SOOOFT AND SWEEEEEET

maybe because objectivism is a crock of shit?

Go away

Because she's a bad writer with bad ideas, and she honestly thought that she was a good writer with good ideas. Which is just terrible.

I'm not a philosophy nerd/expert, but I assume that most guys around here consider Rand to be the Stephenie Meyer of philosophy.

Leave. Us. Alone.

>>776174
Sorry, not even trolling =/

>>776177
Still worth reading?

>>776169
dat aeroplane

I don't think she's universally disliked on /lit/. I just think most people know that objectivism is an illogical, narrow-minded, stubborn philosophy.
And her books are mind-numbingly long without a whole lot of a substance.

I remember Rand actually came up in passing during my Psychology class one semester. My professor said that the only people that actually read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead are egocentric people that want to succeed in business.

So basically rappers.

>>776169
Fuck off. Ayn Rand is shit and so are you for making this.

>>776196
Rappers and republicans.
And republican rappers. Yeah, man, I know a few of those.

>>776169


4chan is full of 15-22 year old statists, with no understanding of economics and they all hate themselves, so anyone that writes about capitalism and putting yourself before others is set aside as bullshit.

case in point:
>>776177
>>776174
>>776200
>>776198
>>776196


No, I am not a statist.
No, I am not an objectivist.
No, I don't agree with most of what Ayn Rand has to say.

Just answering the OPs question as best I can.

>>776177
This.

Also....
IIIIIIIIII LOOOOOOOOOOVEEEE YOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUU JEEEEEEEEEEEESUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUS CHRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIST

>>776207
Putting yourself before others isn't bullshit. ONLY putting yourself before others and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is bullshit. The world would be a better place if we all looked out for number one, but threw our fellow man a bone once in a while.
Objectivism and altruism are both bullshit.

>>776216

>Putting yourself before others isn't bullshit
Yes it is.

>>776216

>Putting yourself before others isn't bullshit.

agreed

>ONLY putting yourself before others and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is bullshit.

straw man

>The world would be a better place if we all looked out for number one, but threw our fellow man a bone once in a while.

not sure where you are with this, i'm guessing you're using this as a justification for the welfare
state.


>Objectivism and altruism are both bullshit.

agreed

>>776227
>straw man
It's not a straw man, it's common sense. People need help sometimes. It's a fact of life. Why ignore people who need help? It's stupid and it goes against human nature.

>not sure where you are with this, i'm guessing you're using this as a justification for the welfare
state.
I'm not, really. If the successful helped themselves, they could do great things, and if they helped others become successful, they could also do great things.

But I'm glad we can agree on the bullet points.

>>776226
lol kay whatevz. When's the last time you donated to a charity, just out of curiosity?

>>776235

Every month.

>>776234

>ONLY putting yourself before others and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is bullshit.

Alright seems I misinterpreted what you are saying here in light of:

>People need help sometimes. It's a fact of life. Why ignore people who need help? It's stupid and it goes against human nature.

So i'm gonna go ahead and direct you to this video "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwTDKt_k9kQ"

and add, I think we have a miscommunication here, I am not saying humans shouldn't help other humans I understand that we are social creatures and sometimes rely on each other.

>>776240
Aw, what a saint you are.
But if you can afford to donate to charity every month and still pay your necessary expenses, you're probably pretty successful. So you did put yourself as a priority, along with others. Which rejects altruism and objectivism. Which is a position I was defending.
Do we agree, or did I misunderstand you?

Rand failed to understand that the world's political ideas were results and not causes, marxism was not a cause of communism it was a RESULT off oppressing the workers and basically using them as barely paid slave labor. The laissez faire free market is a failure because people act irrationally and interrupt one another's pursuit of wealth/happiness/whatever. The societal system in place is constantly evolving.

Rand believes in ownership through survival. That if the world's elite could seize the supply of food/water/property and withhold it from others it would be virtuous. She fails to understand that ownership is a very dangerous thing (inb4 hurr durr socialist). Obviously property will always exist, but the system in place is meant to sustain a peaceful balance without revolution or revolt. Many people realize this, and hence social democracy coming to rise or the socialist control of people's needs and capitalistic control of goods and services.

/rant

>>776245
I really don't have an opinion regarding welfare, bro. If we cut it, I guess it encourages those who are on it to get jobs, and we should still help them through that.

>humans are social creatures and sometimes rely on each other
Right, but we naturally look out for our own survival first. There's gotta be a balance.

>>776246

>But if you can afford to donate to charity every month and still pay your necessary expenses, you're probably pretty successful.

