Many anons say Atlas Shrugged has "shit prose" but I have yet to see an in depth explanation as to why...

Really? I felt a clear, mysterious, and steady progression as the events unfolded. Always wanting to know not only what was going to happen next but WHY it was happening.

Seven years and autistic teenagers still take time to argue this irredeemable shit isn't irredeemable. You could probably read a couple of good books in the time it takes you to type out all this hurrdurr in this comical tone of a Victorian age scholar.

>she gives no good reasons for us to believe that what is good biologically is morally good
Well then it a good thing she doesn't make that point at all.

>Hume's Is/Ought problem
She ruptures that very notion:
"It is only an ultimate goal, and end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”

It's not that Objectivists don't recognize the gap between 'is' and 'ought', but recognize that it is easily crossable with an 'if'.
Hume's problem being so easily and succinctly rendered irrelevant tends to antagonize alot of traditional philosophers.
Propositions like, "If a man wants to live, then he must eat,” seem reasonable enough; however, they suffer from a phrasal ambiguity. If the speaker means, "The only way a man will be able to achieve his goal of living is by eating," he is making a positive claim. On the other hand, if the speaker means, "If a man wants to live, then he OUGHT to eat," the statement is a normative claim and a non-sequitur. The missing proposition usually being along the lines of, "If a man wants X, then he ought to do that which is logically entailed by X."
This is unadulterated destruction to the is/ought problem.

>She just makes bombastic assumptions and wrap them into this seemingly "logical" language.
Then presumably you will be able to identify one such instance. Let's see it.

Your prose is shit, too.

I’ve read The Fountainhead and thought it was an entertaining book. The prose reminded me of Raymond Chandler and other noir classics.

Her prose is sufficient. At times it can be beautiful if you agree on her awe of human achievements. In Atlas Shrugged the prose is more functional than anything else but in Anthem her prose is more poetic and sentimental.
She doesn't have shit prose by any standrard. John Green has shitty prose Breakfast.pasta but Ayn Rands most accentuated problem is the manichism of her characters.

Fuck off retard

>In Atlas Shrugged the prose is more functional than anything else
That's the descriptor I'm looking for. Nailed it.
>John Green
Huh?

Very first page of Atlas Shrugged. She describes some "vague feeling of apprehension" and the way the sun lighting the hobos face and exactly what he was wearing and how the protagonist postured himself and how he spoke his completely irrelevant line... I dropped it right away.

>value is derived from life and dependent on it
>the fact that living entities function and exist necessitates the existence of values
>values exist because life exists
You treat this like an axiom but nowhere in your word salad is there any explanation for how life necessitates values. The will to life, that ultimate value you brought up, doesn't explain WHAT people ought to do any more than at the same impulse level of a biological need, that organisms who have no conception of 'value' even have

Rand doesn't know how to use techniques like assonance, consonance, and rhythm. The structure and syntax of her sentences rarely correspond with the emotions she's trying to convey. She overuses metaphor. She states her themes instead of implying them; there is no subtext. Every now and then, she'll accidentally write something excellent, but the long gaps between good paragraphs are obvious to anyone who's read even a handful of other canonical American authors.

Rand is only valuable as a case study of extreme neoliberalism. If you come to her for ideology, that's fine, but insisting that she's some great artist is patently absurd.

>in Anthem her prose is more poetic and sentimental

What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is
my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all
creatures, even the botched and impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if
I am but to bow, to agree, and to obey?
But I am done with this creed of corruption.
I am done with the monster of “We,” the word of serfdom, of plunder, of
misery, falsehood and shame.
And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god
whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant
them joy and peace and pride.
This god, this one word:
“I.”

This can be only poetic and not a cringefest to people whose reference point is Warhammer 40k novelisations.

You do grasp right that in Athem the speaker is one of the man victims of the gray dystopia, and that language is accepted as a result? The word "I" is punishable by death.

You do grasp right that in Anthem the speaker is one of the many victims of the gray dystopia, and that language is affected as a result? The word "I" is punishable by death

>This can be only poetic and not a cringefest to people whose reference point is Warhammer 40k novelisations.
kek'd. Also true

>word salad
>implying

>You treat this like an axiom but nowhere in your word salad is there any explanation for how life necessitates values
“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: {of value to whom and for what?} It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.
{This} btw is an example of the 'if' clause that crosses the is/ought ""dilemma.""

