Is Rand worth reading or is Objectivism just a meme?

Sure but aren't most post-Greek philosophies disputable on some level?

I think people just hate objectivism more than other philosophies because it's considered a meme, and Rand was ugly and acerbic.

this

Essential reading on capitalism, objectivism's alright too given you don't enjoy teamwork much

If that is essential capitalist reading i can see why capitalism is trash

Ayn Rand is the worst writer of all time

Well, probably not, since you've got all these purely commercial shites like the Fifty Shades of Gray woman, but out of everyone broadly considered "literary" she definitely is.

Disputable in the sense that you can have contrary opinions the issue then yes most philosophy (I'm not sure why you say post Greek since it applies to them also) is disputable. Objectivism is not a disputed matter. It has no academic support. It's not even a fringe thing among PhD philosophers. It's so obviously wrong at the most basic parts of its construction that not only has it never been taken seriously but has provided no influence for any philosophy since.

I think people hate it so much because as I said it's stupid but also Rand is a terrible person who happened to hate academia for, you know, being objective with their criticisms of her ideas. It doesn't help that only the worst sort of edgelord is attracted to her thinking. It's those other things that take it from being something like logical positivism which is so bad it can be disproved in five minutes in a freshman philosophy course, but which is merely considered wrong to Objectivism which is not only thought of to be wrong but despised.

going to the gym today. do i do the atlas stone or shrugs?

What is considered bad about her writing? Prose? Characterization? Plot?

Her romanticism is what people give her crap.
In Atlas Shrugged, it's kinda pushed to the bullshit level. I still vividly remember a scene in where three of the main characters have a fight scene and it's framed as if the world was tilting from the fight itself.

The problem with romanticism is that while she explicitly says ''this is simply meant to be an ideal to strive for'', people see this as how everyone should act. But reality can never be idealized to her degree and often, the worst part come to light.

Take for example one of her most outlandish remarks in her journal. She famous stated that a psychopath that killed many people would be the perfect representation of her philosophy. Obviously, this is a bad admittion as she stated only psychopaths would get it, but she correctly identified that a psychopath, unable to feel empathy, only caring about itself but also never break any laws, would be the prefect representation of her idealized master morality.

And everything wrong about her philosophy is encapsulated in that mentality. Telling everyone ''do your own thing, gain your happiness'' is idealistically great, but some actual psychopaths will take it as the green light to do whatever and break the law.

I agree with Zizek that the reason she's so popular is because she outlines the truth of capitalism and the western world by romanticizing it and capturing its essense. So to just ignore her at the wave of a hand is not a good idea. If you can see why she's popular yet how she's incorrect, that's when you understand Ayn Rand.

Rand is worth reading BECAUSE objectivism is a meme. Learn from her. Emulate her tactics. You, too, can have a cult of STEMlords worshipping the ground on which you walk.

it's worth reading. keep in mind that there's a huge community that shits on rand even though they haven't read any of it, only because it's the popular thing to hate on, it's basically a very entry level thing to hate on to make yourself seem better than people who read it or like it. People who pretend to read, pretend to hate rand.

No she isn't. Her writing is awful and her philosophy is basic bitch-tier. Read Rothbard or Hoppe

Yes and yes.

At a distance I liked the idea of her philosophy being about supporting and taking pride in the self. But why shouldn't we be nice or care for poor people? Why should we hurt people just for material gain that might not make us that happy in the end?

Was not expecting the Libertarian cannibalism.

Rand is the dankest Libertarian primer in existence.

If you like badly-written fiction written by a narcissistic cult-leader.

>some very powerful tech spergs are deeply spooked by it.

explain?

OP here. I'm convinced to read Rand. Should I start with The Fountainhead or skip to Atlas Shrugged? Any other works Rand or not that I should look into reading?

I think he means all the Silicon Valley entrepeneurs who want to "make the world a better place" or participate in other progressive causes.

>Why should we hurt people just for material gain that might not make us that happy in the end?
The point is you're supposed to know exactly what you want, and never compromise or settle for less. It doesn't have to be material gain, though. Just whatever will fulfil you.

If you're reading her for her fiction, start with Anthem. If you enjoy it, advance to Fountainhead. Shrugged is her lowest-quality novel desu — the shorter the Rand, the better the Rand.

If you're reading her for her philosophy, go straight to Capitalism, then read Shrugged as an application of the ideas she lays out in Capitalism.

Start with Anthem. Then go with The Fountainhead. They're both decent, with the latter being the most enjoyable. Atlas Shrugged is only good for the first 300 pages until Dagny leaves her company to save it. After that it becomes a complete bore until the famous speech that ends the world. Despite its meme status, it's worth reading for the ultimate ''go fuck yourself'' speech. It makes sense if you imagine Ayn Rand were speaking directly to people we currently consider 'SJW'.

Why would you be nice to poor people when they can just look at you, pick themselves up and find a job? Why should you spend your time feeling pity for the poor rather than working on what makes you happy and enjoying your life?

Ayn Rand never advocated hurting others for gain, simply following the law that apply to everyone and to find our own happiness.

She is legitimately worth reading.

However, be prepared to disagree with her on many points.

you know, like Rothbard?

