La Rebelión de Atlas (la película)

13 pensamientos en “La Rebelión de Atlas (la película)

  1. Leí un poco más de 3/4 partes del libro pero lo tuve que dejar porque eran todas pálidas. Era una mala noticia tras otra. Pero la idea central de la novela me pareció muy interesante.

    Nota aparte: Francisco Danconia debería ser interpretado por Ricardo Fort.

    Un saludo!

    Me gusta

  2. Yo no leí el libro y no creo que lo haga dado que no acostumbro leer largas novelas. Pero pienso que la película es una buena noticia. Muchos teóricos de la EA se han acercado a la tradición gracias a Ayn Rand. Richard Ebeling es un ejemplo.
    Pienso que la defensa del capitalismo y del empresario quedarán bien representados en la película. Ya veremos!

    Me gusta

  3. R. Ebeling cuenta su experiencia:

    “Por casualidad me encontré con dos personas que me introdujeron en los escritos de Ayn Rand. Primero leí sus libros: The Virtue of Selfishness [La virtud del egoísmo] y Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal [Capitalismo: el ideal desconocido], que no son sus novelas de ficción. Me ofreció una visión radicalmente diferente del hombre, la sociedad y el Estado, presentándome una comprensión filosófica y moral y una defensa del individuo y sus derechos a la vida, la libertad y la propiedad. Aquí había una concepción del hombre que, al mismo tiempo, se basaba en la realidad y la ética.

    Pronto leí sus novelas, The Fountainhead [El manantial] y Atlas Shrugged [La rebelión de Atlas], donde se presenta toda su filosofía del hombre y de la vida. Yo vivía en Hollywood, California, en ese momento. Me enteré que se ofrecía un programa de conferencias grabadas sobre la filosofía de Rand del Objetivismo no muy lejos de mi casa, al que empecé a asistir regularmente.

    Los organizadores de las conferencias grabadas vendían ejemplares de libros de autores que fueron recomendados por Ayn Rand, trabajos que eran considerados consistentes y / o complementarios a las ideas en sus propios escritos. Entre ellos estaban Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Frederic Bastiat, William Graham Sumner, Herbert Spencer, e Isabel Patterson.”

    Me gusta

  4. Estoy terminando la novela (Atlas) y he leído varios de sus ensayos más filosóficos, tales como los que están contenidos en ‘The virtue of selfishness’.
    Tal como Adrián, ceo que es una buena noticia que se haya hecho la película (en realidad, si todo sale bien, van a ser tres partes). No obstante, me parece que muchos de los seguidores de Rand, por no decir ella misma, tienden rápida e irreflexivamente a la grandilocuencia. Cito como ejemplo el documental posteado: “AS desafía 2000 años de filosofía”. Soy el primero en afirmar que la obra de Rand contiene muy interesantes intuiciones, mas la etiqueta de “sistema filosófico acabado” le queda muy grande y la filosofía randiana -si existe tal cosa- es por demás de cuestionable.
    En definitiva, vale tomar lo válido pero sin hacer una transfiguración incorrecta de los aportes randianos.

