<p>I used to be a hardcore Ayn Rand fan, but after reading Atlas Shrugged for the third time I started to notice some inconsistencies in her philosophy. I still think she’s a decent writer though - I have to recommend We the Living to anyone interested.</p>
<p>Yea, at first I was like Ayn Rand has opened my eyes…but the more you read about her, the more your recognize the flaws in her philosophy (and I think that allows you to appreciate even more its benefits).</p>
<p>Interesting opinion, neltharion, but I would have to disagree. 
I admire her as a writer (The Fountainhead put me in a trance-like state for two days), but her philosophy seems empty and cold. I know that a negative emotional response is not a good reason to discount an entire philosophy (and I am not one who is prone to base judgments on emotions); however, Objectivism as it is portrayed in The Fountainhead is too extreme in my opinion.</p>
<p>I read Atlas Shrugged, and I don’t hate her. I just think she was really stupid.</p>
<p>I still don’t understand how people call her stupid. You don’t have to agree with her philosophy–even at all–to recognize her intelligence.</p>
<p>I can see why people can think she is stupid. If we were all to truly follow her beliefs and philosophy, to truly live for ourselves regardless of what a society says…we’d be screwed. It doesn’t necessarily take intelligence to think of the beliefs she goes with. Her writing is another matter I suppose, but the quality of that can be suspect at times. </p>
<p>Maybe she’s not dumb, but man does she have an ego.</p>
<p>I noticed a comment about being pretentious. It takes a great deal of pretentiousness to be an Ayn Rand follower; you really need to believe you are so special, so much better than everyone else, that you should be able to do what you wish. Everyone else is just one of the “losers” for a simpler term, trapped by society’s contraints.</p>
<p>^No offense, but you are simplifying her personality (although that is the gist of it). And you are falling into the same black-and-white mistake she made. There are SOME good parts in her philosophy, I think most people can agree—If you agree with some of Aristotle’s beliefs, then you will invariable agree with some of hers. I happen to like her writing–And not to use the popular argument, but there IS a reason she’s a cultural phenom and best-seller (without being trashy).</p>
<p>(I tune out for a few days and I come back to a battlefield. Please continue.)</p>
<p>@sanguinity: I would argue that being an Objectivist does not imply pretentiousness at all. An Objectivist believes that no one else has the right to encroach on his life, nor does he have the reverse right of encroaching on others’, meaning that he can do anything he wants that is within reason. Whether he looks down upon others cannot be concluded merely from this.</p>
<p>I love Ayn Rand because of her sense of life, that she was not satisfied living within the bounds of conventional thought but wanted to live as she desired. Regarding her philosophy, though, I would hesitate to call myself an Objectivist, just as I hesitate to call myself Libertarian, or something else. I do, however, agree with many aspects of her philosophy because I have derived it myself.</p>
<p>@ChocolateBanana: Agreed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Objectivism and Libertarianism are selfish philosophies. There is no such thing as a righteous capitalist. To subscribe to Objectivism and Libertarianism is to believe that there is “rational self interest”. In fact, O&L just give greedy ass-holes an excuse to be greedy ass-holes. Objectivism and Libertarianism have differences, but they are both ridiculous philosophies that benefit the rich, the greedy, the selfish, and the egotistic. </p>
<p>The defenders of Ayn Rand in this thread are just teenagers that read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged to seem hip. You aren’t hip. You are subscribing to be a vanguard of the corporations and the capitalists. Stop defending a philosophy that is wrong in every way, because you have no idea what you are talking about.</p>
<p>
This is totally unsupported. I beg to differ.
“It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener.”</p>
<p>
Yes, Alan Greenspan, you are a “greedy *******”. You too, Ronald Reagan, Andrew Carnegie, while we’re at it, even though Reagan spurred great American growth and Carnegie was one of the greatest philanthropists ever lived.
In saying that Libertarianism is a ridiculous philosophy, you are also calling capitalism ridiculous. You live in perhaps the most capitalistic nation in the world. Why are you still here if you believe so?</p>
<p>
Ad hominem attack. Last I checked, ad hominem is a logical fallacy. This does not even merit a proper response.</p>
<p>
Again, unsupported, and I know exactly what I’m talking about. I’ve studied logic, philosophy, ethics, economics and religion.</p>
<p>No hard feelings.</p>
<p>Rand hated communism. Part of communist idea is it assumes a government with absolute power will work for the people. The society get affluent with the hardwork of the people under the brilliant guidance of the government, then the whole world share the wealth. What happened is in communist countries the government w. abosolute power corrupted absolutely. It did not work! Because - you know what? human being as this evil nature, when they have power, they corrupt. </p>
<p>Rand’s theory sparked Libertarianism. Part of Libertarianism idea is it assumes rich people get richer, than they’ll take care of the poor.