Fallacy.

>>776258
Granted.
But if I may ask, ARE you successful?

>>776254

Our survival is linked to the survival of others. Altruism is actually rooted in selfishness.

In the words of Chandran Kukathas: "Her unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism, and her attempts to resolve the difficulty are ill-thought out and unsystematic."

>>776262

I make $12.50 an hour.

>>776266

In other words, her writing was fueled by butthurt rage because her father was a failure.

>>776254

>I really don't have an opinion regarding welfare, bro. If we cut it, I guess it encourages those who are on it to get jobs, and we should still help them through that.
>and we should still help them through that.

I'm assuming by "we" here you mean the state to which I will respond with "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yllGnH3h8Hg"
>Right, but we naturally look out for our own survival first. There's gotta be a balance.

Really not sure where you are going with this, I'm going to guess its another justification for the state, could you clear this up a bit by saying what you think the state would do to accomplish this balance, and then I can respond more clearly.

>>776265
>Altruism is rooted in selfishness.
I've heard this claim made before. But at any rate, you're still helping others; you're still helping yourself.

>>776271
It's impossible for the state to reach a balance. People need to reach a balance of compassion and selfishness. Do what you can to make a salary, donate a small amount of salary to those who need it, maybe. It's all really a personal choice when it gets down to the people.

>>776207

I'm a statist because I think Ayn Rand is full of shit? I didn't know that "statist" meant "logical."

>>776271
I really hate when people believe that the person defending society are believed to be defending the society as it is, obviously it isn't perfect or even on the right side of the spectrum. There is a fundamental need for a state though and just because the current state is not very efficient does not mean every state is.

>>776276
you can be logical at times, but the individual tends to constantly do very illogical things.

Oh God, now you nerds are taking this thread seriously?

They see me saging.

>>776283
We're having a discussion you son of a bitch

>>776226
>>776207
to be a functioning adult you need to be both individualistic and communal in your attitude. for society to function as a whole it needs to be both individualistic and communal.

>>776275

>It's impossible for the state to reach a balance

I'm not really sure with this "balance" is at this point it seems as if the balance would be how much people are taxed as a %?

>People need to reach a balance of compassion and selfishness

This is getting really confusing, so people "need" to reach a balance of compassion and selfishness... alright... this sounds like a preferential claim, don't see how it has much to do with whats being discussed, I think this statement is coming from a misunderstanding of economics, if people need help... and people want to help them, a private charity or something along those lines will emerge if it isn't already present and they will be helped.

>Do what you can to make a salary, donate a small amount of salary to those who need it, maybe. It's all really a personal choice when it gets down to the people.

This sounds like another preferential claim again I don't see its relevance.

>>776275
totally agree. i posted wordier sentiments (>>776295)

>>776296
>and people want to help them, a private charity or something along those lines will emerge if it isn't already present and they will be helped.
That's what I was trying to say, bro. The state can't properly emphasize the individual and the community, people need to do it themselves, most likely by donating to private charity. Why do you keep coming back to taxation? I fail to see what relevance that has to this discussion or my claims.

>>776295
This is precisely what I was trying to say in simplest terms.

>>776276

>I'm a statist because I think Ayn Rand is full of shit? I didn't know that "statist" meant "logical."

straw man.

>>776277

>I really hate when people believe that the person defending society are believed to be defending the society as it is, obviously it isn't perfect or even on the right side of the spectrum.

I don't.

>There is a fundamental need for a state though and just because the current state is not very efficient does not mean every state is.

What is this "fundamental need" for the state?

SEMEN STAINS THE JEEEZZAAUSSS CHRRAAIISSST

>>776305
>straw man.
lol dude he's not even debating

>>776308

>lol dude he's not even debating

I didn't confuse him for you if thats what you're getting at with this post, I just decided to reply to others while waiting for your response.

>>776295
>>776302

>to be a functioning adult you need to be both individualistic and communal in your attitude. for society to function as a whole it needs to be both individualistic and communal.

If this is true (im not saying its not) I don't think you need a state to accomplish this... if thats what you're getting at.

I'm going to leave you with this book recommendation "For a New Liberty - Murray N. Rothbard" (http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp this is it on audio and pdf.)

>>776324
I agree... you DON'T need a state to accomplish this. I don't think anyone is here to make that claim.

>>776305
Look, you can state that the free market would solve all of our problems, but it wouldn't. The state exists to keep up a balance of justice and liberty. Without a state there is little justice and too much liberty, with a state that is too stern there is not enough liberty. It isn't hard logic to follow and it is a common enough understanding that nearly every country has a state in place. If you crave no state, move to somalia.