    Me gusta

  5. Hola Amigos:
    Definitivamente, luego de esperarla por veinteicinco años, creo que finalmente es una buena noticia que se haya hecho la película. Sólo pude ver algunas partecitas subidas a youtube. Al principio no me gustó mucho, pues hubiese preferido que la hubieran ambientado en los ’50, donde transcurre la historia, y no en la actualidad, con trenes aerodinámicos y rascacielos de vidrio. Luego me explicaron que por una razón presupuestaria no se la pudo ambientar en su época. Cuesta muy cara la ambientación y la película tuvo un presupuesto bajo, de hecho no hay ningún actor demasiado conocido.
    Todavía son algo escéptico respecto de que se pueda transmitir la idea de la novela en la película (en las tres partes que se harán aparentemente). ¿cómo sintetizar el discurso de John Galt en 15 minutos?).
    Eso sin entrar a discutir sobre la cuestionabilidad o incuestionabilidad de la filosofía randiana. Es evidente que Rand no era una filósofa en los términos en que pueden serlo Federico o Gabriel. Tampoco Bastiat era un economista en los términos en que lo fueron Mises o Hayek, o Kirzner, y sin embargo hizo un aporte esencial al pensamiento económico.
    Basta con ver la manera en que la forma de presentar argumentos éticos en defensa del capitalismo tuvo influencia en muchísima gente. A mi Rand me cambió la vida cuando la leí a los 20 años de un modo en que no pudo hacerlo ni Mises ni Hayek. Y “cambiar la vida” no significa que me formó intelectualmente, sino que me dio muchas cosas en qué pernsar en términos de valores fundamentales. Por supuesto nunca se me ocurrió que el pensamiento filosófico comenzara y terminara con Rand, y en eso Federico tiene razón.
    Hay que diferenciar las ideas de Rand de algunos “randianos”, e incluso de la misma Rand. Tal vez por la forma radical en que presentaba sus argumentos, haya debido padecer más ataques personales que cualquier otro pensador liberal.
    Incluso entre las personas en las que influyó, es muy interesante ver a Rothbard. Les sugiero que busquen en la página del Mises Institute la carta que Rothbard le envió a Ayn Rand luego de la publicación de Atlas Shrugged. Si no la encuentran, yo la busco y se las envío. Demuestra, no sólo la admiración que Rothbard sintió por ella, sino los problemas profundos de personalidad que Rothbard padecía. Años más tarde, cuando se peleó con Rand (o más bien ella lo echó porque algo de lo que dijo le cayó mal), Rothbard escribió como una amante despechada el artículo que los detractores de Rand hacen circular habitualmente.
    Créanme, no lo digo por ustedes, pero como a mí me asocian frecuentemente con las ideas de Rand, debo padecer constantemente que se la ataque por su personalidad, por su soberbia, etc., de parte de gente que no leyó más que dos páginas de algún artículo que ella escribió.
    Por eso, quizá podamos alguna vez discutir las ideas, en qué contribuyen, qué parte son aceptables y qué parte no, y cómo sintetizarlas con otras corrientes del pensamiento liberal, para obtener un producto más robusto. Eso difícilmente se pueda hacer con sus discípulos, pero sí lo podemos hacer nosotros. Y dejar de lado los problemas de personalidad, soberbia, grandilocuencia, en lo que, ciertamente, tanto ella como sus principales discípulos, han contribuido a alimentar.
    Saludos,
    Ricardo.

    Me gusta

    • Ricardo, qué alegría encontrarte por aquí! Pocas personas de Arg, o quizás ninguna, conozcan como vos las ideas de AR.
      En la línea de lo que decías, creo que la mayor virtud de Rand también se vuelve su mayor debilidad. Me dá la impresión que muchas personas que la leen sufren, usando una expresión de Rafael Beltramino- un efecto “epifanía” y eso las lleva a absolutizar las contribuciones randianas. Va de suyo, por otro lado, que dicho efecto se debe a la lucidez para captar ciertos fenómenos que hay en Rand. Creo que “La rebelión de Atlas”, por caso, debería servir de puerto de partida, no de puerto de llegada… como cualquier otra obra de cualquier autor, ya sea un filósofo, científico, novelista o ensayista.
      Finalmente, comparto tu llamado a la síntesis y a la búsqueda de puntos en común (y, por si hace falta, aclaro que mis comentarios de más arriba no eran de tono “belicoso” y en ellos también destaqué que aspectos por demás interesantes en el pensamiento de AR).
      Un abrazo!

      Me gusta

  6. Copio la carta que Mises le escribió a Ayn Rand en 1958

    January 23, 1958
    Mrs. Ayn Rand
    36 East 36 Street
    New York, N.Y.