Don't listen to the ""intellectuals here"". Ayn Rand is one of the most influential philosopher of the 20th century. People like to bitch about her not being qualified but magically forget that Plato himself was educated by a crazy old man and that he resorted exclusively to straw men to make his arguments sound appeasing

I don't believe that the most powerful people in Silicon Valley are honest in their aims. I think that they push diversity because they want to import even more cheap labor from India, and are looking to create a political environment where they can coerce people who move to stop them into silence. It's crony capitalism.

I also don't think that the average tech guy is behind them. Almost every programmer that I've ever met has been on the right.

Speaking as an objectivist, yes, it's definitely worth reading. I find her short stories to be the best introduction, but you can clearly see the influence of her early life in Soviet Russia. She writes and thinks like a lot of people who escaped Communist hellholes do, and in an era where socialism is gaining increasing social cache among the normalfags without any understanding of history, it is all the more vital to understand the counterarguments to leftism.

We should starting pointing people to anti-SJW youtubers en masse. Sargon and Joe Rogan are probably the most normie-friendly.

From there, some will progress to a point where they want to learn more about the Soviet Union, Islam, and the major philosophers from primary sources. Every educated person that we have walking around is another tank on the ground of this culture war: tough to bring down and highly destructive.

>Irony the post

> I think that they push diversity because they want to import even more cheap labor from India

They don't get points for that, I think they push diversity because the government is mad as fuck that they're overflowing with Whites, Asians, and Poos, and Natives, Blacks, and Hispanics is obviously the fault of systemic racism on the part of employers, to imply this wasn't the case would be racism, so they either need to shape up their act or be punished.

The employers are just making the best of it.

That picture is definitive proof that libertarianism is retarded.

It is worth reading if you hate poor people

Nobody except a Randian would ever say something that stupid

I was more of thinking companies like uber and people like peter thiel. Ross Ulbricht even.

Yes and Yes. See, Rand is essential if you want to understand the mindset of capitalism within the 50s and 60s. While her ideology is one I personally find incredibly reductionist, it is still a good idea to try and get a grasp of it so that you understand what is meant by being an objectivist.

>anti-SJW youtubers
I'm all for educating normies to not conform to utopian leftist ideologies, but anti-SJW youtubers are the wrong way to do it. Ignoring the fact that they use strawmen and get angry very easily, they usually tend to look at issues in a superficial way (more detailed than the typical normie worldview, but still superficial).
If i remember correctly there was some time ago a video from Sargon where he cited some rape statistics (or something like that) and it became apparent that he hadn't read anything beyond the headings and the charts.
Normies should instead refer directly to philosophers and political thinkers; however, I still don't know how it would be possible to make their knowledge digestible to plebs without dumbing down the content.

Justifying the death of empathy will never be a valid philosophy, and Rand died alone on government welfare. All her books have their moments, but there's so little ground for her ideas to stand on. She created elaborate fantasies to prop up bad ideas, which have gone on to infect people in power like a virus and give them an excuse to make the world a worse place.

>Is Rand worth reading
Yes
>is Objectivism just a meme?
Yes

They're entertaining books. Anyone who's ever felt like they were working with/for a load of incompetent greedy shits can identify with John Galt and the other "good guys" in Atlas shrugged. Anyone who's ever felt like genuine skill and desire to use it gets laughed at can identify with Howard Roarke in The Fountainhead. And who could possibly not be entertained by the rape scene?

Her political and philosophical points of view are very incomplete but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy the books.

If you're into capitalism just pick up an economics textbook it will be more interesting and insightful, Rand is shit.

>t has no academic support. It's not even a fringe thing among PhD philosophers. It's so obviously wrong at the most basic parts of its construction that not only has it never been taken seriously but has provided no influence for any philosophy since.
It has no support among ivory tower intellectuals and sophists, yes.

its like a retarded child would pick up philosophy 101 and then wrote an essay about it

This. You can learn all you want about her philosophy by looking at the wikipedia page of Objectivism. Study economic theory instead

>Rothbard
>cult-leader
Explain

It's good to be well versed in every political stance and philosophy. It gives you more perspective in forming your own views .(libertarianism helps understand human nature, so it could have more impact if you were, say, a syndicalist) I've heard that it's better to read the Fountainhead first, and if you think it's okay then you can jump into Atlas Shrugged. Make sure to read a bit of Hayek, Mises, and the sort, so that you can really absorb the entirety of that political position. It's a solid foundation, since it prevents you from getting into anything extremely improbable and helps you understand pragmatic ideologies better; though I'm not necessarily a Libertarian. Be forewarned; however, I was once a libertarian, and there is a major pitfall where you believe that government intervention is always bad, and ignore any statistics that argue in favor of it. A lot of libertarian economics is just assumptions based on their politics and social theories; I don't mean to insult the libertarians, but this takes a lot of work to overcome, so it's best to be avoided.

While you're at it; make sure to understand other important figures such as: Smith, Marx, Sorel, C.H. Douglass, Gottfried Feder, Keynes, and Rothbard. This helps you consider every perspective. Understanding every theory is what led me to Third Position ideologies; where; economic justice is important, but it's done in a way that fits with human nature, and respects immaterial things like family, religion, culture, and knowledge more than profit.