I don't really disagree with her economic philosophy, but her books are really shitty

>>776333
totally agree.

ITT: people who haven't studied or don't understand history debating politics.

picture related.

>>776333

>Look, you can state that the free market would solve all of our problems, but it wouldn't.

"all of our problems" This is some very sticky language you've got here


>The state exists to keep up a balance of justice and liberty.

I can't possibly sit here and explain to you why this is wrong but I CAN suggest to you some books that WILL.

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24715527/For-an-Emergent-Governance

>Without a state there is little justice and too much liberty

too much liberty, I am almost going to cry.

>with a state that is too stern there is not enough liberty. It isn't hard logic to follow and it is a common enough understanding that nearly every country has a state in place.

I don't know what to say to you here besides to direct you to above books

>If you crave no state, move to somalia.

This proves to me you have very little understanding of whats happening in somalia and have little interest in debate.

>>776352
See you don't comprehend that actions such as the BP oil spill effect others besides BP. Without a state the fisherman go poor, they revolt against companies such as BP and use violence, the state exists to maintain peace among citizens and promote justice. I'm not saying this is necessarily happening now. Is too much liberty the liberty to have the power to exterminate 6 million people from the earth? See it works both ways. Things have evolved for a reason. Workers aren't getting paid fairly? They strike and voila, communism. The elite control society's needs? voila, socialism, it isn't that simple but that is the jist of it. Laissez fair doesn't work, it had its chance and failed and it will never get another. Evolution applies to more than just biology.

>>776367
> effect

your argument is invalid
gtfo /lit/

>>776372
O RLY?

>>776367

Really hate to sound like an asshole here, but you have a very small grasp on what you are talking about here, please... read a book, the one in the picture will help you with some of what you are saying here... but there is simply too much to deal with for one person in your post, please read the books posted above as well.

>>776385
if you've read such a great book why are you doing such a bad job of convincing me?

>>776385
I comprehend that things such as the oil spill are bad for business and ultimately bad for the company. If a company continues to do things like that it will fail, but that doesn't change the fact that it is affecting people now. Therefore, the state exists to protect those people. The state as it stands is in the corporations pocket. It isn't hard logic to follow.

>>776367
Also, let's keep in mind we are talking about ideals such as total freedom, equality, and justice. These things are great, we all want these things for each other, so we may all live a better life. Society and a state can provide a balance, at least that is the general consensus and the ideal society promotes all three. It is a constant power struggle, no society as of yet is perfect and there probably will never be one.

>>776401

>if you've read such a great book why are you doing such a bad job of convincing me?

Sigh, If you are interested in educating yourself you can pick up the books, I've given you links for two, I'm not going to read it to you, or type it out for you on 4chan.


>>776402

>I comprehend that things such as the oil spill are bad for business and ultimately bad for the company. If a company continues to do things like that it will fail, but that doesn't change the fact that it is affecting people now.

>Therefore, the state exists to protect those people. The state as it stands is in the corporations pocket. It isn't hard logic to follow.

I understand I'm outnumbered here with my views, I suggest these 2 books for you, either one will do in showing you why this is flawed.

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24715527/For-an-Emergent-Governance

>>776417
Just make a simple statement as to why it is flawed and I will read the books.

>>776419

Laissez-Faire is a rather omnipotent concept. It has never experienced true practice."Regulated Free-Market" is an oxymoron. I'll delve deeper into the subject if you're not convinced.

>>776419

>Just make a simple statement as to why it is flawed and I will read the books.

I am excited for you to read the books, I really am, I wish I knew what I could say to get you to read them, I think you could gain a lot by reading them.

I think anything I can say can be mopped up to be just a wild assertion, I don't claim to be any sort of great philosopher or writer, I'm just a dude on /lit/ on Friday.

But I will start with your post and see if we can get this to many any sense

>I comprehend that things such as the oil spill are bad for business and ultimately bad for the company. If a company continues to do things like that it will fail, but that doesn't change the fact that it is affecting people now.

Alright so we have established that BP has an intensive not to harm people and to stay in business, but "doesn't change the fact that it is affecting people now."

>Therefore, the state exists to protect those people.

Alright so, the state exists to protect people from harm, in the example of the "oil spill", how is the state protecting people from it that wouldn't emerge on the market of people wanting to help other people.

The state is a group of individuals, they can't help others better than anyone else, just because they are the "state".

