Finally, she and some of her followers are often perceived as being dogmatic, frequently ignoring published criticism of the system instead of responding to it. This is in part because many of them were young people excited by her novels and unlearned in philosophy; such people are not often aware of the complexities of their subject and prone to construe disagreement as ignorance. Furthermore, many of her supporters would not permit modifications or additions to her philosophical system, leading some to label Rand as a cult leader.
More like you're going flip FAIL at your lame impressions of the all-knowing anti-chan. This is what's know as McCarthyism, the last refuge for a person that lacks the cognitive prowess of debate. Hey, if you can't out-argue me, you'll just shout me down with insults.
That's fine.
Though, I'm much better with fag-callings than you...so I'd think twice before putting those fingers to the keyboard. I mean: At least wash the stink of your daddy's asshole off your hands first.
Over your liberal persecution complex yet? Be sure to tell us when you put down the bong and at least try to string together a coherent argument. The world can at take comfort in the fact that faggots like you will never reproduce.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-29 20:20
Faggots are made of DRUGS and drugs are bad for you I don't need drugs to get high I get high off of life.
Name:
John-chan2005-12-29 20:50
When I grow up I am want to be a doctor and cure homosexuality. I'm sad whenever I see people with mental disorders, I'm going to help them!
Name:
John-chan2005-12-29 20:50
When I grow up I want to be a doctor and cure homosexuality. I'm sad whenever I see people with mental disorders, I'm going to help them!
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-29 22:54
>>13
I lol'd
I hope you succeed and rid the world of fags
Ayn Rand was a person who truly understood what it means to be a human being, which is more than I can say for the general population of 4chan. Does that make me conceited and arrogant? Yes. Was Ayn Rand a cultist in any form or fashion? No. They came to her discussion meetings and whatnot by choice. Her philosophy isn't hard to understand, even to people that are young and impressionable. That doesn't make them stupid. What makes perfect sense, makes perfect sense.
Is the world becoming so sensitive and politically correct that to suggest that someone should strive above their own mediocrity is offensive? God forbid we should offeeeend anyone.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-30 10:27
>>17
I totally agree with objectivism philosophy of Ayn Rand. But I can't understand any single sentence you have written.
Ayn Rand was a reptilian frigid ice-queen bitch who- devoid of a Randian heroic father figure- latched onto the most unwarrantly arrogant and unethical of the greek philosophers in Aristotle. Ever wondered what would've happened if that communist gang didn't nationalize her daddy's shop?
>>19 "Ever wondered what would've happened if that communist gang didn't nationalize her daddy's shop?"
Who cares? They did, so she wrote of the atrocities of communism and the evils of anti-individual philosophies. Those atrocities and evils existed, and still do today. That's the point: that they exist.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-30 18:22
Yeah, they do.
But Rand is an evil unto herself. The woman was a total bitch too, twisting her philosophy to do whatever she wanted. Totally self-righteous all the while.
Name:
John2005-12-30 18:43
What's evil about only having your own interests in mind? Or adopting high standards?
Anyway, it's only an "atrocities" because Ayn become impoverished because of it. Notice how something it only TRULY tragic when some rich fuck doesn't want to pitch on on the soceity that fills their pockets with cabbage? Fuck Rich people. Fuck making excuses for them. Fuck Ayn Rand.
I mean, I WOULD Fuck Ayn Rand if she wasn't so fucking ugly and her pussy didn't stink like Russian fish oil.
>>24
Dude, I understand that you absolutly at all costs need to defame anything I say. But do me and 4chan a favor and at the very least be funny about that shit.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-31 2:25
who teh fouck is ayn rand??
stupod americans
Name:
John2005-12-31 8:36
>>23
Alright, first of all, society doesn't make people rich, now does it? Society enables people to become rich by whatever standard of "rich" it has. To become rich, you have to put forth the effort. It's not about luck. 2% of the millionaires in America got that money by inheritance. The rest of em busted their asses for it.
Speaking of American wealth, did you know you can have a color TV, a refrigerator, a microwave, and a WORKING CAR, and still be considered in poverty in this country? The average person in poverty in this country has a higher standard of living than the AVERAGE person in Europe.