An axiom is only valid if it is irreducible and you would have to use it in any attempt to deny it.
The 3 most fundamental (valid) axioms are:
The Primacy of Existence
Conciousness Concomitance
The Law of Identity

The writing is just poor. The characters are all cardboard cutout caricatures who exist simply as means to "prove" her point. The dialogue is hopelessly bad and the novel is repetitive.

These were my thoughts when I read the novel before knowing its "controversy" among some people.

Notably, the book neglects any consideration of the ecological impact of objectivism. I suppose she, like many uninformed people, think that when environmental degradation becomes significant, necessity will result in the invention of technologies to fully ameliorate all anthropogenic environmental problems.

In short, it's very uninformed and wholly viewed from a human-social perspective. You can tell that the author didn't have much of a STEM understanding.

Actually I have the complete opposite opinion: the prose is amazing in both Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, it's the philosophy that is Horrible.

>the prose is amazing in both Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged
You've got to be kidding me.

>"vague feel of apprehension"
She is establishing a malaise that grips the country in which she plans to later explain it's cause.
> and exactly what he was wearing and how the protagonist postured himself
How is establishing a central character and presenting a visual of the scene in which he is engaged poor prose?

No, I'm not. The prose is solid. Vivid imagery. Consider the Patio scene at the beginning of Fountainhead, or the description of the Steel Mill at the beginning of Atlas Shrugged....

It's the Pro-Capitalist, Anti-liberal, anti-colletivist, pro-business political philosophy, i.e., laissez-faire capitalism, and rigid individualism that makes me cringe: especially when she starts to expound on it in later chapters. It's clear she didn't read enough Marx.

Let's just say her philosophy is well-suited to the minds of the shallow, people like Paul Ryan and Donald trump.

>How is establishing a central character and presenting a visual of the scene in which he is engaged poor prose?
this sounds like a mechanical way of describing art

It's also very Elitist, It's basically Meritocracy, but the meritocracy of what? The Capitalist? Those who are excel at commodity production. All forms of Elitism of essentially External imposition of subjective means for judging the value of individuals. You say you're better than me because You're smarter, or adhere more to some sort of Religious codes. I don't live by Your system of Values and I resent the attempt to cast those values as objective and make them the law of the land.

Besides Ayn Rand is antiquated in a digital society: The ideal capitalist society she creates at the end of Atlas Shrugged in Laughable: it is 10x more idealistic and utopian than any socialist society.

if you look at most """""opinions"""""" on Veeky Forums they are only the aping of some troglodyte teenagers worldview that he picked up from a wikipedia article he read about some entry level """"artist"""" he wishes to immitate.

>moby dick is good
>atlas shrugged is bad
ask them why
>because that's just how it is.

these tautological opinions are merely the mating call of the pseud, and we are in the heart of their love nest,

>Well then it a good thing she doesn't make that point at all.

Yes, she absolutely does.

>"To the extent to which a man is rational, life is the premise directing his actions. To the extent to which he is irrational, the premise directing his actions is death.
>The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live
>They recognize that every living species has a way of survival demanded by its nature, they do not claim that a fish can live out of water or that a dog can live without its sense of smell—but man, they claim, the most complex of beings, man can survive in any way whatever, man has no identity, no nature, and there's no practical reason why he cannot live with his means of survival destroyed
>"Just as your body has two fundamental sensations, pleasure and pain, as signs of its welfare or injury, as
a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death, so your consciousness has two fundamental emotions, joy and suffering, in answer to the same alternative.

You're just a fucking simpleton like your guru.

ive only read the fountainhead but this really isnt true. Howard is God and Ellsworth is the Devil, but everyone else falls somewhere in the middle. Gail, for example, vacillated.

Really? Wow, I thought that the 150 pages anti-communism speech would have cleared things up. Or was it in another of her """""books"""""?

>I dissent from this verdict.
OK, state your reasoning.

