.

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.

>>83
Thank you for the post, 83. That said...

* 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.