Name:
Styrofoam!DWDMFPPpRw2005-12-31 12:36
>>33The average person in poverty in this country has a higher standard of living than the AVERAGE person in Europe.
>>33 The average person in poverty in this country has a higher standard of living than the AVERAGE person in Europe.
LOL! Good one!
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-31 13:52
>>33 >>35
You haven't been in Europe, have you? (Psst, I don't mean Mexico. Have a look at a world map, possibly for the first time.)
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-01 0:52
What's evil about only having your own interests in mind?
Only? You are a seriously sick fuck, John.
I don't like lowering myself to ad hominem attacks, but that's the only thing that comes to my mind. If you believe that Ayn Rand's behaviour was excusable, you are going to die a very lonely and bitter person. To be honest, I suspect you have an antisocial personality disorder. Of course, if I recommended you get treatment, I'd just be oppressing you.
Put yourself in her husband's shoes. What about her associates? The lives she damaged in her selfishness? It can't happen to you, right? You're the hero, Mr. John Galt. You, out of millions are special.
Name:
John2006-01-02 20:16
>>38
Ok then. *Puts himself in the husband's shoes, with full knowledge of what wife's convictions about life are, with very similar ones myself.*
... ... Ok. What's your point? What in the hell did she do to these people that they can claim some sort of righteous injustice against her, knowing full damn well what her philosophy was, and having similar onces themselves seeing as how they chose to go on associating with her? Or do YOU even know what her philosophy is?
What sort of moral obligations do you think universally apply to every single individual human mind that they should give a flying fuck about his fellow man unless it's to his own advantage? Tell me why.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-02 20:44
Ayn Rand was a sad cunt, dude. This is stuff you learn in remedial philosophy. Don't think it's ironic that she died of heart failure?
Name:
John2006-01-02 20:54
>>40
Yeah, it's sad to realize that most people my age don't have standards of competency these days, much less philosophy...
Breaks my fucking heart, man. e_e;
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-02 21:01
>>1
"My philosophy advocates reason, not faith; it requires men to think -- to accept nothing without a full, rational, firsthand understanding and conviction -- to claim nothing without factual evidence and logical proof. A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. Objectivism is not a mystic cult."
- Ayn Rand
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-02 23:24
AYN RAND SUCKED THE BRAINS OUT OF BLACK BABIES WITH DRINKING STRAWS AYN RAND SUCKED SO MUCH COCK THAT HER BRAIN WAS MADE OF SMEGMA AYN RAND SELLS CRACK TO THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES AYN RAND MADE ME IMPOTENT AYN RAND CAUSED THE HOLOCAUST BECAUSE HER CUNT WAS HITLER!
Yeah, the irony there being- that's exactly what Objectivism has become.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-02 23:39
Socialism is better. Look at Finland.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-03 6:39 (sage)
>>44
As much as I hate to admit it, anti-chan nailed it. You can't summarize Objectivism much better than that.
It was flawed to begin with. If Rand's novels are accurate representations of Objectivism, it's a childish philosophy that works in a world of gross exaggeration. If they aren't accurate, then why are there so many "Objectivist" Rand fags out there (where are the reasonable ones that distance themselves?), and why was Rand a bitch that deserved the end she received?
She was too stupid to realize that the Communism she so loathed didn't work because Marxism was a simplified theory itself. So she went and made something even more simplistic.
And then warped it to her own ends. Rand was far from rational about anything. Take a look at her personal life.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-03 7:12
As much as I hate bringing people's personal lives into their "work", I have to agree. And I don't want to sound like a male pig asshole, but Rand was a woman...that alone voids any attempts at rationale.
Even more ironic than Rand's heart failure is that the only reasonable ones that still somewhat refer to themselves as "Objectivist" are persona non grata to the "movement" itself. Like that guy she had the affair with? Something-Brandon (I forget).
Listen we all loved the Fountainhead to some extent, but there comes a time when you have to, like, you know....*Grow the fuck up*.
Name:
John2006-01-03 10:12
>>47
Grow the fuck up in what sense? You and >>46 and >>44, rather than attacking *ANY ASPECT OF HER ACTUAL PHILOSOPHY*, want to instead attack her personally. Nobody on this board so far has given any rational perspective as to why Objectivism in its original context is a wrong view for a person to have.