>mechanical way of describing art
Yes. I hope you realize than Rand's mechanical prose doesn't make it shit prose and is merely a case of her style not appealing to your sensibilities.
Going into heavy detail about the way in which a bucket of boiling metal is poured into a mold and even waxing romantic about Rearden's view of it is a direct and purposefull parallel to his character and the principle she wishes to convey.

I was only talking about Atlas Shrugged, I didn't read her other books.

>No, I'm not. The prose is solid. Vivid imagery. Consider the Patio scene at the beginning of Fountainhead, or the description of the Steel Mill at the beginning of Atlas Shrugged....
Nothing about her writing struck me as anything above mediocre, although it was quite along time ago.

Care to post an example of a passage you particularly enjoyed?

>I hope you realize than Rand's mechanical prose doesn't make it shit prose and is merely a case of her style not appealing to your sensibilities
this is a long-winded way of saying "de gustibus non est disputandum" but what else to expect in a rand thread

OP here
Now that an user has asked you to expand on why you think the prose is good; allow me to ask why you assert the philosophy is bad.

I said that with the assumption that you are this user Are you?

no

That does mean she thinks that a moral good is directly antecedent from a biological good, like you implied.
>The purpose of morality
Purpose is the keyword here. She isn't claiming that the moral IS the biologically good; merely it's purpose. And she does give good reason to it's purpose; that the capitalistic, productive/inventive faculties are a direct beneficiary to the biological good.

>I suppose she, like many uninformed people, think that when environmental degradation becomes significant, necessity will result in the invention of technologies to fully ameliorate all anthropogenic environmental problems.
But this is exactly right. Except for the "when environmental degradation becomes significant"
She would say that rational men would solve the issue *before* environmental degradation becomes significant.

Veeky Forums is full of edgy 16-20 year old left wing virgins who hate on things because they're told they're meant to

how can anyone think like this
jesus christ, literally handwaving away climate change

>You have to be left-wing to find Rand shitty
user... easy on the bullshit

lmao you probably would hate Alain Robbe-Grillet then

>jesus christ, literally handwaving away climate change
No I'm not, how the fuck do you reach that conclusion? Stop speedreading. Climate change as such is a perfectly valid topic for discussion. The current state climate ""advocacy"" on the other hand... is a different story.

>state climate "advocacy"
lol, is there any problem that randroids won't blame the state for
I'm sure the free market and private enterprise will solve climate change, any day now the businessmen will realize that we are the world we are the children

No; I wager they'll wager they can make a profit on btfoing climate change. God speed. The laws making that impossible should be lifted.

>btfoing climate change
the fact you think climate chnage can be "btfod" and at a profit, is enough
the fact that you think these cunts would rather do something useful in the long term instead of getting rich in the short term is just the cherry on top

I've really liked the Rand quotes that got posted in this thread. I think Veeky Forums's wrong on this one.

Why can it not? I assume your issue with use of btfo is a semantic one.
There is literally nothing wrong with wanting to get rich of it (all the best ventures are regarded, as Rand would put it, "long range"
In fact not only is there nothing wrong with it; it's a virtue.

>it's irredeemable because it's irredeemable
You're just proving OP's point. You're not actually providing a counterargument.

you're living in the clouds, just like rand
her "virtue" is what got us into this situation

That seems like a poor argument, since I'd rather live now than in her any previous time

>living in the clouds
What that fuck does this mean? I assume you see my posts as fanciful in some manner you do not define. Go on.

how is your argument not poor, since it hinges on your own personal narrow experience?
the fact that today we live in better circumstances than we did 60 years ago doesn't mean things are good.

yes, it means that your post is fanciful. why? because it supposes that the profit motive will solve climate change.

>the fact that today we live in better circumstances than we did 60 years ago doesn't mean things are good.
But it does mean they're better. If Rand's concept of virtue improved the world, as you seem to be suggesting, your argument kind of defeats itself.

>user makes fun of you
>HURR NOT AN ARGUMENT
So this is the power of Veeky Forums, the most intellectual board of Veeky Forums

that's because you'rr looking at it in a narrow way
what worth is there in the improvement if there will be a huge catastrophe that will stem from the same principle that brought the improvement?
it's like going into a casino, sitting at the roulette, winning 50$ and then losing 10000$

>because it supposes that the profit motive will solve climate change.
*Can* not "will", that would be deterministic. And you only assert that it is fanciful; not WHY it is.

