| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 3104.1 | Oh, Who is John Galt ? | PEAKS::LILAK | Who IS John Galt ? | Tue May 24 1994 17:11 | 10 |
|
Your friend wasn't reading 'Atlas Shrugged' before turning in,
was he ?
Don't look now... its already happening......
Publius
|
| 3104.2 | be carefull | ICS::BEAN | Attila the Hun was a LIBERAL! | Tue May 24 1994 21:41 | 4 |
| don't spread the fact of your friends worth to Digital too far and
wide... he'll probably get TFSO'd.
t.
|
| 3104.3 | I'll bite | ANGLIN::ROGERS | Sometimes you just gotta play hurt | Wed May 25 1994 15:19 | 7 |
| re: .1
Hey, Publius --
OK, who IS John Galt?
|
| 3104.4 | been about 15 years since I read it, but ... | NACAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Wed May 25 1994 15:52 | 15 |
| re: .3
From what I remember ... In "Atlas Shrugged" John Galt was a brilliant
engineer that developed a new form of engine. He walked out after
observing dominating management incompetence in his company. In the
book, the phrase "Who is John Galt?" became a symbolic phrase. If I
understood correctly, it meant that management is basically going to
mess things up and that the individual has no influence.
Meanwhile, John Galt and other brilliant folks left and created a new
society full of innovation, creative freedom and prosperity that was
protected from the failures of a society that promoted mediocrity and
ultimately failed.
Steve
|
| 3104.5 | | KLAP::porter | zen and the art of cliche | Wed May 25 1994 16:39 | 1 |
| Oh, you mean like "where are the Snowdons of yesteryear?".
|
| 3104.6 | powerless only if you accept the altruist's code | PEAKS::LILAK | Who IS John Galt ? | Wed May 25 1994 17:05 | 23 |
| Re: .4
A good summary of the idea.
But I would like to elaborate and point out that the individuals
were only helpless to stand by while 'management' screwed things
up as long as they accepted the 'code' that their 'duty' was to
prop up the less able. Once they realized the fallacy of that, they
were free.
The ideas in the book , and all the other writings of Ayn Rand
and others are discussed, with their modern implications in the
notes file ELRIC::OBJECTIVISM.
That conference has been dormant for some time because the best and
brightest contributors, some of the best minds DEC ever had, no longer
work for the company.
Publius
P.S: I can post an excerpt of one of the better passages in the book if
there is interest.
|
| 3104.7 | | NACAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Wed May 25 1994 18:21 | 5 |
| re: .6
Yeah, that sound right. Thanks!
Steve
|
| 3104.8 | | WRKSYS::SEILER | Larry Seiler | Sat May 28 1994 15:22 | 16 |
| Yes, by all means post an excerpt from "Atlas Shrugged" -- it's got a
lot of interesting stuff in it. However, there were (in my view)
numerous down sides to the utopia that the best and brightest set up.
I personally would never choose to live in a society where it is
considered immoral to loan your car to a friend -- in the book the
friend who borrows the car (in Ayn Rand's utopia) pays for borrowing
it, since it is wrong to ever expect anything for free. Or something
like that -- as you can tell, it didn't make a lot of sense to me.
I don't mean to engage in a debate on objectivism, I just wish to point
out that there is more to the book (and objectivism) than simply freedom
from domination by incompetents. There are a lot of interesting things
in that book.
Enjoy,
Larry
|
| 3104.9 | | SWAM2::ROGERS_DA | feeling _so_ SCSI | Sat May 28 1994 22:15 | 9 |
| re: .8
it hasn't been that long since i read it, and i think you missed the
point. It wasn't immoral to _loan_ the car, it was immoral to put
one's neighbor in a position of being beholden. Payment could be
negotiated to be anything of value - as perceived by the two parties
involved, e.g. an exchange of "loans".
[dale]
|
| 3104.10 | definitely a rat hole | LGP30::FLEISCHER | without vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&T) | Sun May 29 1994 09:41 | 14 |
| re Note 3104.9 by SWAM2::ROGERS_DA:
> It wasn't immoral to _loan_ the car, it was immoral to put
> one's neighbor in a position of being beholden. Payment could be
> negotiated to be anything of value - as perceived by the two parties
> involved, e.g. an exchange of "loans".
This seems so in contrast to how so much of business gets
done: I do something for you, then you "owe me one", and
then *later* you do something for me.
(Haven't read the book.)
Bob
|