Does it work that way? hmmmm…
How much does Rand understand human nature? - just look at how much she understood herself as a human being.</p>
<p>
I agree. Communism is fail, in every sense of that word.</p>
<p>
This is ambiguous. Elaborate?</p>
<p>Rand spurred Libertarianism unintentionally—but she did NOT agree with it. She found them to be anarchist and without moral grounding. And she was OBSESSED with morals (in her view): Anything someone did that didn’t fit into her standards, she automatically deemed “evil” or “irrational”–obviously a FALSE view.</p>
<p>In addition, while I think Rand grasped social psychology pretty well (just look at her astute analysis of Peter Keating’s desires, Ellsworth Toohey’s, etc.), she had NO APPRECIATION for developmental psychology—just because she could become an Objectivist so fast does not mean others could. She did not understand how people evolved.</p>
<p>Once again, I think you don’t have to <em>choose</em> to be an Objectivist OR a hater. As I said, I admire parts of her philosophy, specifically how she views man as the potential to be a heroic being (much better than more pessimistic or nihilistic philosophies) and her value placed on productivity. That being said, the disadvantages–cold, unforgiving, dogmatic, confining, contradictory, lacking in psychology–outweigh the advantages. And @theReach, stop assuming people read her to be “hip.” She’s pretty damn famous, selling millions of books—I, for one, when I was alone reading the book had no desire to seem “hip,” but a desire to enjoy myself and, perhaps, expand my knowledge.</p>
<p>More importantly, looking at extreme views like the ones Rand held will help you (re)examine your OWN views, which is important in itself.</p>
<p>Russian communism became fail once stalin came in and removed marx’s theory of permanent revolution. I think Marx would be unsurprised that the USSR fell after they breached the key communist concept of total equality</p>
<p>@ chaospreferable:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I don’t mean to say I support Objectivism. In fact, I am very much against that sort of philosophy. However, that isn’t to say some of her ideas aren’t interesting, and I do admire her for actually holding my attention just based on that factor alone when I would otherwise have just thrown the book across the room in disgust.</p>
<p>Her writing style in and of itself is actually quite good and surprisingly easy to read. However, I don’t think she should’ve disguised her manifesto as a fiction novel. She might as well have saved all of us some time and just written an essay about her philosophy, because that is all Atlas Shrugged acts as, when you get right down to the nitty-gritty. </p>
<p>However! I hold the same opinion of 1984, which many people adore to death, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. Again, loved the idea. Absolutely loathed the execution. </p>
<p>Most “great works of literature” are actually horribly written books, IMHO. Too much preaching involved. Too little storytelling. I am here to read a story, not to listen to you espouse your ideas through your characters.</p>
<p>^She did not DISGUISE her manifesto. If you had read about her, it’s EXTREMELY CLEAR that she WANTED to use fiction to tell her philosophy. Read The Art of Fiction (by her) and you will see what I mean. That was her point. After Atlas Shrugged, she DID print philosophical books, but it was that book, along with The Fountainhead, that made her a famous writer and public philosopher. </p>
<p>Some classics…I just don’t see why they are classic. Wuthering Heights made me want to vomit.</p>
<p>
Unless her standards are objective, then that which doesn’t fit is.</p>
<p>
Are you saying that communism could possibly not fail?</p>
<p>
I remember Ayn Rand saying once that her priority in creating Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead was to write fiction, with a compelling plot and developed characters. While her novels do push her philosophy (since they’re about life, and one can’t tell a story around that without some definition), promoting her philosophy was not the purpose of her writing fiction.</p>
<p>dark, to elaborate my ambiguous statement - "How much does Rand understand human nature? - just look at how much she understood herself as a human being. " She either did not practice what she preached, in her relationship with men, or her and my interpretation to what she preached was very different. I did not realize part of her philosophy was to take other woman’s husband, while she had her own husband, not divorced. I find that kind of disgusting. People may say that’s her personal affair, well it’s not, when she thinks it’s her right to do it and it shows her courage maybe. </p>
<p>Oh Chocolate, I CAN NOT stand what you said about Wuthering Heights!!! That’s one of my favorite books. It is WONDERFULLY written!</p>
<p>Tobe honest, I couldn’t help feeling angry when I read Rand’s fiction. I’m disgusted by her perfect characters while she herself is so not perfect. On the other hand, like I posted earlier, I like the way she provoked discussions like this, even long after her death.</p>
<p>“The purpose of all art is the objectification of values” and “Every writer is a moral philosopher” and a million more quotes. (Those two are from “The Art of Fiction” by Ayn Rand.)</p>
<p>Writing fiction and pushing her philosophy are not mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>She wished to do both: using the tool of fiction as the means of promoting her philosophy. She wrote fiction because that is what she enjoyed. Her message was the message of Objectivism (sort of a generalization), though.</p>
<p>Sorry, I did NOT mean it as a personal attack! @luv.</p>
<p>BUT, most classics I can read, dislike, but still understand why they are classics.</p>
<p>This is not the case with Wuthering Heights. I hate the characters. I hate the plot. I hate everything about it, and it was a chore to get through. Gosh, that book bothers me like no other; if those characters were real, I might have to kill them or kill myself just listening to them whine and talk in a convoluted manner for no reason.</p>
<p>And yes, I think the mere fact that Rand provokes these discussions is proof of her importance in culture. She is certainly polarizing and certainly provoking. She is NOT stupid.</p>