So what are you people saying, exactly? That people just shouldn't aspire to anything above the mediocrity of your 'average Joe'? That people shouldn't have any dreams or work ethic? What are you guys trying to say exactly? What are you people about?
wow. you DO realize that you just attributed someone's personal flaws to the fact that they are female, right? you didn't want to sound like a male pig asshole, but that's exactly what you achieved. way to go.
there is more to becoming a better person than earning more money.
Name:
John2006-01-03 13:34
>>49
I said nothing about money, and it has absolutely nothing to do with money. The only reason money ever comes up in these types of discussions, when they start talking about the "rich" versus the "poor", is pure envy, but that's another thread.
It matters a great deal. Building what is basically supposed to be a philosophy of pure logic upon pure emotion is a fallacy.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-03 23:15
>>54
so you are not a communist anymore? that's good, and suprising, well done!
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-03 23:15
P.S. WHO TEH FUCK IS AYN RAND WHO TEH FUCK IS AYN RAND WHO TEH FUCK IS AYN RAND WHO TEH FUCK IS AYN RAND WHO TEH FUCK IS AYN RAND WHO TEH FUCK IS AYN RAND WHO TEH FUCK IS AYN RAND
>>54
"Objectivism regards reason as an absolute. It holds that all knowledge is based on the evidence of the senses. It holds that all beliefs, conclusions, and convictions must be established by logical methods of inquiry and tested by logical methods of verification. In short, it holds that the scientific approach applies to all areas of knowledge."
- David Kelley
Yeah, that's just dripping with pure emotion, lemme tell ya. ¬_¬
The problem with regarding reason as absolute is that human reason is faulty. We tend to jump to false conclusions, make sweeping generalizations and engage in magical thinking. It doesn't really matter which dogmas we reify -- whether it's dead Jewish carpenters or Objectivism. These mental trinkets, though perfect in their own closed-loops, are unworkable in reality. People try to subjugate reality to their dogmas, but it ends up in fanaticism and disaster; the exact opposite of what was intended.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-04 18:58
I hear that Rand's life was a mess, but it's hard not to cheer for the heroes of her books. Nobody in real life is as awesome as John Galt and his posse, but it would be cool if they were. Anyway, Rand didn't really give a damn whether or not people donated to charities, all she wanted was an end to forced generosity (which of course is no generosity at all)
Name:
John2006-01-05 9:16
>>59 "The problem with regarding reason as absolute is that human reason is faulty. We tend to jump to false conclusions, make sweeping generalizations and engage in magical thinking."
Well, that's not using reason, now is it? O_@;
Reason isn't faulty when you know how to use it. One plus one equals two, for example. Shifting plates in the Earth's crust cause earthquakes. Now was that so hard?
...
Look, all any philosophy is for is to give people some form of satisfaction or happiness. Living in a system such as America's where effort is rewarded and laziness is not, makes me happy, and I'm sure people who don't like to make an effort to make their lives any better feel the opposite. If life was meant for anything, it sure as hell wasn't to be composed of handouts.
Objectivist ideas are just my way of being encouraged toward what I want out of life. That's it.
I really don't give a damn how bad other people fuck up their own lives, they choose to let themselves go on in those circumstances out of depression caused by their circumstances rather then being driven to make them better, and that makes them idiots. It's a sad state to be in, but not one ultimately to be pitied. They come and they go, that's all their life is to em, so the hell with em... Am I an insensitive jerk, or what? :3
I mean yeah, if people could pursuade allllllll of those people to be driven, then yeah, the world would be a better place, and more power to you for trying... but good luck.
>>60
Once again, you are attacking not her philosophy, but her personally. You can't judge a damn book by the person that wrote it. I mean hell, Tookie Williams wrote childrens' books.
>>64
Yes. I did. He didn't.
To my knowledge, Ayn Rand didn't kill anyone. Tookie Williams wrote some books too, and he did kill people. Ayn Rand wrote philosophy, Tookie Williams wrote hell if I know, some kind of childrens' books. Ayn Rand wrote. Tookie Williams wrote...
My point that you can't judge a book or a philosophy by the person that came up with it still stands perfectly. It's beside the point, it's irrelevant. Am I clear now?