    Dear Mrs. Rand:
    I AM NOT A professional critic and I feel no call to judge the merits of a novel. So I do not want to detain you with the information that I enjoyed very much reading Atlas Shrugged and that I am full of admiration for your masterful construction of the plot.
    But “Atlas Shrugged” is not merely a novel. It is also—or may I say: first of all—a cogent analysis of the evils that plague our society, a substantiated rejection of the ideology of our self-styled “intellectuals” and a pitiless unmasking of the insincerity of the policies adopted by governments and political parties. It is a devastating exposure of the “moral cannibals,” the “gigolos of science” and of
    the “academic prattle” of the makers of the “anti-industrial revolution.”
    You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.
    If this be arrogance, as some of your critics observed, it still is the truth that had to be said in this age of the Welfare State. I warmly congratulate you and I am looking forward with great expectations to your future work.

    Sincerely,
    Ludwig Mises

    Me gusta

  7. Copio también la carta de Murray Rothbard a Ayn Rand

    October 3, 1957
    Mrs. Ayn Rand O’Connor
    36 East 36th St.
    New York 16, N.Y.

    Dear Ayn:
    FIRST, I WOULD LIKE to begin by saying “and I mean it”; there is no exaggeration or hyperbole in this letter. Anything less than complete honesty would be unworthy of Atlas Shrugged.
    I just finished your novel today. I will start by saying that all of us in the “Circle Bastiat” are convinced, and were convinced very early in the reading, that Atlas Shrugged is the greatest novel ever written. This is our generally accepted initial premise, and the discussions over the book have naturally been based upon it. But this is just the beginning. This simple statement by itself means little to me:
    I have always had a bit of contempt for the novel form, and have thought of the novel, at best, as a useful sugar-coated pill to carry on agit-prop work amongst the masses who can’t take ideas straight. A month ago, if I had said a book was “the greatest novel ever written,” it wouldn’t have been too high a compliment.
    It is one of the small measures of what I think of Atlas Shrugged that I no longer pooh-pooh the novel. I have always heard my literary friends talk of the “truths” presented by novels, without understanding the term at all. Now I do understand, but only because you have carried the novel form to a new and higher dimension. For the first time you have welded a great unity of principle and person, depicting persons and their actions in perfect accordance with principles and their consequences. This in itself is a tremendous achievement.
    For with the unity of principle and person there emerges the corollary unity of reason and emotion: and the reader, in grasping your philosophic system both in speech and through acting persons, is hit by the great emotion of an immediate and rational perception.
    As I read your novel, the joy I felt was sometimes tempered by the regret that all those generations of novel-readers, people like my mother who in their youth read Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, searching
    eagerly for they knew not what truths which they never quite found, that these people could not read Atlas Shrugged. Here, I thought, were the truths they were really looking for. Here, in Atlas Shrugged, is the perfection of the novel form. It is now a form that I honor and admire.
    But the truly staggering thing about your novel is the vast and completely integrated edifice, of thought and of action: the astounding infinity of rational connections that abound, great and small,
    throughout this novel. Joey says she used to wonder how a novel could take you over ten years to write; she now wonders how you possibly could have written all that in a mere ten years. Every page, almost every word, has its meaning and function. I am sure that I have only scratched the surface of tracing all the interconnections, and a good part of my conversation consists of saying; and what of page so-and-so: do you see how that fits in? I recall now just a line, I believe it was in an early speech of Francisco, where the following nouns appear: reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. To some this [might] seem to be a random string of nouns, but I saw
    immediately that one follows from the other in strict logical progression, that each leads to the succeeding. This is just one example of the almost infinite treasurehouse that is Atlas Shrugged.
    To find one person that has carved out a completely integrated rational ethic, rational epistemology, rational psychology, and rational politics, all integrated one with the other, and then to find each with the other portrayed through characters in action, is a doubly staggering event. And I am surprised that it astonishes even I who was familiar with the general outlines of your system. What it
    will do the person stumbling upon it anew I cannot imagine. For you have achieved not only the unity of principle and person, and of reason and passion, but also the unity of mind and body, matter and spirit, sex and politics . . . in short, to use the old Marxist phrase, “the unity of theory and practice.”
    This is the sort of book where one is apt to find a phrase or concept and exclaim: oh, no leftist could say such nonsense, and then go out and find the same nonsense being spouted all around you. It is almost impossible, after reading Atlas Shrugged, to take the usual leftist arguments seriously. At first I admit I missed the presence of a great, super-Toohey villain, a Dr. Fu Manchu of evil, but then I came to realize that this is one of the key points in the book. And then, when I tried to tell a couple of leftist acquaintances something about your system, all they could do was curl their ugly lips and sneer about a “paranoid closed system.” These are the “intellectuals” of our day!
    I now come to the painful part of this letter. For standing as I do in awe and wonder at the glory and magnitude of your achievement, knowing from early in the novel that I would have to write you and express in full how much I and the world owe to you, I also know that I owe you an explanation: an explanation of why I have avoided seeing you in person for the many years of our acquaintance. I want you to know that the fault is mine, that the reason is a defect in my own psyche and not a defect that I attribute to you. The fact is that most times when I saw you in person, particularly when we engaged in lengthy discussion or argument, that I found afterwards that I was greatly depressed for days thereafter. Why I should be so depressed I do not know. All my adult life I have been plagued with a “phobic state” (of which my travel phobia is only the most overt manifestation), i.e. with frightening emotions which I could neither control nor rationally explain. I have found that unfortunately the only way I could successfully combat this painful emotion is by sidestepping the situations which seemed to evoke it—knowing that this is an evasion,
