
[Rearden:] "What man?"
"Robin Hood."
Rearden looked at him blankly, not understanding.
"He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Well, I'm the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich—or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich."

The use of force isn't justified, unless it is responding to a violation of the rights of the individual. It is the job of the government to protect the rights of the individual, and the job of the Constitution to protect the individual from the government. In Atlas Shrugged, the Constitution seems neglected. In the name of "economic justice" or an ill-defined sense of egality, the rights of some individuals (producers) have been trampled and violated in order to support those who have need.
A substantial similarity between the actions of the government and the actions of Ragnar Danneskjöld is the use of brute force. The government used brute force, not reason or persuasion through even BAD philosophy, to seize property wrongfully in the name of economic justice. This was not the natural order, arrived at through the productive capacity of the human mind. Ragnar Danneskjöld's actions exercised brute force. His motives were an attempt to restore justice, a justice that is in keeping with the natural order, arrived at through the natural order.
There continues to be disagreement and haziness in the public debate about what should be, but one thing is clear. Both parties can't be right.

In the theatrical version of Atlas Shrugged (Part 1 expected in 2011), the newspaper headlines in this picture [left] illustrate the outrage that the world experiences in response to the actions of "the pirate." (see http://www.soulofatlas.com if you're having trouble seeing the picture).

A Scene from Atlas Shrugged

2010-08-03T01:14:00.000-04:00

The scene is drinks with some of Rand's most loathsome characters: James Taggart, Orren Boyle, Wesley Mouch, Paul Larkin.

While the set in the picture looks lively and exciting, I feel like the mood in Atlas Shrugged was dour and negative. Through their conversation, we see the mindset that Rand deplores. At times, their comments seem to be relevant but wrong. At other times, they represent the precise opposite of what Rand supports and admires.

"Disunity," drawled James Taggart, "seems to be the basic cause of all social problems."

Orren Boyle: "It's my absolute opinion that in our complex industrial society, no business enterprise can succeed without sharing the burden of the problems of other enterprises."

"It's generally conceded that free economy is now on trial. Unless it proves its social value and assumes its social responsibilities, the people won't stand for it. If it doesn't develop a public spirit, it's done for, make no mistake about that."

"The only justification of private property is public service."

Speaking of Rearden metal, Boyle says, "I hear there's not a single expert who's given a favorable report on it." Of course, the ultimate arbiter of truth in the minds of these men is public opinion.

"When everybody agrees," Taggart's voice suddenly went shrill, "when people are unanimous, how does one man dare to dissent? By what right? That's what I want to know—by what right?"

While it doesn't appear until several chapters later, the "Equalization of Opportunity Bill" is foreshadowed in the discontented intentions of this scene.

The Taggart Boardroom

2010-08-02T00:59:00.000-04:00

Atlas Shrugged enthusiasts will remember that Nathaniel Taggart founded Taggart Transcontinental and set up the company's headquarters in New York. In the upcoming movie version of Atlas Shrugged (Part 1), the scene of the boardroom is portrayed with the set pictured to the left. I didn't see this particular set, but it is the scene of many hard fought battles, mostly between Dagny Taggart and her brother, Jim, and his cronies from Washington. The company's motto, "From Ocean to Ocean," signifies the ambitions of a younger Nathaniel Taggart, whose entrepreneurial mind and spirit have seemingly been lost in his progeny, with the notable exception of Dagny.
I am so looking forward to this movie.
Note: If you're not able to see this picture, click here or visit http://www.soulofatlas.com/.

More News from the Set of Atlas Shrugged

2010-07-31T10:29:00.006-04:00

Atlas Producers, on the set in the desert

For those of you who are die hard fans, eagerly awaiting the 2011 release of Atlas Shrugged the movie, and for the merely curious, here is a link to the Facebook page that contains pictures from a recent visit to the set of the movie. The scene that was being filmed on this day, in a sweltering dessert wasteland, is a conversation between Dagny (Taylor Schilling) and Hank (Grant Bowler) about building a bridge out of Rearden metal, thus defying the odds, the press, and the rest of the world.
In the picture at the right, Atlas Shrugged producers--John Aglialoro (left) and Harmon Kaslow-- approach the set of the scene. The conditions were challenging (a long day in the blistering sun, with little refuge). Everybody seemed to be working hard to get the scene just right.
I met with the producers, as well as the director, cast, and crew making the film. For more scenes from the set, visit http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=173107&id=149004482853.