What do you think of Ayn Rand's literature Veeky Forums...

What do you think of Ayn Rand's literature Veeky Forums? I consider The Virtue of Selfishness and Philosophy: Who Needs It to be her underrated masterworks. Atlas Shrugged is only her magnum opus because of Galt's speech.

Other urls found in this thread:

aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emotions.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

been a lot of randposting recently, good way to get (you)s i suppose

I've made a few Rand posts in Kant and Nihilism threads I guess. At least one other Objectivist has discussed it with me. Is there a problem here?

Fountainhead>Atlas Shrugged

please stop posting on this board. noone likes ayn rand. you are bringing the iq of this board even lower, please go back to the ayn rand forums or reddit or wherever it is you came from

why do you always reply to your own posts like this?

Better if you don't read too much into them.

Why yes Sir, I most assuredly feel there is!

shitty didactic fiction of a shitty americano political 'philosophy'. The Glen Beck of literature.

Happy?

I posit that Rand is Aristotle's great intellectual heir. Her prose is filled with bombast but that's exactly what our relativists culture of pseudo-nationalist Philosophy needed; a slap in the face for peddling their ideology of the parasite.

Such as? If you can't out-argue at least formulate the opposing case well.

>A selection from her unpublished fiction
But how can it be unpublished if they publish it?

this
>violating the law of noncontradiction on the cover of an Ayn Rand book
For shame.

I read Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and Anthem.

I thought Anthem was pretty boring. I enjoyed Fountainhead. I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged a little less. It was difficult to drudge through the hundreds of pages.

I don't even know if I like it or not. It just seems that I don't know if I like a book or not. It's weird. I've never read a book that I've really enjoyed besides maybe Goosbumps in Elementary school.

Kind of sad really how my perception of books is in comparison to other books I've read, rather than of the brilliance of a book alone.

Lmao

>psuedo-nationalist
Goddamn it the doc I save all my posts in so my browser can't eat them remembered one of my past uses of that word.
Meant to post *pseud

I liked Atlas because I could sense where it was going. Rand said it was best to treat it as a detective mystery novel. Very true.
The Fountainhead had better villians overall though honestly I read it after Atlas and considered it the lesser. Only thing I didn't like about Atlas is that James Taggart was a bit of a cartoon. Maybe that's just a consequence of how pathetic the man was.
All one really needs from Atlas is John Galt's Speech though. D'Anconia's money speech and Rearden's trial speech optionally.

You know, one of the greatest (albeit indirect) indicators that Ayn Rand is one of the best philosophers is the number of logical fallacies she coined.

>Stolen Concept Fallacy
Attempting to undermine the concept itself by attacking the hierarchial root(s) upon which it logically depends, or using a concept while denying the validity of its roots.

>Package-Deal Fallacy
The fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value. A subset of the Composition/Division fallacies.

>Floating Abstraction Fallacy
When concepts are detached from existents, concepts that a person takes over from other men without knowing what specific units the concepts denote.

>Frozen Abstraction Fallacy (Context Dropping Fallacy)
Substituting some one particular concrete for the wider abstract class to which it belongs. To tear an idea from its context and treat it as though it were a self-sufficient, independent item.

>Reification of Zero Fallacy
Regarding "nothing" as a thing, as a special, different kind of existent.

>Rewriting Reality Fallacy (likely not particularly hers)
Attempting to alter the metaphysically given.

>Ayn Rand
>being this spooky

Cringe
>Weebs
>Mematic.net
Not once.

why are disempowered young men so attracted to rand's thought.?

Wasn't it yesterday that only rich republicans that like to eat babies like her?

whats going on with all of these threads?

>all
What threads?

>why are disempowered young men so attracted to rand's thought
More like disempowered lovers of Western civilization.
I'd say the reason is that the essence of this quote is at the core of all her writings:
>"You who're depraved enough to believe that you could adjust yourself to a mystic's dictatorship and could please him by obeying his orders— there is no way to please him; when you obey, he will reverse his orders; he seeks obedience for the sake of obedience and destruction for the sake of destruction. You who are craven enough to believe that you can make terms with a mystic by giving in to his extortions. There is no way to buy him off, the bribe he wants is your life, as slowly or as fast as you are willing to give it in— and the monster he seeks to bribe is the hidden blank-out in his mind, which drives him to kill in order not to learn that the death he desires is his own. You who are innocent enough to believe that the forces let loose in your world today are moved by greed for material plunder— the mystics' scramble for spoils is only a screen to conceal from their mind the nature of their motive. Wealth is a means of human life, and they clamor for wealth in imitation of living beings, to pretend to themselves that they desire to live. But their swinish indulgence in plundered luxury is not enjoyment, it is escape. They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself."

