/lit/ - Literature

>>4347232
*collapse of some buisness

well it's not going to get better, if that's what you're wondering

>reading ayn rand

>>4347232

>barely even make sense
>It's just fucking dull
>I disagree with the ideology

None of those things make it a bad book, it's clearly 2deep4u and I disagree with the ideology as well.

>>4347248
>>It's just fucking dull

Actually, that one does make it a bad book.

>>4347248
Disagreeing with the ideology doesn't make it a bad book. The other points do though.

I don't get why people complain about the flat characters. It's a common trope in philosophical writing to do that to illustrate an idea.
The weird descriptions on the other hand are pretty bizarre but still interesting to read. It gives it an interesting setting.
Never bothered to finish it though.

Ayn Rand is the ultimate feminist.

Fairweather neoliberal allies:
>women don't owe men sex

Ayn Rand, Andrea Dworkin's more successful counterpart:
>NO woman owes ANYONE ANYTHING, EVER, in perpetuity, and this is a direct result of LOGIC.

1. "ATLAS SHRUGGED".

2. "THE FOUNTAINHEAD".

3. "ANTHEM".

4. "WE THE LIVING".

"ATLAS SHRUGGED" IS THE GREATEST NOVEL EVER.

I have only ever burned two books in my life: Atlas Shrugged and Mein Kampf.

>>4347272
I know you're trolling but I actually did enjoy Anthem. Atlas Shrugged is horrible though.

>>4347266
>Ayn Rand is the ultimate feminist.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU HAVE NOT READ ANYTHING BY AYN RAND, OR IF YOU HAVE, YOU DO NOT COMPREHEND HER AT ALL.

>>4347248
Yep yep yep

I thoroughly enjoyed this book as entertaining and I think she has relevant ideas on money, trade, and of course the virtue of selfishness. The book is an echo-chamber unto itself but it still has progression. Oh and BTW I think her overarching philosophy is ridiculously ignorant of the social nature of human beings. I find people who take this as gospel as disgustingly unintelligent people. BUT if you've ever been in a situation where someone is trying to take advantage of you by using your own morals against you, this is a very good exploration of that exact topic. The problem is that many get self-righteous to the point that they become insufferable assholes, or quietly condescending in far more situations than would be warranted. I have been guilty of the latter.

In conclusion I recommend everyone read it, digest it, keep the feelings of self motivation, and then ditch it wholesale. This is a great book, but is incredibly destructive for society. People who follow this as gospel in real life become the leeches that they accuse everyone else of being.

>>4347291

If "feminism" were really about womens' liberation it would be objectivism.

>>4347296

"OBJECTIVISM" IS NOT A PHILOSOPHY EXCLUSIVE TO WOMEN.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

>>4347302

Neither is feminism. You try to prove me wrong and end up affirming.

>>4347303

YOU ARE BEING ILLOGICAL.

>>4347303
Keep going, he's running out of pictures!

>>4347309

Feminism isn't exclusive to women either.

>>4347315
Neither is HIV.

>>4347312

NOT EVERY POST MERITS AN IMAGE.

>>4347309
What kind of fucktard are you? Oh wait the thirteen year old autistic type.
You can keep going but we've already figured you out.
Captcha: trryey census

It's only going to get worse. Just wait for that speech that drives in the ideology one more time just in case you missed it.

>>4347293
>People who follow this as gospel in real life become the leeches that they accuse everyone else of being.
how

I can't decide if I find people typing in all caps obnoxious or not.

I mean I guess if you want to...

but then we'll allow people who capitalise every word D:

>>4347328
I think he's an older schizophrenic type. Either way, his mind is a bit scrambled.

>>4347346
Ahhhh, I do see this as a possibility

>>4347346
Isn't he just roleplaying?
Either way I like having him around.

I still get a chuckle that she threw her whole ideology out the window when she got sick and took government aid.

>>4347366
Did she do this? I hadn't heard that.

>>4347366

IT IS NOT DISSONANCE IF IT CAN BE RATIONALIZED.

