Why do people hate her so much? I mean, invoking her name in some circles is tanamount to summoning a demonic clone of hitler, or pissing in their face. Even if you don't like her philosophy, which is very understandable, she was a good writer. It just weird how hard the dividing line between people on her is.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-26 8:27 ID:wV+JmKty
Because speaking up for capitalism is considered treason in the communist utopias that are american colleges.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-26 22:34 ID:DLjQbv1E
I hate when people say but she was a good writer! I'm sorry, that's not what I find to be good writing. I am not convinced of her backwards fallacy of "morals" and "logic", and indeed, why should I even feel like I need to be? Why should a FICTION NOVEL be based so much on skewed "philosophical" thought that it feels like she's trying to convert or teach the reader? Rand was not a good writer, nor a good philosopher. She was merely a person caught up in the hell that was proto-communist Russia. It's really no wonder she developed such views if you take even a casual glance at her background.
>>2
Has nothing to do with why everyone hates Rand at all.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-27 1:00 ID:+M48dbn0
not all of her writing was based off of objectivism. Just the ones that people have read. And she was a good writer. She was trying to teach the reader. And frankly, an indepth study of american history supports many if not all of her ideals.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-27 11:26 ID:OquWxRJT
>>4
>> And she was a good writer. She was trying to teach the reader
Precisely why she was NOT a good writer. Ever try to read Heinlein? If you're going to enlighten someone with FICTION, you must do it subtly, so the reader draws the same conclusions himself by the time you come out and state anything. Rand just makes leaps of logic and starts shouting random faggotry like this (my favorite Rand quote):
"The black dress seemed excessively revealing--because it was astonishing to discover that the lines of her shoulder were fragile and beautiful, and that the diamond band on the wrist of her naked arm gave her the most feminine of all aspects: the look of being chained."
>>And frankly, an indepth study of american history supports many if not all of her ideals.
Lol. Nothing supports her ideals. LOGIC even negates half of them. Morality? She knows nothing of morality. She does not understand that her innate feeling towards thing were born out of her experiences in Russia before coming to America. She does not know that most human beings do not feel the same way. She doesn't understand that her image of objectivism is merely a fallacy based upon what she feels to be a perfect man. She doesn't understand how the human mind works (not to say I or anyone else fully does, but what we know now is nothing like what she seemed to believe). She doesn't understand the power of monopolies, and why they should NOT exist. She doesn't understand why Herbert-fucking-Hoover's outlook on politics was WRONG. This is coming from me, and I'm not even a liberal.
Present tense, because I'm pretty sure she never had a chance to change her mind.
Is that enough to convince everyone, or are you going to take the Rand route and ignore what's right in front of you?
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-27 11:28 ID:OquWxRJT
Oh, and just because your average Ayn Rand-hater, however just it might be, can't really defeat her thinking. How's that for MORALITY, dreamer?
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-27 17:28 ID:GD3HIZ5L
I can understand having political problems with some of the things Ayn Rand says--especially living today in a world hyper-sensitized to political correctness.
Even still, if you look at the enlightenment values that she supported: reason, freedom, equality, and prosperity of the individual, you are going to have to make a strong case that THESE things aren't worthwhile.
>>5
"The black dress seemed excessively revealing--because it was astonishing to discover that the lines of her shoulder were fragile and beautiful, and that the diamond band on the wrist of her naked arm gave her the most feminine of all aspects: the look of being chained."
Out of context this may seem derogatory towards women. However, Rand's women were very liberated: they ENJOYED SEX. In fact I think Rand was pretty kinky--to wit, here is a subtle reference to some domination games. Also this particular quote comes from Atlas Shrugged where hard edged Dagny (one of the last effectual railroad tycoons in the world--a woman no less!) experiences a moment of desperation in her fight to save her business.
And when logic doesn't work: I mean... come on!
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-27 19:42 ID:K4c0Y/1v
for the same reasons people hate the bible
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-27 21:48 ID:OquWxRJT
>Even still, if you look at the enlightenment values that she supported: reason, freedom, equality, and prosperity of the individual, you are going to have to make a strong case that THESE things aren't worthwhile.
I wouldn't be having a problem with her if she really supported these things. Her "reason": based only upon her invented morals. In Atlas Shrugged, she makes numerous references to "reason" in regards to her entirely bias-driven feelings on certain subjects.