Why the hell Ayn Rand herself keeps getting criticized as opposed to the philosophy she came up with, which is part of the topic of this damn thread, is a mystery to me.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 14:19
Ayn Rand wrote philosophy
Adolf Hitler also wrote philosophy. It is not unreasonable to take into account his life when judging his writing. In the same way, it is not unreasonable to take into account Ayn Rand's life when judging her writing. Just because she claimed she was reasonable doesn't mean she was, and looking at her own life is fair game.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 14:54
Nietzsche went insane and he was ugly. That does not degrade his philosophy. Argue the merits or otherwise of his philosophy but not his life.
The structure of your belief system strikes me as particularly Judeo-Christian. You have the "elect" like yourself, who have been enlightened by the words of Mistress Rand, and the damned, whom you like to call "the fucked up."
This isn't a limited academic discussion of philosophy. It is world4ch. It should be pointed out that even academic symposia include a discussion of thinkers' biographies and its relation to their thought.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 15:17
Also, since we are talking, presumably about a lived and therefore relevant philosophy, an examination of effects of living said philosophy is particularly relevant.
Name:
John2006-01-05 15:52
>>69
And yet no such examination seems to have happened so far at any point in this thread.
>>66
Yeah, Hitler wrote philosophy, and it was a fucked up philosophy. A philosophy is a philosophy, regardless of who the hell came up with it. Why does the personal life of whoever came up with it MATTER?
CRI-TIQUE-THE-AS-PECTS-OF-THE-AC-TU-AL-PHI-LO-SO-PHY.
Not the author!
If you want to examine Hitler himself, then you can reasonably take into account his philosophy, communism or Nazism, or whatever. But when you're talking about communism or nazism, then what sense does it make calling those ideas bad only due to the nature of its creator? It's like saying ... "Oh, well, Hitler drank wine, that must make wine an evil commie! ... Hitler had a penis, that must make penises evil Jew-killing commies!" The author is completely irrelevant...
Nature came up with flowers and it also came up with arsenic. You going to call flowers evil just because the same force created something that kills things?
My god, have I made my point yet?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-05 16:53
The best and most philosophically sound method of determinning the truth isn't scientific method.
Scientific method can be corrupted, a person can leave out the facts he does not like in full knowledge of doing so. A person can simply lie in a complex manner to fool those who put their trust in them and will not question them for whatever reason.
What we need is scientific method, but scientific method under intense scrutiny. Even if everyone agrees with a certain declaration, people must intentionally criticise it with obsessive fervor to ensure it is correct.
Believe it or not we need whackos questionning evolution, just as much as we needed whackos who questionned god's existence.
The best method of determinning the truth is free speech and criticism on he main philosophical tenets of the truth, being reason, logic and science. It appears that criticism is easier than creating an elaborate scheme to prove something, thus it is extremely likely that anyone will have the intelligence to create a lie that no one can debunk.
Then, of course, the only thing we have to fear is tyranny.
Name:
John2006-01-05 17:38
>>71 "the only thing we have to fear is tyranny."
True. However, in the spirit of your post, I must find some aspect of what you said that is in some way ridiculous so that I may criticise it obsessively and fervishly, as is my nature...
"The best and most philosophically sound method of determinning the truth isn't scientific method." "The best method of determinning the truth is free speech and criticism on he main philosophical tenets of the truth, being reason, logic and science."
... Um. Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself here? "You can't figure out the truth by using science, you have to figure it out using science! ... Only with more people bitching about it!"
But that's just my take... :B
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-05 19:52
>>65
Tookie William's books fucking suck. That was my point. And um, what thread have you been reading? People have been attacking her philosophy. Another thing: You can't just come out and say whatever you want and not have it be expected that your ideas match us with your actions. Especially in philosophy. Ayn Rand was hypocrite. Pure and simple.
Name:
John2006-01-05 20:48
>>73
Yeah, you really made that clear by saying "And Tookie Willams got executed for murder. LOL, you didn't get it, did you?"
And no, they've just been calling it stupid, and calling her a messed up hypocrite. I recall no intelligent debate of philosophical points of any kind... Just name calling.
