Funny how seemingly every criticism of Rand (and Objectivism) I've ever read expresses a fundamental misunderstanding...

Funny how seemingly every criticism of Rand (and Objectivism) I've ever read expresses a fundamental misunderstanding of her work. They say they've read her work, they say they understand it; but it is quite clear that they do not. Take, for example, their criticism that Rand "glorifies" selfishness, as if this is a bad thing. They claim that selfishness means something along the likes of "me, me, and only me, to hell with everybody else." This is not what selfishness means, and Rand knew this. That fallacious definition of selfishness does not hold up either linguistically or conceptually. Its proper meaning has been corrupted by centuries of bad philosophy and propaganda. These people are conflating selfishness (as properly understood) with solipsism/narcissism/hedonism.

Sharing, for example, is an act of selfishness. I share with others so they'll share with me, and to build solid relationships. I don't share for the sake of sharing. I don't share to benefit another unless I too benefit. To say that it is better to benefit another than to benefit oneself, is to not value one's own life. Benefit is not a zero sum game. One does not benefit at another's expense. One's gain is not another's loss. Benefit and gain are mutual. If not, then you have something else.

tl;dr but threadly reminder that The Fountainhead > Atlas Shrugged.

>a fundamental misunderstanding of her work
>This is not what selfishness means
>selfishness (as properly understood)

>doesn't define selfishness
really gets the noggin joggin

Threadly reminder that this is the greatest novella ever written.

Rand is best understood as a criticism against socialism, rather than a defense of her own blend of libertarian extremism.

Falls really short and is too predictable. Is a nice light comfy afternoon read tho.

>Mom, you just don't get it!

Remember when Ayn Rand was bannable on Veeky Forums?
I miss moot.

>I don't share for the sake of sharing. I don't share to benefit another unless I too benefit.
Is that a decision you consciously take? If so that's not sharing, it's commerce.

>Ayn Rand
u dun goofd

To what extent? To the point that I get a warm fuzzy feeling inside? Our am I buying that to? Should I share and feel nothing for it to be truly sharing?

Almost nobody who shits on Rand has read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. Not defending her, but it's true. It's a huge time investment, so for the most part the only people who read her are the people who really like her. As a consequence, the people who really know what they're talking about in regards to her work are mainly the people who agree with her.

>Sharing to build relationships

That's not at all what happens in the book though.

marxists and randists are two sides of the same coin. both should be disregarded.

tfw every critic of Rand is exactly the toxic secondhand parasite she describes in her books.

She's a useful litmus test to determine the character of someone.

>Blindly attack/ban Rand

Parasite

>Blindly treat Rand as gospel

LARP

>Accurately counter the errors Rand makes and appreciate the effort she made

Decent, solid human being

>people don't understand this work because they presume words mean what they actually mean and not something else
Great post, user.

tfw every critic of Hitler is exactly the filthy untermensch parasite he describes in his books.

She's a useful litmus test to determine the character of someone.

>Blindly attack/ban Hitler

Untermensch

>Blindly treat Hitler as gospel

Nazi

>Accurately counter the errors Hitler makes and appreciate the effort he made

Decent, solid human being

>I share with others so they'll share with me, and to build solid relationships. I don't share for the sake of sharing. I don't share to benefit another unless I too benefit.

This is worse than hedonism/narcissism/solipsism, all of those feature some form of delusion. What you described however is outright the lowest form of living.

You can't really compare Hitler and Rand.
Hitler was a politician, Rand wrote books.

Ayn rand is better understood as a satire of capitalist ideology at its full extent and a defense of communism

What do I need to know in order to appreciate Rand? I was about to buy Fountainhead and Atlas

I would say that you should know that there's a popular video game series based on these two novels and that people may criticize for reading them.

Her family was pwned by Russian Revolution and suffered after (though it's only thanks to the new regime that she as a woman was able to acquire higher education). Her works are basically one gigantic overreaction to Bolshevism.

He had a good point though, Hitler was an amazing statesman who truly believed you should be proud of your country.

Many mistakes were made though, that's undenaible.

>Sharing, for example, is an act of selfishness. I share with others so they'll share with me, and to build solid relationships. I don't share for the sake of sharing. I don't share to benefit another unless I too benefit.
How's the 17th century? When did you guys get internet?

I liked The Fountainhead

We could probably even reduce this further

"They" are a useful litmus test to determine the character of someone.