    but also knowing no better way. So in this situation. I have never felt depressed in such a way after seeing anyone else, so I concluded that the best I could do is avoid the reaction by not going to
    see you. I had naturally been too ashamed to say anything about this to you. Strangely, I don’t feel ashamed now; it is as if when writing to the author of Atlas Shrugged, that book which conveys with such immediate impact the pride and joy in being a man, that it is impossible to feel shame for telling the truth.
    In trying my best to figure out why I should have been so depressed, I can only think of one or both of the following explanations: (1) that my brain became completely exhausted under the
    intense strain of keeping up with a mind that I unhesitatingly say is the most brilliant of the twentieth century; or (2) that I felt that if I continued to see you, my personality and independence would become overwhelmed by the tremendous power of your own. If the
    latter, then the defect is, of course, again mine and not yours. At any rate, I have come to regard you as like the sun, a being of enormous power giving off great light, but that someone coming too close would be likely to get burned.
    At any rate, I want you to know that, even without seeing you, you have had an enormous influence upon me—even before the novel came out. When I first became interested in ideas, my first principle that I had from the start was a burning love of human freedom, and a hatred for aggressive violence of man upon man. I always liked economics, and was inclined to theory, but found in my graduate economics courses that I felt all the theories offered were dead wrong, but I could not say why. Mises’s Human Action was the next great influence upon me, because I found in it a great rational system of economics, each interconnected logically, each following, as in Aristotelian philosophy, from a basic and certain axiom: the existence of human beings. When I first met you, many years ago, I was a follower of Mises, but unhappy about his antipathy to natural rights, which I “felt” was true but could not demonstrate. You introduced me to the whole field of natural rights and natural law philosophy, which I did not know existed, and month by month, working on my own as I preferred, I learned and studied the glorious natural rights tradition. I also learned from you about the existence of Aristotelian epistemology, and then I studied that, and came to adopt it wholeheartedly. So that I owe you a great intellectual debt for many years, the least of which is introducing me to a tradition of which four years of college and three years of graduate school, to say nothing of other reading, had kept me in ignorance.
    And now I find, and marvel at in wonder and awe and joy, that I have become a better person just in reading Atlas Shrugged. It is still incredible to me that a person’s character can improve from reading a work of art, but there it is. I have checked and found many friends who have read it have felt the same way. I think that reading it will bring to the attentive reader, as it has brought me, at least a little more of the conviction of pride in being a man, of joy in unlimited roads of achievement open before him, of the feeling that pain does not matter, of the happiness of being alive on earth, and even of the feeling that reason and justice will ultimately prevail. He will walk a little straighter, hold his head a little higher, and be far more honest (one of the greatest accomplishments of the book is its rational and emotional demonstration that honesty is a profoundly selfish and necessary virtue—and not just a luxury for suckers. Magnificent!).
    The chief defect in this book—and I am quite serious—is that it lacks an index. My chief emotion in reading this book was beautifully summed up in an emotion that Dr. Stadler felt when he first came across Galt’s manuscript: torn between eagerness to proceed onward, and the eagerness to look back and think about and digest the many ramifications of what I had read. With a novel, this is even
    more troublesome, since the pull of reading onward is more irresistible.
    This book cries for a fully annotated index, so that when one wants to refer quickly to passages on certain subjects, or to a particularly moving speech or phrase, one could find it without delay. I
    know that no novel has had an index before, but none has ever required it before, and this does. Perhaps you could be persuaded to come out with a “textbook” edition, complete with index.
    Please let me know if there is anything I can do to promote the sale of the novel. I will do anything I can: from writing letters to the editor to pasting stickers up on street corners. I am enclosing a copy of the letter I am now sending to the New Leader, in comment on the disgraceful and disgusting column of Granville Hicks, an “ex”-Communist, about your book. (When I said your book will improve the reader, I don’t mean the convinced leftists: I shudder what the book will do to their psyche, if they really read it.) I understand, glory be!, that John Chamberlain will review it for the Sunday Herald-Tribune— and, confidentially, there is a growing possibility that John may also review it for National Review, if Whittaker Chambers does not send a review in on time.
    Only twice in my life have I felt honored and happy that I was young and alive at the specific date of the publication of a book: first, of Human Action in 1949, and now with Atlas Shrugged. When, in the past, I heard your disciples refer to you in grandiloquent terms—as one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived, as giving them a “round universe”—I confess I was repelled: surely this was the outpouring of a mystic cult. But now, upon reading Atlas Shrugged, I find I was wrong. This was not wild exaggeration but the perception of truth.
    You are one of the great geniuses of the ages, and I am proud that we are friends. And Atlas Shrugged is not merely the greatest novel ever written, it is one of the very greatest books ever written, fiction or nonfiction. Indeed, it is one of the greatest achievements the human mind has ever produced. And I mean it. If Zarathustra should ever return to earth, and ask me—as representative of the human race— that unforgettable question: “what have ye done to surpass man?”, I shall point to Atlas Shrugged.
    Gratefully yours,
    Murray

