<p>Contrary to most people in this topic, I hate the way Rand writes. I read about 200 pages of Atlas Shrugged before I stopped reading it.</p>
<p>Although I would consider Rand my friend if you live by the statement: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". She is the enemy of collectivism/fascism and thus might be a friend.</p>
<p>But considering Objectivism as a philosophy, it lacks much of the rigor that similar individualist philosophies contain. It seems to me to have too much solipsism.</p>
<p>haha. of course they do! see how they donate to charity! we've gots to put a stop to that!!!11</p>
<p>So, this is the bi tch who is insane enough to critique Kant and Nietzsche. Even poking fun at the great masters of western history without really any substantial rigorous analysis. Further, she pretends to be "great" and develops crappy concept to supplement the resurgence of economic conservatism.
What so entertaining is that she combined the concept of "superman" of nietzsche with some idiotic struggle of capitalistic success. </p>
<p>Let me tell you a joke of Any Rand
You know why Ayn Rand can't experience orgasm? Because she tried too hard to objectify it. ;P</p>
<p>Nietzsche was right on "bringing a stick" when you see a woman like her.</p>
<p>I'll probably be attacked for this, but I don't like Rand at all. Her books (well, book - I've only read Fountainhead) read like diary entries with the dates removed. Bland, unoriginal and just plain boring.</p>
<p>Her themes and characters seem to be black and white, concrete with no gray areas or complexity. (Same thing with her philosophy)</p>
<p>And don't even start with using Objectivism as a foundation for national policy..</p>
<p>Then again, I could just be ignorant and missing some kind of bigger picture.</p>
<p>The issue with objectivism is that everyone's trying to apply it to something bigger, when really, it's something to be applied to oneself. Work hard for your own sake, and receive
for your own sake. Other people can not make you or guilt you to do anything you don't want to do. "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."</p>
<p>She's not against charity; she's against forced charity and charity by guilt. If you want to give something to someone else via your own free will, then give it. No one is going to say "that's wrong!"</p>
<p>So I really find the philosophy, or the fundamentals of it, not really able to be contested.</p>
<p>@ skatj: I personally adore Ayn Rand's writing, stylistically -- I find it refreshingly clean-cut, sharp, and to the point. </p>
<p>As for her characters being black and white -- to a degree, yes, but again, she wasn't writing to write a good story, she was writing to present a message to society. I mean, some of her characters are ridiculously complex -- Cheryl Brooks, for one, Eddie Willers, Steven Mallory, Ellsworth Toohey, Peter Keating, Guy Francon, Andrei Taganov. They're not purely bad or good or anything.</p>
<p>I don't know where her philosophy seems black and white...especially since it pretty much advocates a person's right to choose. Heh. Specific examples?</p>
<p>When I read the first few pages of Atlas Shrugged I found it incredibly refreshing and inspiring... however I, too, couldn't continue after the first 200 or so pages.. although I had to have a look at the John Galt speech (50 pages? that's just crazy). And she has this habit of knocking concepts into one's head again... and again... and again. I like the fact that her main characters have integrity and stick to their principles.</p>