There's no certainty that we're headed for a huge catastrophe, though. Capitalism has certainly created problems as it has improved our living standards, overpopulation being an obvious example, but it has also successfully navigated solutions to these. I think I can fold my issue into by pointing out that you don't really have a strong argument for why capitalism will be unable to solve for the detrimental effects of Climate Change.

Why would you expect the protag to be articulate here when these are his first thoughts as an individual?

Not him but I've got one:
"Man's motive power is his moral code. Ask yourself where their code is leading you and what it offers you as your final goal. A viler evil than to murder a man, is to sell him suicide as an act of virtue. A viler evil than to throw a man into a sacrificial furnace, is to demand that he leap in, of his own will, and that he build the furnace, besides. By their own statement, it is they who need you and have nothing to offer you in return. By their own statement, you must support them because they cannot survive without you. Consider the obscenity of offering their impotence and their need— their need of you— as a justification for your torture. Are you willing to accept it? Do you care to purchase— at the price of your great endurance, at the price of your agony— the satisfaction of the needs of your own destroyers?"
"No!"
"Mr. Rearden," said Francisco, his voice solemnly calm, "if you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders— what would you tell him to do?"
"I... don't know. What... could he do? What would you tell him?"
"To shrug."

This. He's lived most his life with language itself ruptured and corrupted by the influence of the grey dystopia he has always lived in.

>you don't really have a strong argument for why capitalism will be unable to solve for the detrimental effects of Climate Change
because until we have passed the point of no return everyone will be able to say to themselves "oh we'll figure something out" and continue to drive us towards it
I mean, if my argument isn't strong then the other side's ("it'll be solved somehow") is even weaker

Except that we have multiple examples of much-hyped doomsdays being averted through innovation, and all you seem to have is fear. By all means, let's get into the nitty gritty of how Climate Change will negatively affect humanity and predict how humans will respond. The equator will likely lose farmland, but more northern reaches will gain, and we're already at peak farmland anyway. Rising ocean levels threaten coastal cities, but it will hardly be the first time they've dealt with the threats of sinking, and we have practices already designed for dealing with that. Average temperatures will rise, but that mostly seems like it will change where people will choose to live. People will be incentivized by capitalism to create solutions for all of these problems, as citizens will be willing to pay to escape them.

But let's examine the worst possible outcome. A small section of scientists fear the same process that happened to Venus will happen to us, as Carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. But if that's all it is, then all we need to do is extract carbon from the atmosphere. That's not hard. It's not even crazy to believe that there would be a financial motive for doing so.

I just don't think you've really thought this through beyond your gut pessimism about large corporations.

>A viler evil than to murder a man, is to sell him suicide as an act of virtue.
Yeah, I agree, this is a good line. There's no doubt Rand is overly repetitive and her characters are sub-par, but she has plenty of good pieces of prose to hold it together.

And I think you're relying on the best possible scenarios, especially when you write something like this:
>People will be incentivized by capitalism to create solutions for all of these problems, as citizens will be willing to pay to escape them.
and expect me to believe you're serious.
What this essentially says is that the ones who can pay will leave and the ones who can't pay will stay and die. And I'm supposed to cheer for that?

>She would say that rational men would solve the issue *before* environmental degradation becomes significant.
It's absurd to think that complex biological systems are impervious to irreversible harm. Only an urban individual with little knowledge and connection to the natural world would think that "fixing the environment" is like cleaning a house, and that by the time it becomes a noticeable annoyance, we can just snap our fingers and fix it with American know-how.

Food security becomes a big issue. Plant pathogens and mycotoxins become more prevalent in N. America, creating trade and health problems. Food prices rise, population gets upset, social unrest occurs.

You claim I only talk about the best scenarios when I literally confronted the worst. The poor have benefited massively as capitalism continually makes things that only the elite could afford into commodities, and the kinds of things that help humans survive high temperatures, like air conditioning, are already obvious examples. I think you've put no effort into addressing any of my real arguments, and I have no interest in continuing if that's the case.