>>72
I mentionned that scientific method can be corrupted by the simple act of lying. If you show someone the results of a parachute drop and claim that the results are from a rock dropping down with little air resistance, then you can use scientific method to come up with all sorts of fallacious theories about gravity.
Of course this wasn't proper scientific method, but it's obvious to anyone that abstract methods don't always work out as planned in practice. The fail safe for scientific method is "bitching". As long as people can bitch and criticise and whine all thy want we can be certain that scientific method will be implemented to the best that our intelligence allows.
Let's go back to that galileo dropping stuff from the tower of piza simple scientific method example again..
The fact is as follows.
"When dropped form the tower of piza an egg with a parachute takes 15 seconds to touch down."
Under intense scrutiny even the most complex magic tricks will be revealed. If you are allowed to stop a magician half way through his trick and search his pockets you will always find the hidden handkerchief and ace of spades. Thus when the eggy parachute is revealed, no fallacious theories can be composed.
All bodies accelerate equally depending on the gravity unless something pushed back up. We will call this push a force. The relationship appears to be that acceleration is proportional to the force per mass ratio. a=k/m, to find this elusive property of the natural world we must multiply the acceleration by the mass, thus ma = F
F=MA, zomg physics!!
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 3:59
>>74
Why don't you bring up the specific points of Ayn Rand's thought that you wish to discuss?
>>79
I didn't bring them up as arguments, I brought them up as talking points for arguments, which have so far failed to happen in any relevant way...
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 14:11
>>80
Oh, so you expect people to argue against something that you yourself refuse to make an argument for? Objectivism isn't exactly conventional wisdom; don't assume that it's the center of everyone's world just because it is the center of yours. If you wish to discuss it, the onus is on you to make an argument as to why people should consider its points.
Name:
John2006-01-06 14:20
>>81
If you'll go back to post >>78 , you'll see I'm only talking about the last 40 posts or so when I'd first brought any points up.
No duh it's not common wisdom, but you'd think the people talking about it and calling it stupid would at least know something about it already, wouldn't you?
... Oh, wait, what the hell am I thinking? This is 4chan. My bad.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-06 15:35
John, you opened to the door to judgements about her personal life by claiming that she "was a person who truly understood what it means to be a human being."
That said, you choose to read the arguments made as mere criticism of her personally. Many perfectly reasonable arguments were, in fact, made; people on this thread have pointed out, among other things:
* That her philosophy is simplistic (>>46)
* That her high standards did not seem to bear out in her own life (>>47 which leads us to ask if the philosophy is actually applicable)
* that she misuses rationality in service of emotionalism (>>51)
* That human reasoning is fallible (>>59)
* That the life of a person can and should be used as a context for their words (>>62,>>64,>>66,>>68-69)
* that even the hard rationalism of the scientific method can be corrupted by simply lying (>>71,>>76)
Given this, you should consider the possibility that you are one of those people mentioned in >>1 who are "prone to construe disagreement as ignorance."
* The nature of its simplicity can be applied to all areas of life, as is the purpose of philosophy, so so what?
* Nobody ever fully lives up to their own standards all the time. Can you really call somebody a hypocrite for trying and failing? The characters in Atlas Shrugged didn't always either, but that doesn't mean their ideals weren't worth trying to live up to.
* How does she do that exactly? Are you sure she doesn't just bring up emotional topics so she can apply her philosophy to them and bring them into reason?
* So since reasoning is fallible, it shouldn't be used? You just shouldn't try?
* I agree, but I go back to point 2.
* So freaking what? Anything can be corrupted by lying. Science, religion, philosophy (especially religion and philosophy), the monetary value of a lump of dog crap that George Washington stepped in, anything.
Given this, you should consider the possibility that, while I may be a condescending jerk at times, I'm not such an idiot as to generally construe disagreement itself as ignorant.
... It's just that most comments I read on this board are pretty damn ignorant. So I bitch about them...
And there you have it.
>>85
Alright, buddy, let's keep going in circles then.
"The purpose of philosophy is not to apply simple answers to all areas of life. That's the purpose of religion."
I'd like to hear what your idea of philosophy's purpose is, then...
"Then why should we choose a most spectacular failure to emulate?"
How's the saying go? "Tis better to have loved and lost ... "
Or just... you know, don't have any fucking standards.
