Features

Emu · #1

Can someone explain her basic philosophy to me? I've never read any of her work, but I picked up Atlas Shrugged the other day at a flea market (it was 10 cents, so I said 'what the fuck' and bought it) and I remembered that a lot of people seem to get pissed when her name is mentioned. I was wondering why.

Perndog · #2

http://www.aynrand.org

Preechr · #3

Read it. It's important, though sometimes annoyingly repetitive. It's a description of a pseudo-philosophy called objectivism in the form of a novel. Given that she's trying to fully describe what she feels is wrong with this world to those that are basically the problem with it, she tries to hit each point from every possible angle, even if that means repeating the same basic point over and over again. Like a George Bush speech listened to all the way through, you'll likely start to wonder if you're being subtly brainwashed, because she repeats herself a lot.

I actually enjoyed it a lot, but that might be partly due to the fact that I went in hating the way our society works as well as most of the people in it that are collectively responsible for why my life seems so stupid some times. Even as someone that tends to agree with her, I couldn't make it all the way through the climactic diatribe by Alt-Hero John Galt, of "Who is John Galt?" fame... It was like A MILLION PAGES LONG! I couldn't finish it. I skipped to the next chapter. I've always felt bad about that.

Did I mention she repeats herself a lot?

Objectivism is... well, read the book.

While many people that post here likely were the ones that got pissed off at it, I predict you'll at least halfway enjoy it.

El Blanco · #4

So, is she repetitive?

My friend read it and liked it. He's not a Randian, but he said its at least a different way of thinking, and he agrees somewhat with it.

But he said she is repetive.

And she likes to say the same thing over and over.

She is also very redundant.

Perndog · #5

I'd like to add that insofar as her novels are a face for her philosophy, she can indeed be repetitive. Like Preechr said, she tries to hit every point from every different direction, so while she never repeats herself *exactly,* the same ideas do get covered over and over and over.

But I really enjoyed the novels themselves, especially The Fountainhead.

El Blanco · #6

Quote:

I'd like to add that insofar as her novels are a face for her philosophy, she can indeed be repetitive.

Ya, but most authors who are trying to get across some message do the same.

FartinMowler · #7

I know none of you will believe me but she is my favorite author :/ I started reading her books when I found out that the drummer from the band Rush like her. If I had to describe what her book's are about I would have to say there a discription of humanity.

Sethomas · #8

I have a particular distrust of literature created to make people feel good about being assholes. :/

Emu · #9

That's what I thought.

Perndog · #10

At least the antagonists are assholes, too.

Helm · #11

Rand doesn't infuriate me but I can't say I agree on a lot of things with her. But do read the book, it's interesting.

Sethomas · #12

Another thing that amuses me about the "Objectivist Club" (funny in itself) here is that they're staunchly atheist yet believe in free will, two ideas which technically should be mutually exclusive.

Preechr · #13

You can be an atheist and deterministic. How are they mutually exclusive? It seems that would be more logical... Who's deciding your fate if there's no God?

Sethomas · #14

Re-read my post?

FartinMowler · #15

I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

sadie · #16

living in the limelight.

mburbank · #17

"I have a particular distrust of literature created to make people feel good about being assholes."

BINGO!

This book is a pillar in the fine tradition of books which are lengthy valentines to their author. Here's what I think the book is about.

"I'm Ayn Rand, and I'm totally wonderful. My barbaric behavior towards you is proof of my wonderfullness and you should love me for it. No, not love, worship in recognition that I'm more vital than you. My selfishness and self obesession? Just proof of how really big my wonderfullness is. I can do anything I want and I never, never need to feel the least bit bad about any of it because life is my orgasm and the fact that I'm incapable of knowing anyone exists in the same way I do let alone caring about what they think or how they feel is just proof that no one exists in the same way I do. I'm not amoral, I'm perfect. And as you read this you can feel really good about all the shit you've pulled because as long as you don't think you're as perfect as me, and recognize my uber perfection, I'm happy to support the idea that your shitty behavior and self obsession is proof you're pretty perfect too. Now crouch down and be my footstool, and if you could acknowledge that my insisting you be my footstool is proof of my perfection, that would be good."

She's also a terrible, terrible, terrible, dilaogue writer, and my suspicion is she wrote her 'philosiphy' in the form of a novel because she sucked egss at expository writing as well.

Stabby · #18

Which is why it's no wonder that she's also the author that all those over-zealous Libertarians love.

Perndog · #19

Max, the only part of your post I'll pick on is the "be my footstool" bit, because I am under the impression that Rand's heroes don't dominate or subjugate anyone. They're just callous.

FartinMowler · #20

Quote:

She's also a terrible, terrible, terrible, dilaogue writer, and my suspicion is she wrote her 'philosiphy' in the form of a novel because she sucked egss at expository writing as well.

I think your a little bit hard on a woman that wrote something that was really advanced thinking for that time :/

Quote:

Another thing that amuses me about the "Objectivist Club" (funny in itself) here is that they're staunchly atheist yet believe in free will, two ideas which technically should be mutually exclusive.

HUh?

Sethomas · #21

To be atheist is to posit that nothing exists beyond the material, so therefore the mind is material and thus consciousness is deterministic.

FartinMowler · #22

I think your making up your own definition :/

Bass · #23

Yeah, atheists just don't believe in a higher power. However, according to your definition, they wouldn't believe in love, anger, or any other emotion which is just not true. I would consider free will to be more associated with human emotion than something like god, so it wouldn't be contadictory for atheists to believe in free will... in fact, atheists would be more inclined to believe in free will since they don't have 'fate' to blame.