>>776419

>The state as it stands is in the corporations pocket.

I think this is another good argument against the state.. a corporation will do what will get it more profit, so they will use the state to institute barriers to entry and make it harder for people to compete with them, turning into a monopoly.

She doesn't really have anything worthwhile to say. To call objectivism a philosophy is more than generous. Really the only decent thing she's inspired is Bioshock...

I read "Anthem" last summer (it's not much of a time investment, and if you want to get an idea of how she writes, what her ideals are, all that jazz, just read that) and as far as I can tell, she HATES the idea of being dependent on others. Obviously, this figures heavily into her politics, which in turn, happens to figure heavily into her writing. Ergo, because of her writing's political nature, some people dislike her.


Now, that's not to say that they don't like her for her ideas, as it could be for a bunch of reasons. It could be that they dislike how she develops characters. It could be her style, or her word choices that turn them off. Or, it could even be that she brings politics into her writing that make readers dislike her. There's no ONE reason.


Does that make her a bad writer? No. Because how a book is read is essentially dependent upon the cultural context and education of the reader, a book cant be bad, a reader can just not enjoy a book. (You have to understand, I'm taking a long term viewpoint. How would she be read if words like Capitalism and Communism described archaic ideas that a reader was unable to connect to?). Therein, for a given book, there will always be people who enjoy the book, and always be people who hate the book (forgive my hyperbole of "always", but I'm trying to keep this from becoming too much of a rant).


Often times, people of similar cultural backgrounds will find that what they like and dislike is, as a result of the similar cultural context in which they exist, congruous. And because of the highly talkative (and punitive) nature of the /lit/ board, and elements of human behavioral psychology which I will refrain from discussing, ideas and opinions tend to converge on well-discussed authors/books. In this case, the community has decided that they do not like Ayn Rand.

TL;DR: People on /lit/ hate Ayn Rand because people on /lit/ hate Ayn Rand.

>>776450
See you are assuming that individuals will come to the rescue, perhaps they will, but the state ensures that reprimand will happen for the parties. I hope you do not believe that I am endorsing the state currently in place, just a state in general. The state may enable mob rule, but it also protects people from that same mob rule with restrictions of it. There is no use trying to use logic as a form of governance, people act illogically and the state provides a punishment on the individuals that do this and harm others. It is a preventive measure stemming from past causes and effects.

I have to go to work but it has been fun arguing ideals. Good-day sir I will read those books in the near future.

>>776492

>Good-day sir I will read those books in the near future.

Alright man, glad to hear it, and I wish you luck.

>>776481
ah, but see as a higher thinking being you are dependent on others for development. Have you ever seen the case of the girl locked in her room until she was 13 years old? She was basically a wild animal with no language or higher brain function, of course she learned some later on, but again state's exist (not this particular state) as a balance between the individual and society.

>>776515
That has absolutely nothing to do with what that poster wrote.

I think objectivism is hilarious, but I still found Atlas Shrugged to be good.

>>776515
Having an aspiration to supersede biology is not unusual, especially in the world of fiction. How many novels have been written on people who could fly, despite every logical science disagreeing? How many of monsters, of the impossible, of the infeasible?

For an author to aspire to an ideal, regardless of what that ideal may be, it doesn't have to be a realistic (hence why it often remains an aspiration), especially when they're writing fiction ^_^.

I see that I'm in a thread filled with some heated debate, and seeing as I'm interested and I recently read Atlas Shrugged, I guess I'll throw in my two cents. Keep in mind, I'm just sharing my perspective and I am as fallable as the rest.

It seems to me that Ayn Rand was trying to say that true altruism is a myth, because we all are trying to create the best life we can for ourselves. That's why we depend on technology, and to a lesser extent support the people around us (because these people would help you out when you are in need). I vaguely recognize that this is called rational egotism, and it was discussed in length by Charles Hawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene".

Simple enough. I can see the logic in this argument.

What Ayn Rand trips up on - and these are major flaws in her philosophy to me - is the connection between man and the state, and the assumption in the perfection of mankind.
Ayn Rand attacks existentialism and solipsism. She insists that Man is infallable in his perception of the world, and that reason is the only survival technique that Man possesses. Which, of course, is untrue.
She makes grand generalizations bordering on fictitious stereotypes. Her protagonists, antagonists, and setting are completely unbelievable (a man who can make an engine that runs on static electricity? You're bullshitting me). Plus, she inserts herself into the story in an almost insulting way to the reader - if you look at a picture of Ayn Rand and you read the discription of Dagny Taggart, you'll notice a strange similarity. She's a slut who used self-insertion to fuck her ideal men; all the men in the novel fuck Dagny Taggart. This is nothing new.
The senses are notoriously fallable, and true reason may not apply in the real world (i.e., Only sick men take pills-> therefore, if I take pills then I will be sick).