"It seems to me that she justifies her proclivities with "reason," which is hardly a reasonable way to behave."
Dispositions such as what, exactly? My god, put the damn author's personal life aside, because THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT... Critique the fucking philosophy of objectivism.
"Reasoning is fallible, so it shouldn't be relied on all the time."
So then what the hell should you rely on? Emotions? Faith? Just shut your brain off and let it settle itself? Yeah, that sounds like a good way to deal with problems...
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 19:43
I'd like to hear what your idea of philosophy's purpose is, then...
The text you quoted from >>85 is massively oversimplified. Religion, science, and philosophy are all intertwined.
However, I think the poster was thrusting at something else. Methinks you need to learn a little more about Socrates.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 20:52
Critique the philosophy already.
PLAYBOY: Weren't Hitler and Stalin, to name two tyrants, in control of their own lives, and didn't they have a clear purpose?
RAND: Certainly not. Observe that both of them ended as literal psychotics. They were men who lacked self-esteem and, therefore, hated all of existence.
Playboy Interview with Ayn Rand, 1964
Name:
John2006-01-07 22:42
>>90
Good quote, though I suspect you threw that out to try and make her look bad. Think about it though...
Here's some more, if you want to play the damn quote game...
"Everyone has the right to make his own decisions, but none has the right to force his decision on others."
"Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him."
"The most depraved type of human being is the man without a purpose."
"Reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses, is man's basic tool of survival."
"A rational man is guided by his thinking – by a process of Reason – not by his feelings and desires."
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 23:10
playboy?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 23:15
I only read Playboy for the interviews.
Name:
John2006-01-07 23:21
My purpose was to become an architect, but the Bush administration fucked up my education and left me illiterate and with no capability for critical thought whatsoever. My purpose is now to flip burgers and get drunk as often as possible.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 23:59
Critique the philosophy already.
Yeah, it has already. Can't you read?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 0:03
"Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him."
The sounds you hear in the background are my screams of agony as I cough my guts up from laughing too hard.
That quote is just deluded. That's like claiming fire is all-wonderful because it can make you warm, but ignore that fire can burn you too.
It's not that simple. GJ Rand!
Name:
John2006-01-08 8:21
Oh, fuck it... This isn't debate, it's just bitching, name-calling, and pointing out nothing but the negative aspects of every single fucking thing that comes up. And if there aren't really any, you either bring up irrelevant rhetoric, just make shit up, or start bitching over miniscule points that have little or no relevance to the big topic being discussed. Every fucking thing on here is a negative reaction to anything that suggests that man has to put forth some kind of effort to obtain any kind of real satisfaction or happiness. You people, for the most part, are fucking sad idiots, most of whom probably aren't even out of highschool yet.
Even though I completely disagree with John (seriously, you are WAY off about Rand)...TRUTH GOT TOLD
Name:
John2006-01-08 10:38
>>98
The only reason I've been TALKING about Rand herself was because everyone wanted to bring HER up, and not her damn philosophy! x_x
And what exactly did she even DO that all of you seem to think she's some evil bitch, anyway?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 11:41
>>99
Who are you, Hitler? If people want to talk about Rand, it's their right. Even Rand herself judges people, rather than their "philosophy" (see >>90).
Don't blame people for attacking her personally if you read every criticism as a personal attack. Take the criticism that her philosophy is too simplistic; that, you choose to ignore. Or that her own philosophy didn't seem to operate in her personal life (she demanded that other's conform to her will, which she called "her" rationality). These (to spell it out impersonally, that her philosophy is firstly unrealistic and secondly unworkable) are all criticisms of her "philosophy." If you don't want to address them, say so, rather than claiming they're just personal attacks (if your circular logic wants to go there, please read >>90 again).
Every fucking thing on here is a negative reaction to anything that suggests that man has to put forth some kind of effort to obtain any kind of real satisfaction or happiness.
Bullshit. You equate not worshipping the Objectivist faith with not putting in effort.
100GET
Name:
John2006-01-08 12:13
Like I said...
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 12:37
"I'm right because I'm right," replied the Randroid.
Name:
John2006-01-08 13:39
>>102
Got something against somebody being right? :B