>Wealth is a means of human life, and they clamor for wealth in imitation of living beings, to pretend to themselves that they desire to live
>Literally pic related
Nice

Nothing proud with being an individualist and having pride with one's accomplishment, so long as you haven't cheated to obtain them.

...

" I was in high school in Chicago, not really doing any work. Neither of my parents had been to college so to me it wasn't a big thing. Then two teachers started taking an interest in me and giving me books, and one was Atlas Shrugged. I hadn't read a novel since third grade, and if you're a crummy reader sometimes bad art can do magical things. She appeals to a certain kind of adolescent male, I think, and she definitely got me.

So I went to college and read all the rest of the books and she was sort of my patron saint. Then you get an uncomfortable moment where you realise there's this little bag you're holding that's filling up with phenomena that don't really fit the model. And that bag got heavier and heavier. My family ran into some financial problems. And I thought, she would not understand what we're going through. She'd equate it with some kind of moral weakness on our part. And then after college I went to Asia and saw some things there that made the bag really heavy, and at some point I just said, "I don't get her any more, I'll set her down." Only years later I was like, "Oh my God, she's very dangerous." But I like that. I like the idea that someone can change. You could be a rabid right-winger one moment and then you're forced to completely reassess your views....and you learn alot from that process because you've embraced the opposite view totally non-ironically so you can understand it. Even now, I look at the conservative movement here in the US, and I get it, I understand where they're coming from. Sometimes it's just a slight turn of the dial between these supposedly irrevocably separate liberals and conservatives." - George Saunders who believes rand is for sheltered man-babbys

There's nothing wrong of proud to be an individualist and having pride with one's accomplishment, so long as you haven't cheated to obtain them. My overall issue with her philosophy is that some of her followers are too Apollonian as to deny any emotions. Going for pure rationality is inhuman, as people would say about Roark, and it's unhealthy. Because when you actually do become emotional, some tend not to be able to control their passions and argue that they are being rational.

>I liked her
>but then I didn't
>wow she's dangerous
What a bunch of nothing.

I'm not interested in Jews who, in their senile phase, mooch off society.

>There's nothing wrong of proud to be an individualist and having pride with one's accomplishment, so long as you haven't cheated to obtain them.
Deontologists pls go.

>right winger
lol Rand has no place in the true, traditional right.

>some of her followers are too Apollonian as to deny any emotions
But we adhere to the actual nature of emotions; not the irrationalist's approximation of emotions.
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emotions.html

I agree, I just argue that it happens that emotions can make one irrational and but advocating that you have complete mastery over your emotions can blindside you to them. It's happened to Rand with Nathaniel and I've seen it happen to other Objectivist who claimed they were only rational.

True enough. I'm not one to say Objectivism doesn't lack some much needed meta.

Please explain what you think
>the true, traditional right
is, exactly.

Not him but he likely means the religious conservative right. They preach Ayn Rand so long as it suits them.

Tea Partier here. Not all of us are uber religious but most of us believe in light lip service to the church for often vague undefined reasons.
Rand is much more in line with our values in my particular circle.

>The Virtue of Selfishness
>Philosophy: Who Needs It
we're reaching levels of *tipping* that shouldn't be physically possible

>Atlas Shrugged is only her magnum opus because of Galt's speech.
But Galt's speech is fucking terrible and boring. And so is the rest of the book.
She portrays her philosophy in a very simplistic way: good guys are ubermensch objectivists, bad guys are weakling stupid pathetic moochers that deserve to die and actively want to die because they hate themselves and anyone who succeeds.

>Galt's speech was terrible
So you assert. I consider it a raw encapsulation of Objectivism and a fantastic summation of the nature of man's dealing with existence. Presumably you cannot stomach Galt's protrait of the nature of the mentality of the parasite as he presents it. I suppose you view the picture he paints of the men responsible for corrupting the world as bombastic; but where specifically do you dissent? I posit that Galt's assessment is not an exaggeration or oversimplification whatsoever and you can observe men like these, more or less, everywhere around us. His assessment describes Bernie Sanders and co to a T and I challenge to you that that is not mere partisanship on my part.
>she portrays her philosophy in a very simplistic way
That's done purposefully. Straight language was also the doctrine which the Constitution was written under.
Rand's five step process and the Founders' "Committee on Style" were of the same intent.

>ubermensch
This is the oft cited misattribution people make of Rand's Philosophy to Nietzsche. Whom she completely demolishes in her later nonfiction. The supreme qualifier in each of Rand's heroes is not superiority as such but effecaiousness and mental consistency.

