placeholder wrote:The writing itself is often quite tedious, but I think much of her ideology makes perfect sense.

I feel exactly the opposite. Objectivism is pretty terrible. Objectivists are just awful. Here's one. Here's another. (Edit: Removed link. I'm not sure if this person is actually an objectivist or not. I thought s/he was, but I didn't find any evidence on the site. Sorry)

But, I do like the writing, what little I've read anyway (a healthy chunk of The Fountainhead, and a little bit of an Objectivism reader).

someone who wrote about Ayn Rand wrote:Esthetics
"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments." The purpose of art is to concretize the artist's fundamental view of existence. Ayn Rand described her own approach to art as "Romantic Realism": "I am a Romantic in the sense that I present men as they ought to be. I am Realistic in the sense that I place them here and now and on this earth."

I find this statement overly narrow, like much of her viewpoint. It doesn't seem to leave any room to account for more abstract constructs like metaphor, or creativity. It's a chiseled little package of metallic man-icons with big pectorals--but it's so mechanical that it tastes like crap.

bad bad bad, horrible crap. goddamn, ayn rand is awful.

for some beautiful writing and a more palatable take on romanticism and "rational self-interest" maybe read john ruskin (start with unto this last)

I don't like Ayn Rand.

Two things about her. First, there's the fifth-grade-first-attempt-at-philosophy realization that "anything that you do must ultimately be based on self interest because why else would you be doing it" observation. Myopic. There's descriptive value in noting some motivations as "selfish" and others not, although both may be rational choices of the self aware individual. Or, to put it another way, there is a moral difference between Ghandi and Sandy Weill.

Second, moral philosophy should be judged not only on whether or not it's consistent. Most importantly, you can evaluate it on "why kind of shit would this let me get away with? Would I want to be on the receiving end of this?" For me, it was pretty simple: any philosophy (like Ayn's) that says there's no moral social obligation against the nightmare of poverty (Ayn cheerfully says "it's your fault, fucker") sure doesn't merit the time it took me to slog through all 800+ pages of Atlas shrugged in High School. So I've been charitable. Which she wouldn't appreciate.

Wait, I just thought of a third. Ayn's a shitty writer. I read "Atlas Shrugged" right after I read "The Plague" by Camus. I was struck that Camus was willing to give his philosophical opponent the space of a worthy character in the priest. Rand, conversely, paints her detractors as retarded slobs, only able to figure out how to wipe their asses as that's where their talking comes from. She must have been lots of fun to argue with. And by fun, I mean a dreadful chore, on par with cleaning up cat spraint.

Spraint. What a great word.

= Justin

May I ask a question, bumble? Why do you use the phrase "[p]erson who wrote things"?

Is that pejorative (i.e., as opposed to "author" or "writer") or are you just being clever?

I ask because the phrase "[p]erson who wrote things" is exceedingly "clever" -- and extremely irritating.

Just asking.

P.S. Fuck Ayn Rand with the rusty, broken-off brakestop of an abandoned wheelchair. Please lather said brakestop with wormy raccoon shit before doing so, Friend.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:May I ask a question, bumble? Why do you use the phrase "[p]erson who wrote things"?

Is that pejorative (i.e., as opposed to "author" or "writer") or are you just being clever?

I ask because the phrase "[p]erson who wrote things" is exceedingly "clever" -- and extremely irritating.

Just asking.

Ask away.

I wasn't trying to be clever. Pejorative? Maybe, in that I don't think she writes real fiction ("author") and I don't think she is a philosopher. "Writer", sure, but I'm a writer right here - and what did she write, anyway?

I didn't want to make the title "Person I loathe", "Testified at McCarthy Hearings" or "Self-aggrandizing Hack" and discourage postings from people who like Ayn Rand - I was wondering what some of the thoughtful posters here felt about her, her work, Objectivism's continued popularity, whatever.

Also, the above paragraphs wouldn't fit in a subject line.

"Person who wrote things" was thereby my two-second decision of what the heck to call Rand. If "writer" is preferred for syllabic reduction, feel free to change the title of the post. I don't care. Wtf.

bumble wrote:"Person who wrote things" was thereby my two-second decision of what the heck to call Rand. If "writer" is preferred for syllabic reduction, feel free to change the title of the post.

That decision is perfectly fair. "Person who wrote things" works for me, particularly as a description of Ayn Rand. Her work is not that of an "author" or "writer", and the idea that any smart or decent person would respond positively to her soulless "work" is a very depressing thought to me.

I hope that she dies in a fire. No, wait. I hope that she is severely disabled in a fire and requires extensive government-subsidized medical treatment and the lifelong support of local charities.

Or I hope that she just gets a good old-fashioned Idaho scalping.

But too late for any of that, I guess.

i have not read an ayn rand book... but i've been preached to by her converts, and i have read excerpts. everything i've encountered has been such pernicious CRAP that it really makes me livid.

i get the impression that nietszche (spelling?) is just as bad... anyone who preaches the celebration of might makes right can basically go to hell with all the republicans.

i read "the plague" by camus but honestly i didn't like it. though yes, it's important to portray opposing viewpoints as bowling pins for your little heroes to strike. i think if i read an ayn rand novel i would explode.

Nietzsche is bad in his way, but not as bad, I don't think, as Rand. For one thing, he's a hell of a lot more interesting to read, because he's really all about a completely revolutionary new way of thinking. It's a pretty dumb way of thinking, but at least it's crazy. "Might makes Right" doesn't really describe it - any discussion of "Right" is kind of out of place with Nietzsche. Anyway, I recommend it; a lot of his reputation is undeserved, I think.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Nietzsche is bad in his way, but not as bad, I don't think, as Rand. For one thing, he's a hell of a lot more interesting to read, because he's really all about a completely revolutionary new way of thinking. It's a pretty dumb way of thinking, but at least it's crazy. "Might makes Right" doesn't really describe it - any discussion of "Right" is kind of out of place with Nietzsche. Anyway, I recommend it; a lot of his reputation is undeserved, I think.

nietzsche was a brilliant writer. and his philosophical constructs were tight.

i don't take his shit to heart, he was crazy there for a while at the end, and he was and continues to be an unfortunate influence on many people. but it's great shit. and as i have said before, often truly if unintentionally funny.