>It's absurd to think that complex biological systems are impervious to irreversible harm
Uh huh, agreed. And who thinks this skipper?
>would think that "fixing the environment" is like cleaning a house
Then it's a good think I don't think that, nor did I assert such. The breakout ingenuity that finally changes the name of the game is probably something I cannot conceive. The only other option is that we're doomed so fuck everything :^)
The latter seem but be what our pseuds in academia and Hollywood like to purport.

>Uh huh, agreed. And who thinks this skipper?
Apparently you do. Do you think there is a clear "red line" that tells us when an environment is about to go past the point of no return?

You clearly do not have a background in biology and apply a sophomoric socio-economic approach to the management of biological systems.

>Food security becomes a big issue
Doubtful. Like I said, the US has already reached peak farmland. At worst, we go back to farming the land we are literally abandoning right now because it's unnecessary. Pathogens and mycotoxins are pretty readily dealt with through genetic modification, as well, so I struggle to see it as a major issue. At the very, very worst, we switch our farming practices to be more like the Netherlands and switch to multi-level greenhouses. They're the second largest exporter of food, so I think we can handle food prices.

>I think you've put no effort into addressing any of my real arguments
putting effort would mean days, maybe weeks (or even months) of extensive research of the proposed effects of climate change so of course I'm not doing that

It mostly sounds, then, like you're uninformed on the topic, but have still decided to use it as an argument. Very foolish.

>A small section of scientists fear the same process that happened to Venus will happen to us, as Carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. But if that's all it is, then all we need to do is extract carbon from the atmosphere
Jesus Christ

Not I don't *apparently* think it because I have given you no cause to concludd. It. I can only then surmise you want to conclude it.
Answer the question; who thinks it? Rand and Objectivists certainly don't. I don't.
Watch this youtube.com/watch?v=rnEsI2fTaJo

Here, enjoy this list of various methods we already have for the process:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal

It is better to be uninformed than wrongly informed, which is what I think you are.

You've just said values presuppose life in a mess of unnecessary words, but the user you're replying to was saying how do you know life necessitates values

>i am literally ignorant on the issue, but you're definitely wrong
OK, friend. I don't think there's anywhere we can really go from that.

Friend, the fact that you've picked up a couple of phrases from a website doesn't make you informed.

>Yo let's just ruin the planet and cause massive damage bro we can just fix it later dude
You sound insane to be completely honest

And the fact that you can't identify a series of synthesized arguments when you see them proves that you aren't.

Not him and I too doubt you have these credentials you speak of. I'm sure you've encountered some very convincing articles on the subject and are vaguely alluding to the notion of expertise in them.
This

>pathogens and mycotoxins are pretty readily dealt with through genetic modification

>that's not hard

Imagine opining naively on areas of science you know nothing of

Also
>food security risks are unaffected by warmer non-US climes being less conducive to their typical crop, or even any crop

Imagine thinking that ad-hom is a viable form of argumentation. Although, I'll admit you're not the only one. It seems to be the only thing left to everyone on your side. I'll start responding again when you guys have something to say other than, "you're insane" or "you've formed your opinions on just a couple of articles" or "you know nothing"

>still no argument in sight

>She is establishing a malaise that grips the country in which she plans to later explain it's cause.

Is this really the best way to do it, though? Just flat out telling you what a character is feeling? For the purpose of establishing the setting? It's clumsy.

>How is establishing a central character and presenting a visual of the scene in which he is engaged poor prose

Again, establishing character with body language, vocal quality, physical description... it's amateurish, and a naive understanding of people, too. Character is established by action.

I know "show don't tell" is considered hack because there's many times where it doesn't apply... but this is one of those times. Writing like this is the reason why writing teachers just throw the advice at amateurs.

Also the visuals weren't so bad. If it was just the visual she'd be fine. It wasn't good, either.

>Be you in high school
>Chad comes up to you and calls you a faggot
>Scream "NOT AN ARGUMENT" in response
>Get punched in the face

You're just incredibly wrong and you haven't examined the links you provide, and there was also an actual argument in my post too.
Using biomass is a really shit idea since it takes away farmland, and we need that. Other solutions either require lots of energy, particularly to get specific minerals and metals, or only work in specific conditions. Stop being retarded

What I can identify is a blowhard who's read an article on some website and thinks he's some kind of climatologist all of a sudden.