ATLAS SHRUGGED By Ayn Rand

>>[driving ithrough the countryside]
>>"It's a good road," said Rearden, "It was built to last. The
>>man who built it [was really good i swear]."
>>"Yes..."
>>"I don't like the looks of this."
>>"I don't either." Then she smiled. "But think of how often
>>we've heard people complain that billboards ruin the
>>appearance of the countryside. Well, there's the unruined
>>countryside for them to admire." She added, "They're the >>people I hate."

I've just finished Atlas Shrugged, and I am left somewhat conflicted. Part of me understands how this could have been voted the best book of the 20th century. Part of me understands how she, a person whom had experienced the Bolshevik's rise to power and was greatly affected by the negatives of communism, could have honestly and fully believed what she was writing. But for the most part, I can't help but to regard this book as a thick pile of shit. Opinions?

>>16 On the first part, I am not a philosophy student, being a first-year premed student (soon switching majors, premed is... not for me), and I don't even know what Hund's law is. Furthermore, I'm not so concerned with what specific mechanisms (re: to anyone who doesn't have a taste for philosphy, "bullshit") made Rand wrong in her philosophy, I'm more concerned why she was wrong. Note there is a difference. If I couldn't figure out why she was wrong, maybe I'd dabble in those philosophical mechanisms. Who knows.

The second part: I'm pretty sure they don't care about any argumental merit. I don't either particularly, but if I'm going to dislike something, I always need to fully understand why--if I find no logical reason, then I have to examine my reason for questioning the subject in the first place. This is just what I call thinking. It has nothing to do with philosophy, really.

On a different note, the great Anonymous once stated it best on another board: Person 1: "...if Ayn Rand were a troll."
Person 2: "Ayn Rand was a troll. She was so good, people are still taking her seriously."