Rand certainly did not outright say there was "any sort of power difference" between men and women. No, of course not. But even a casual reader of her stuff will pick up instantly how she grossly favors men--not just because it refects her earlier 20th century world. And out of context? The only way it's out of context is if you don't know Rand. Here's another little quote by her. Not from a book or anything, this was a statement of her personal thoughts: "For a woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship – the desire to look up to man." Well, there goes the equality bit!
More:
"In a Playboy magazine interview, Rand stated that women are not psychologically suited to be President and strongly opposed the modern feminist movement"
Frankly, the fact that her female characters enjoy sex is a moot point. It is possible for a rape victim to enjoy being ravaged, but that certainly doesn't mean it's A-O-K PERFECTLY FINE EQUALITY.
Ayn Rand is one of the few people I wish I could revive in a science lab headed by myself and interview her just to find out what the fuck she was really thinking. But hey, that's just a dumb dream that I obviously never actually expect to happen. Certainly something I wouldn't write a fiction novel preaching about.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-28 2:33 ID:xcjpEOiJ
I think Rand was all for female equality. Many of her books feature very strong women. Dagny Taggart springs to mind. The female protaganist of "the husband I bought" was also far more than a passive figure. I think one of the other really awsome women in rand's stories was Jinx from "Good Copy". Its important to note that rand's ideas about women, and sexuality in particular are drawn directly from herself. In relation to the infamous "rape" scene, Rand said that it was "wishfull thinking". Quite frankly, I think most people are put of more by the mythos that surrounds her, as none of her base ideals are really that shocking. She did get mone cynical and hardlined as she aged. Her non-fiction work is quite frankly appaling, and I thin it does a diservice to her ideals. It also makes her seem very dated. At one point she explains mental retardation and homosexuality as caused by being greedy in an altruistic society. So yes, she was wrong in many areas. But, think that ultimately, she had the right idea on many things. I mean, seriously, can you really argue with the basic tenents? "1. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won't make it so." 2. "You can't eat your cake and have it, too." 3. "Man is an end in himself." 4. "Give me liberty or give me death.""
Makes a lot of sense to me...and as a writer, her non-fiction was worse than her fiction, and within fiction, some of her first works are better, and lack the moralistic overtones.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-28 11:04 ID:727KcnpI
>>10
Her basic idea was to make Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction exist independent of time. That is, she wants not only A to equal A, but to have A always equal A. This is wrong for obvious reasons that even the ancients could see. Sure my lamp is a lamp, but when I turn it on it’s not that lamp, or when I smash it it’s no longer that lamp. All of her other ideas flow from this one bad idea.
Most of her ideas on morality are just copied from people like Kant and Locke, she really presented no new ideas other then her sub-par metaphysics witch was an attempt to link the two.
As a philosopher I have no respect for Rand, but I do believe her writings have done alot of good. Atlas Shrugged has been called the most influential book in America (besides the bible) for good reason, the number of lives it’s changed for the better numbers in the millions. I don’t really understand all the hate she has generated. I think alot of pseudo progressives (usually college freshmen-sophomores with no philosophy knowledge) think its some kind of rite of passage.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-28 13:46 ID:sMYy36Hg
>>10
Arguing Rand was a feminist is a losing argument. She valued men over women, plain and simple. Note that she didn't think women COULDN'T be as good as or better than men, she just clearly believed the reason men were predominantly in power in her time is because only men (and very few women) could possibly handle it. In other words, what she found in men's nature, very few women had the ability to attain. And as I already stated, her views on sex are very male power-dominated; just because these are her personal feelings does not negate the statement--she clearly believed this was not only how sex is, but how sex should be.
>>11
You don't need "philosophy knowledge" to understand the ways in which Rand was incorrect, you simply need to be able to THINK. Not to imply all thinking humans have a problem with Rand, as that is obviously not the case.
Secondly, the average college freshman or even sophomore has no fucking clue as to who Rand even is.
I think most people who hate Rand probably do so because of a modern-liberal prejudice. The entire thought structure presented in
I don't really understand how Atlas Shrugged could have possibly done any good, given people actually follow the ideas it sets forth. Perhaps it could have persuaded some people merely to get off their asses and try to make a difference. No, scratch that--I meant get off their asses and try to make something of themselves.