>>4347366
>People that give things away for free are fools
>OH YEAH WELL HERE'S SOME HEALTHCARE
>YEAH YOU TOOK IT, SURE PROVED YOU WRONG DIDN'T I ,':)

lelle

>>4347370
Yes, and she tried to hide it by using a different name because she was so obviously being a hypocrite

>>4347375
Hehe.

>>4347374
she was a parasite leeching off of the system

>>4347373
You are a loser.

>>4347378
I've reported you to the mods for doing the /pol/ Jew laugh. Enjoy your post deletion, fucko.

>>4347380

If you think the system's evil, you're doing good by leeching off of it and thereby destroying it. No inconsistency.

>>4347375
by "different name" I mean her married name and not Rand like she went by. She also accepted social security as well as medicair which she actively was against. The fact that people still take her seriously is hilarious

>>4347384
>hilarious

Why do democrats find everything so funny? Is it because they all smoke weed? Everything's not "hilarious", you just smoked yourself retarded. Good work.

>>4347389
It's funny to me that people will devote their lives to a philosophy that the originator threw out the window the second she needed money

>>4347382
I never see 'hehe' or "lol" used here, is it against the rules? genuine question.

>>4347397

Well, Marx left his children to starve, so I guess no one's perfect, huh?

>>4347406
comparing Rand to Marx actually made me smile. You're right of course

>>4347366
>implying she didn't get taxed throughout her life to pay for that government aid
>implying she wasn't taking back what she had put in

What do you think? Social security money just appears out of the sky?

>>4347440
She rallied against it her entire life. She actively campaigned against it. Did she just give up and say "oh well"? Why did she accept it under a different name?

>>4347341
In my experience few people who like discussing this book actually do so with a grain of salt. Instead they are very headstrong.
Individuals who trade are the moral standard---> those who end up with the most do so because they produce the most and trade with that production the most--> the captains of industry are the most moral people because they understand that trade is the most fair way of attaining anything when it is voluntary---> hur der trade unions are gangsters who try to force a deal therefore they are immoral and need to be outlawed as cronyism; the industrialist only wants to voluntarily trade with individuals separately therefore the individual must comply in order to make the trade fair; industrialist can diminish the importance of each worker and this is moral because of muh profit.-->obscene profit is the MOST moral outcome and worrying about a workers standard of living is inefficient therefore immoral---> the worker's standard of living is his own responsibility and taking advantage of any inequality is the highest standard of morality!!!!

Every autistic Rand fan sees themselves as the industrialist. The smart ones see themselves as the industrialist and the worker at once but would never use this diatribe as gospel so we are not concerned with them. The former become vultures looking for weak prey to "trade" with them. Predatory trade silently becomes there raison d'être.

Is this general? Yes
Is it definitive? No
Is it the rule of thumb for Rand fans? Yes, yes it is

>>4347475 part two

tl;dr fuck >>4347291

>>4347500
this is not the summation of my post but i still concur

>>4347457

As if any hint of pragmatism and activists are proven wrong. Same argument got pulled on occupy protestors. Do we expect anti-capitalists to all become gutter punks, otherwise they're proving capitalism?

>>4347457
Yeah but she still payed the taxes that fed the system, she was forced to.

Was she just supposed to give the government all that money with nothing in return?

>>4347553
So she went against her entire belief system in a major way because she paid into it? Seems like she has no integrity in that case.

I think she's as good of an author as L. Ron. Hubbard, and she also started a cult. It really is a cult.

>The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Check.

>Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Check

>Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
The free market will solve it clearly is a mantra. Check.

>The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
Check.

>The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
Check++.

>The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
Check.

>The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
Check.

>The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
Check.

>The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Check.

>Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
I'm not sure if Stefan Molyneux is really a randroid, but this seems to be true in some cases. Check.

>The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
Check

>The group is preoccupied with making money.
Check.

>Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Not sure.

>Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
Who is Jon Galt? Check.

>The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
Check.