    Me gusta

  8. Coincido que en la medida que la película contribuya a difundir los problemas del intervencionismo y a “abrir mentes,” bienvenida sea la película. Como menciona Ricardo, Bastiat (y agregaría Hazzlit) han tenido (y siguen teniendo) un impacto profundo en las ideas a pesar de no haber sido economistas profesionales o académicos. Posiblemente sus textos contribuyan más al crecimiento y desarrollo económico que el de economistas profesionales que son de calidad técnica pero no es parte de su contenido la discusión de ideas.

    Espero que el estreno sea un éxito y que se completen las tres partes sin inconvenientes.

    Me gusta

  9. Coincido con Federico y con Nicolàs. Por ello quizà es que Rand ha tenido fundamental impacto en gente comùn, no acadèmicos y fundamentalmente en jòvenes.
    Por eso se hace una pelìtcula sobre un libro de Rand que tiene esta repercusiòn mundial, y no sobre un libro de Popper o Mises.
    A partir de allì, algunos se quedan con ese conjunto de ideas, otros se dedican a la academia y avanzan, encuentran coincidencias y disidencias, descubren otros autores que dan explicaciones alternativas quizà mejores, etc. Es asì como avanza la ciencia.
    Seguro, Federico, que entiendo el caràcter de tu crìtica. Por es me parece que los objetivistas deberìan bajar el nivel de la agresividad a todo lo que no sea Ayn Rand, para que todos podamos crecer.
    Sldos a todos.

    Ricardo.

    Me gusta

Los comentarios están cerrados.