Frankly I see any philosophical take on Rand rather fruitless thought that in the end doesn't really mean anything besides the presented philosophical categorization. Well, I guess that much is true about almost all modern philosphers.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-28 13:49 ID:sMYy36Hg
Forgot to finish that one paragraph, but oh well. You can guess how I'd start talking about Atlas Shrugged and how it goes against such modern ideas as, idk, not only thinking about yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-28 20:21 ID:xcjpEOiJ
thinking about ourselves got us this far, I'm pretty damn sure it will keep on working. Nonzero by Robert Wright is a good look at how and why society formed. Its mainly because people wanted to do better in the world, and often the best way to do that is cooperation, and both people benfit. Most people have this idea that looking out for one's self means you want to kill everyone else along the way. Doing whats not in you best intrest is fucking retarded, and tends to cause more problems than its worth.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-28 23:28 ID:sMYy36Hg
Well, that's just jumbling terms. Everything a person does is for self-satisfaction. Many things a person does are in self-interest--and there's nothing wrong with that. Selfishness, though, completely outruling any emotional attachment to other human beings and operating soley on what will make YOU happy, regardless of anyone else, is not good! Hammurabi's code worked for a reason, and I think THAT Is why we're here today.
You can argue about the effect/values/drawbacks of selfishness until you turn blue in the face but your not addressing the issue. The real issue is weather or not selfishness and reason are the good and everything that goes against those two is the bad.
“I don't really understand how Atlas Shrugged could have possibly done any good, given people actually follow the ideas it sets forth. Perhaps it could have persuaded some people merely to get off their asses and try to make a difference. No, scratch that--I meant get off their asses and try to make something of themselves.”
You don’t consider that to be doing any good?
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-29 4:33 ID:FI/jplXx
The main reason people have problems with Rand is simply because she reacts to communism by focusing on individualism to the nth degree. It's such a polar extreme that in many ways it'd be just as bad as communism (or really totalitarianism which is what USSR really was) if it were to ever happen on a large scale.
At least that's what I divined from reading Anthem.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-29 18:08 ID:Mx6SlwHR
>>16
Well, a little, I guess. But if she were to convince the world of the same, well, I don't think I need to explain why Hoover isn't exactly listed as the best president of all time.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-29 19:59 ID:yhzjEy54
Meh, people hate Rand because she is not only pro-individual, she is pro-ego... according to Anthem it's the most important word in the English language. She's not that bad, people need to just lay off her.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-29 22:22 ID:YS8zAoYJ
>>17
I agree. I think Rand had some really good ideas, and she took them very very seriously. Her critics attacked her for this and she responded by taking it a little to the extreme.
You can say a lot of things negative about the woman herself, but in the end her stance was PRO REASON. She wrote a lot about how the mind is used as a tool (and essentially the only tool) to know the world. She gave praise to some great thinkers and was highly critical of others. Her books bring people actively into philosophy--whether you agree or not, to argue effectively for or against her you really have to UNDERSTAND the points she makes and the points that other philosophers make.
Rand's philosophy is very introspective and critically analyses ideas and how human beings form concepts of the world around us.
One thing that I think turns a lot of people off to Rand is that she talks a lot about morality. I get the impression from reading her books that she uses the word very differently than what passes for the common notion. In her view every rational decision you make reflects your ethics and your morality since those are the devices by which you make rational decisions.
Rand was optimistic. She thought that this was a world that was understandable to the degree that humans need to understand it to live happily here. I like that.
>>20
To be honest, I don't know where you're getting this crap. No offence intended.
Newborn 13 year old atheists claim to be pro-reason, but that doesn't make the bullshit they spew any more worthwhile. Ayn Rand's thinking is not applicable to any but those who were born under the rule of the tsar in Russia, witnessed the bolshevik's rise to power, and moved to America. The reason people hate her, even if they don't realize it, is because she makes absurd claims (not just "morality") and tries to teach the reader to believe them.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-30 2:52 ID:cKYLqwQi
>>22
It's "offense" retard. It's also clear you are incapable of making reasonable arguments and that you are guided by anger.
Of course this is 4chan so why don't you just spam a bunch of penis like >>21 and say gtfo n00b! That would at least be coherent in this context. Your driveling is just pathetic.