/tg/ here
Dafuq happened and whats this book about?
*munches on popcorn*

>>4347366
Wow that sad
If you have to survive though
*shrugs*

>>4347664
It's the prequel to the Hunger Games.
A guy builds a train but he wants his monies for all himself so he and his buddies go to a lonely valley or something and ride the train all day. The world is going to shit because people supposingly can't live without those idea guys and so they beg them to come back and be their masters.

>>4347664
>>4347672
u funny

>>4347679
Sounds like the wet dream of poloticians.

I see where Bioshock got the idea for Andrew Ryan and Atlas now though.

Is it worth the read or just abunch of bs?

>>4347679
oh so funny! (truly though)

>>4347687
badda bait!

I recently saw both of the movies and at the end of part 2 they're in teleporting planes and there's wormholes and shit and I'm like "wtf bro I thought this was a political book". Total mindfuck.

>Ayn Rand
>Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum

fucking kikes, who else

Another empty-headed lib trolling a book that scares the shit out of you. You have to pretend that you've just read it and hate it. Deception seems to be the backbone of liberalism.

>>4349666
who are you referring to?

>"Violent" does not mean what she thinks it means. Although what she thinks it means seems to be absolutely anything she wants at the time.

I think the le bertarian ideology makes a pretty good case against state action. But that's just my opinion, man.

>>4349231
Isn't Rosenbaum the old dynasty that gets overthrown in LOGH?

Doesn't really matter though, in that universe Rand would be some filthy Phezzani

>>4347632
It would be more going against her belief system if, having the opportunity to take it, she left the money in the government's hands. That would have meant she recognizes that the money belongs to the government.

>>4347662
What's wrong with Stefan Molyneux?

>>4351071
Just for example: The guy tells his minions they have to leave their family and calls it defooing or something. There are whole websites dedicated to expose that creep.

>>4351050
That's the best rationalization for being a hypocrite that I've ever seen.

>>4351050
Didn't she spend her last days on government medicare?

>>4351110
Yes. Randians will say she paid into it so it was her money, but she was pretty sick and broke, so I doubt she paid in as much as she got. Another parasite looking for a hand-out.

>>4351107
To me, it seems much more consistent with her position than "the government takes money from me all my life to run a system that is inefficient and evil. at this moment in time I can take advantage of the system. nah, never mind."

Actually, I found a quote that might shine some light on what she thought:
“The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.”

>>4351093
>>4351071
Molyneux preys on vulnerable individuals and literally tells them that he found the solution for humanity's problems and how they should consider themselves fortunate to be among of the few exposed to his teachings. He gives life advise over the internet and tells folks their problems lie in early childhood trauma and they have to leave their families to solve their issues. Everybody who critizes him gets ridiculed by both him and his little group of followers.

>>4351141
By the way, she wrote this in 1966, and died in 1982.

>>4351154
Hmm, interesting. I don't really give a shit about his psychology videos (I'm guessing that's where he says this stuff), but his news/politics videos are very good. He goes overboard with his anarchist ideology at times, but the videos are usually informative and shine light on facts usually ignored by the media.

>>4351168
Obviously I'm not a philosopher either but imho he's full of shit even though I admit he's great at sounding smart, but then I think he just doesn't make sense when you actually think about what he's saying. For instance, he speaks about how there never had been a free market before, which is disputable on it's own, but on the other hand he claims he knew what would happen if we would establish one. Stuff like that.

Another thing was that whole Peter Jospeh debate cluster fuck. If those guys can't stay civil on a four eye basis how could you believe they could stay civil when it comes down to a discussion involving society as a whole?

>>4347232
>Everyone who isn't an absolute sociopath is a caricature with no intelligence at all and no redeeming features
Rand does not include extraordinary folks in the cast of antagonists. Atlas Shrugged is meant to showcase a philosophy. Unfortunately, for the sake of expediency, Rand skips over some of the counterarguments explicitly. One of the flaws is that she doesn't differentiate into types of intelligence, and thus sums up all degrees of intellect into a superman of intellect instead of assigning varying degrees of the varying kinds of intelligence to some, which can result in powerful villains.