>blindly attack

bad

>blindly follow

bad

>Fairly assess positives and negatives

Decent, solid human being

Well my dude my guy my pal here's the thing -- you're a piece of shit and should probably kill yourself

user, I think you've memed some truth here.

Very much so.

objectivism is inextricably linked to americas identity

it is inevitable that america will eventually embrase Randian philosophy

theres a reason that paul ryan is a keen rand scholar

This. I am by no means an Objectivist or a fan of Ayn Rand, but I have noticed how most objections to her philosophy take the form of ad hominem or a poor understanding of her work.

threadly reminder that Ayn Rand's entire life goes against her ideology and therefore cannot (and isn't) taken seriously as a philosopher or as a writer

>believed you should be proud of your country

>amazing statesman

this is your brain on idedology

>i ded ology

I ded

I also agree with this. And I'm quite Randy.

this desu

A conservative Christian straight Family Research Council lawyer, Christian College professor and abortion clinic bomber was teaching a class on Nadya "Octomom" Suleman.
'Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Octomom and accept that she is the most reproductive and parental being that the world has ever known, even greater than Ayn Rand [known Childfree Activist]"
At this moment, a brave, anarchist, pro-choice Occupy Wallstreet champion who had served 1500 tours of facebook debate training and understood the necessity of population control and fully supported all decisions by couples to not have children stood up and held up an aborted fetus.
"How alive is this aborted fetus?"
The arrogant preacher smirked quite Christianly and smugly replied "4.6 billion times more than a rock, you stupid Atheist!"
"Wrong. It's been 5,000 hours since my boyfriend's sperm created it, If it was 4.6 billion times more alive than a rock and the concept of unborn children, as you say, is real.... then it should be an crotchdropping by now."
The Preacher was visibly shaken and dropped her copy of "The Bible and Birth Control." She stormed out of the room crying those breeder crocodile tears.
The students applauded and all had abortions and vasectomies that day and accepted Ayn Rand as their lord and savior. A sterilized eagle named "Negative Population Growth" flew into the room and perched atop a schoolhouse and shed an unfertilized egg on the children. The/r/childfree sidebar was read several times, and the Pope of the Church of Euthanasia himself showed up and enacted a one child only policy across the country.
The professor lost her tenure and was excommunicated the next day. She died of the breeder plague childbirth and was tossed into the earth and simply rotted because the afterlife doesn't exist.

Rearden offering a moratorium on payments for his metal to Eddie Willers springs immediately to mind. Heck, he even explains why it is in his own interest to share.

This lol

These reaction images make me feel gross every time you post them.

Ayn Rand meant self-interest when she said selfishness. Selfishness is always understood as self-interest to the direct detriment of others. She was trying and failing to be more provocative than she actually was.

The Fountainhead has very interesting character arcs, but I really can't take Rand's views on architecture seriously

Ehhhh, Atlas Shrugged is very bloated though. Occasionally there are great passages (the description of the decline of the 20th Century Motor Co. being a foremost example), but there's far too much unnecessary crap (Galt's radio speech in particular) that you have to slog through.
I find it's best to read Atlas Shrugged as you would a musical, except instead of over the top song and dance routines you have political speeches. It's kinda cheesy, but if you accept the premise it's quite enjoyable.

>They claim that selfishness means something along the likes of "me, me, and only me, to hell with everybody else." This is not what selfishness means.
>That fallacious definition of selfishness does not hold up either linguistically or conceptually.

Sorry to burst your bubble bud but
>bubububu
etymologically speaking 'selfishness' or rather 'selfish' is the combined form of self+ish, former of which has direct correlation to the exact same millennial old ancient Greek concept of 'ἐγώ' and latter Latin 'ego'.
Ego (εγω) is the direct translation of the english 'I' as it is in Greek the first person singular pronoun. It is also the equivalent of the German 'Ich' that Freud adapted as a psychoanalytic concept in his work on the self.
And but so I do understand where you are trying to get at - and you are in the right to argue your point - but you are fag to say people are dumb and have a false axiom on 'selfishness' on the account of erroneous historical;linguistic and conceptual misunderstanding. It is simply not true.

It was?

> You now realize that 99% of people that criticize the written ideas of others haven't actually read & understood the writings on the first place & just go off interpretations of others

Really makes you think huh...

> "2% of the people think, 3% of the people think they think and 95% of the people would rather die than think." - Bernard Shaw