>they actively want to die
Incorrect. This is not what she (through Galt) means. To actively want to die is an *explicit* desire to commit suicide. The mentality, which consists of contradictions and wrote irrationalism, is the desire for death IN EFFECT because it is the rejection of this life that does not provide automatic happiness and values. Quote:
>"Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man's desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer— and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. [...]the love, your love of life, which makes you believe that they are men and that they love it too. But the world of today is the world they wanted; life is the object of their hatred. Leave them to {the death they worship."}
Note that by {this} Rand does not mean their worship is an explicit one, but implict. The positive is not their criterion of assessment but the negative.

>mooch
>Rand
She was anti moocher to her bones

topkek

does anyone know why anthem is taught in public schools? is it the ayn rand foundation’s doing, like donating the books so cheap administrators can save on the cost while benefitting from the veneer of legitimacy she has as an author?

individualist = right wing

classical liberal = humans are individualists, driven by their needs and passions and have a strong sense of reason to control these passions resulting in a belief in constrained governments and tolerance (belief in plurality of thought)

conservative = humans are individualists, driven by their needs and pasions BUT they have poor reasoning abilities and so need a power elite to keep them in check. also people are naturally security seeking and averse to change


etc etc

I thought Apple or some tech company was pushing it

I recently listened to it again. It's not bad. The main problem is that it's so romanticized and direct that you can't believe the parasites she describes to exist. At a point, when she starts claiming 'you pieces of shit just stopped thinking, just use your mind!!!' it's hard to imagine any human not using her mind the way she describes. But honestly, after actually meeting with collectivist that care more about feelings and emotions over anything logical, I know she is 100% on the money. People that only care about power, the influence of the collective, slave morality people, it's all true.

The real issue, in my opinion, is the extreme of her idealism. No one is pure Apollonian logic the way she describes. As though the 'men of the mind' are pure and have done nothing wrong. People cannot accept such purity and perfection. That's what you're arguing about, and I don't think she ever said that it's how they are, but more the ideal people should strive to be.

Plus, I still argue that Galt's speech had to be long winded and grandiose by design. Think about it, it's the last speech before the doom of the world. A literal 'you're wrong, go fuck yourself' to the philosophy that destroyed her homeland and everything that corrupts men.

>bad guys are weakling stupid pathetic moochers that deserve to die and actively want to die because they hate themselves and anyone who succeeds.
No one deserves to die. All they have to do is contribute to civilization and give values to other people. But the 'parasites' only want to mooch off people rather than live for themselves. They are so dependent on others to live that when they have nothing to mooch on, they die.

Take for example a NEET. He lives with his parents. They provide for him. He might be living a good life, but he is still at the whims of the well being of his parents. If they lost their job, he would be fucked. His life is not in his hands, but his parents. People might say it doesn't matter, if, at the moment, he's living comfortably on the struggles of his parents, but the weakness is still there. Your life is not your own, but at the whim of another.

>This is the oft cited misattribution people make of Rand's Philosophy to Nietzsche. Whom she completely demolishes in her later nonfiction. The supreme qualifier in each of Rand's heroes is not superiority as such but efficaciousness and mental consistency.

I argue that the difference between Ayn Rand's Hero and Nietzsche's Ubermensch is the actions they make when they leave civilization. Zarathustra spent years alone, while Ayn Rand's hero came together to form a new civilization. Both their heroes advocate to not being contained or chained to anything or anyone, but only one of them advocates that building a civilization and maintaining it to be good.
Zarathustra will live with nature, Ayn Rand's Hero will mold nature to his own whims.
That is the difference between the Apollonian and the Dionysian.

>Take for example a NEET. He lives with his parents. They provide for him. He might be living a good life, but he is still at the whims of the well being of his parents. If they lost their job, he would be fucked. His life is not in his hands, but his parents. People might say it doesn't matter, if, at the moment, he's living comfortably on the struggles of his parents, but the weakness is still there. Your life is not your own, but at the whim of another.

NEETs are absolutely parasites. Nobody denies this. However, change a few words in your paragraph there, and you've described living in any society anywhere. None of us has his life completely in his own hands - we are all subject to the ups and downs of fortune. We can insulate ourselves from its effects to some extent, but none of us is entirely self sufficient. And we gain a great deal by not needing to be.

Rand is a second-rate writer and a third-rate "philosopher" only popular among edgy teenagers and nutcase adults.

There's a difference between being connected to society and being a slave to it. If you lost your job, if the economy crashed, would you be able to survive within a society? Civilization has always strived regardless or war, famine or any other problems.
What Ayn Rand advocates is not pure independence but to be self reliant to the point where you're not a slave to anything or anyone.