>>4347232
>She makes the same fucking points in the exact same ways over and over and over and over...
And did you get what that point is?

>>4351199
>>4351168
Just the fact alone this man is doing videos on "psychology" while trying to give people advise makes me angry. Didn't he study history or something?

>>4351214
Burn the book? Don't waste your time on bullshit?

>>4347266
>Ayn Rand is the ultimate feminist.
Yes. Because Ayn Rand is the ultimate humanist.

>>4347296
"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
Feminism is a subset of objectivism. It's a subset focused on women.

>>4347315
see
>>4351238

>>4351238
Why do I need feminism when I've got humanism?

>>4351238
>Feminism is a subset of objectivism
No it is not you foolish fuck

>>4351244
Exactly.

>>4351253
Why not?

>>4351224
Wrong. The book isn't bullshit.

>>4351305
Not the guy, but feminism spans across many different ideologies, some which propose more regulations, such as free birth control or enforced maternity leave, so feminism can't be a part of objectivism.

Also, I'm curious. How does public safety and health work in an objectivist society? Each person pays for private safety, merely as a contract between two individuals? Is the answer just 'it doesn't'?

>>4351311
Health is usually private and deregulated, law enforcement is still carried out by police (objectivists are rarely anarchists, usually just minarchists).

>>4351311
>How does public safety and health work in an objectivist society? Each person pays for private safety, merely as a contract between two individuals? Is the answer just 'it doesn't'?
The answer is Technological Utopia. We make it happen.

>>4351326
So one is still a slave to the means they were born under, even if they're hard working and intelligence and just happen to need frequent medication to perform productively and can't afford it. Got it.

>>4351311
>feminism spans across many different ideologies, some which propose more regulations, such as free birth control or enforced maternity leave, so feminism can't be a part of objectivism.
>feminism spans across many different ideologies
>so feminism can't be a part of objectivism
What.

>>4351360
Sorry, I don't think I explained myself correctly. I mean that objectivism can encompass feminist values, but feminism as a whole can't be placed under objectivism.

>>4347232

OP It took you this long to realize Ayn Rand is one of the most sadly unintelligent writers to ever live?

>>4351384
>but feminism as a whole can't be placed under objectivism.
Why not? Every value of feminism is encompased by the logical conclusion of objectivism, humanism.

>>4347273
>not burning the Bible and Quran

>>4351441
watch those edges, you might end up idolizing Nietzsch and cutting yourself

>>4351444
*Tips bible*
>Into the garbage it goes

>>4351444
>levying such a criticism at a post doing the same thing
Surely you jest.

>>4351451
how do you know i wasn't tipping the Quran?

>>4351454
this is cyclical troll thread is it not?

>>4351458
Fair point.

>>4351455
Tip 'em both of course. You know me.

>>4351406
Well a couple pf years ago I read Anthem and actually enjoyed it. That book is much more interesting and succinct. I was hoping this one would be interesting too but that has not been the case.

>>4347384
>She also accepted social security as well as medicair which she actively was against.
Hey now, she paid good tax money for that social security and medicare. Why should she not get something she paid for?

>>4351119
>so I doubt she paid in as much as she got.
Citation needed.

>>4347475
>Every autistic Rand fan sees themselves as the industrialist.
The book is not about industry and capitalism in the same way that farming is not about driving the tractor. She used the setting and example of industry and capitalism to prove a philosophical point.

>>4347679
>people supposingly can't live without those idea guys and so they beg them to come back and be their masters.
>implying the people in the valley didn't turn down the chance to be overlords

>my sides

>>4351326
>law enforcement is still carried out by police
In a pure objectivist society, there is no law enforcement or need for it. Good luck finding people who understand objectivism enough to live in that society.

>>4351498
And so was I. See how it was quite fitting?

>>4351516
>And so was I.
Explain. What is your philosophical point?