TL;DR: Ayn Rand had a cool idea, but she's a self-absorbed twat.

>>776603
> self-absorbed twat

No wonder her books were so successful.

>>776603

Sounds like she was before her time

I agree with objectivism in that people must strive to be a productive member of society on pain of removal from it, but that's about all. The trickledown effect and self-interest have been proven not to work

>>776884

I just noticed the anime on the desktop.... all style in this image has been destroyed.

>>776884
why does he have bread in his collar?

>>776898
Surprisingly, "bread in collar" doesn't pull up much on Google

>>776245
>>776271
You do realize that unabashedly linking to youtube videos isn't a very good method of building an argument, regardless of the circumstances, right?

>>777185

>You do realize that unabashedly linking to youtube videos isn't a very good method of building an argument, regardless of the circumstances, right?

As the poster you are talking about is presumably a finite being we can speculate that she would rather have simply linked a video making her point for her rather than typing it out on 4chan.

also, dongs.

Go look at a picture of Ayn Rand.

>>778193

Too neutral for you?

Dongs!

I give a copy of Anthem to every woman I know who graduates from high school.

I'm listening to it at work right now, and I'm having serious trouble with how every character is done in one of two molds. Either they are whiny not-my-problem bitches or they are heroic I-am-the-wheel-of-the-universe gods. There's no middle ground, so after the first few encounters between characters you know within 3 words how the rest of the conversation will go. It gets rather repetitive after a while.

>>776417
Anyone else been reading these?

I'm skimming through them, and they are awful.

>>776177
I'm a philosophy nerd and I'd agree with that characterization if not for the fact that Rand's stuff, although coming from a cruel and incompetent place, has been hugely influential to hugely influential people.

Rand was a complete hypocrite. Her written works are completely the opposite of her personal life. Even when she was talking on the public circuit she would say how a person should live their life then do the exact opposite.

She's overrated.

Hey Ben it's Jack

ITT: People misinterpreting Objectivism.

Here's something for thought: Jimbo Wales, the guy who founded the Wikipedia and Wikimedia foundation, is an Objectivist. He founded a website that is nonprofit and earns him no money. It's a free, voluntary website. And he's an objectivist.

>Scroll past thread, pay it no heed
>Realise I'm not on /mu/
>ItAOtS
>my face

>>776169
People of your age and reading experience continually ask this and other vapid questions.

I've been reading most of this thread.

I haven't read Ayn Rand yet, but I know of Objectivism, and I've seen some of her quotes/interviews, and I have no fucking clue what this thread is about.
Why is everything about fucking economics? Are her books all on economy or something? Seriously, what the heck?

HAI GUIZ. /lit/ put yourself in the context of when this was being written. durrr... her 'hate' came from such things as the holodomor, kulak extermination, lack of freedom. hardly anything you have any experience living under in this modern time in your g8 countries. I'm not trying to justify her philosophy, but it was definitely a lot less 'radical' than some of the other stuff going on during her time.

>>782313
One of the tenants of Objectivism is a Libertarian belief which promotes capitalism over socialism/communism and economic freedom (in the political compass tests, it usually means you end up in the purple sector in the bottom-right.

Read the rules.

/lit/ - Literature

1. All literature discussion is welcome.
2. Do not upload images with embedded RAR files.
3. This is not a fan-fic board!
4. There is to be no discussion of Ayn Rand.

>NO DISCUSSION

>>782330
>all literature is welcome
Penis.

Rational Egoism: Stirner
Ubermenschen: Nietzsche
Statism/Anti-Statism: Plato

Rand: Bolshevik hate and Rape Fantasies.

People who take the latter seriously: Americans.

>>782332

>Implying Ayn Rand is real literature.

>>782316
Uh no. None of those had happened when she left Russia.
Her hate comes simply from her father losing his pharmacy and her having to stand in line for food. OH NOEZ.

Totally unrelated but I just like posting photos of Robert Palmer. How in the hell is he still unappreciated in death? More people need to forget Addicted to Love and buy a copy of Sneaking Sally Through the Alley.

>>782337
Pfft, that'd piss me off as well if I were in her shoes.

>>782344

Oh, look you got doubles.

Your argument is invalid.