Nietzsche is a second-rate writer and a third-rate "philosopher" only popular among edgy teenagers and nutcase adults.

>And we gain a great deal by not needing to be
And as long as it's understood that trade and nothing else is the proper means of doing this; we remain a healthy society.

Sorry, I'm not going to subscribe to a philosophy that tells me it's immoral to buy a round of drinks for my friends. I am all for being productive and I am generally in support of free trade and association. I am not, however, opposed to the very notion of charity.

>At a point, when she starts claiming 'you pieces of shit just stopped thinking, just use your mind!!!' it's hard to imagine any human not using her mind the way she describes. But honestly, after actually meeting with collectivist that care more about feelings and emotions over anything logical, I know she is 100% on the money.
Objectivism clicked with me because I remember that in my childhood (now 26) there always seemed something insidiously off about all the bussinessman and American hate I saw everywhere. Rand went leaps and bounds further that the conservatism that semi-redpilled me in that she indentified the metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical WHY of it all.

>extreme of her idealism
Could you expanded on what you mean by this? I would think that idealism for it's own sake is different than an ideal loved and built around an objective concrete.
A quote comes to mind:
>"Observe, in politics, that the term extremism has become a synonym of "evil," regardless of the content of the issue; the evil is not what you are extreme about, but that you are "extreme" -ie, consistent."
Note that I am note necessarily accusing you of mangling the word "extreme" as the quote would imply.

>As though the 'men of the mind' are pure and have done nothing wrong
I get the sense that this is not your critique per sey but this is the conclusion commonly drawn

>Plus, I still argue that Galt's speech had to be long winded and grandiose by design
This. Every word had to be there. He's hijacking the radio signal from a man who has hyped up his own speech and amassed a crowed and worldwide interest. He was going to spout destructive platitudes so Galt knew he had to btfo him by capitalizing on this one event with so much amassed attention. He needed to get everything out in a one-time-only manner.

>I'm not going to subscribe to a philosophy that tells me it's immoral to buy a round of drinks for my friends.
lol what a misunderstanding of her philosophy
>just only care about yourself
That's not what she advocates. If you care for friends, because they are valuable to you, it is not a sacrifice. You are gaining something by making them happy because you like their company. How would you feel if you were to buy a round of drink to everyone in a bar every day, even though you didn't know them?

Why are you wasting your time on the degenerate heathens of Veeky Forums when you could be being productive, user?

I'm lazy and I've made my own fortune with the stock market. I have earned a life of leisure and I'd rather argue and understand why people see or disagree with Ayn Rand to expand my own horizons. I've made popular philosophical youtube videos which are acclaimed and well received. How I spend my time is of my own accord. I could die tomorrow and be content. There are still a few egotistical ideas I want to give to the world, but I'm lazy, so it doesn't really matter if I complete them tomorrow or in a few months.

It doesn't say that at all numbnuts. The enjoyment garnered from your friends happiness is, too, a kind of value.
I challenge you to hold this same opinion in face of this:
>"I agree with you that love should be treated like a business deal, but every business deal has its own terms and its own currency. And in love, the currency is virtue. You love people not for what you do for them or what they do for you. You love them for the values, the virtues, which they have achieved in their own character."
-Rand in interview
Watch her Mike Wallace interview sometime.

The argument I always bring up is whether you would be friends with a person that is boring, has nothing to say or isn't fun to be around (crude values but direct). Only idiots claim that they would not care to be friends with people without any virtues. I've even had people argue that a piece of toilet paper could be considered art because they experience emotional reactions on everything, even a blank canvas.

It's talking with these types of people that make me realize that she was right about nearly everything.

>I've made popular philosophical youtube videos which are acclaimed and well received.
IT'S MOLYMEME GUIZE

lol no he's shit. But don't worry, I'm not going to share them here. Revealing who I am, just like Galt, is part of the appeal of my channel.

We talking esoteric philosophy videos only or just some faggot that waxes philisophical and mostly in reference to topical politics?

The former. I don't talk about politics.
Just as Toohey argues in the Fountainhead, it is better to talk about values instead of politics because people will never know the difference. So far, I've noticed that only objectivist have noticed what I'm preaching.

If you're not going to post a video now that piqued my curiosity you shouldn't have even mentioned it.

I'd love to post it but I don't want people to know I'm advocating Objectivist philosophy. And I'm not sure how to link my channel without it being obvious to anyone else knowing.

in europe edgy, isolated teens read marx or his successors

in america edgy, isolated teens read rand.