/lit/ - Literature

"The Virtue of Selfishness" is a really slim book and gives you a good overview of everything she repeats ad nauseum in her doorstoppers.

The Shaft

at the last page, and save yourself from reading the books of a shitty writer

You start with Hemingway.

By burning any books you have written by her

With the trash can, and the act of dumping her books into it.

I don't understand the hate Rand gets on /lit/. Her views might be seen as rather repugnant by most posters but her writing isn't atrocious. I thought The Fountainhead wasn't half bad.

>>4378407
Not half good either.

>>4378407
Distinctly average writer with abhorrent views.

Although, I'm guessing a fair few people criticizing her on here haven't read one of her books.

>>4378407
its because she didn't write for the sake of literature or writing, but she just used it as a platform to peddle her ideology. its like asking why /mu/ hates rage against the machine

>>4378407
Because her writing is mediocre at best, and most of her stories are simply vehicles for her political views. And if you find her ideology repugnant, and you aren't really reading her for the quality of her writing, then what's the fucking point? It's just poorly written ideological treatises masked as poorly written fiction.

>>4378258
Glad to see /lit/ giving you the very good advice of dismissing her ideas, not so glad that people think you shouldn't read her at all. I can't stand her, but so many people claim to like her that it's useful to have read some of her work just to have some legitimacy when you say "her ideas are nuts". I read Atlas Shrugged (notable mostly for its hilariously bad sex scenes and incredibly simplistic vision of rich industrialist=good, poor industrial worker=lazy, everyone in between=boring and worthless). I have heard that The Fountainhead is better, but I think reading one Rand is the most I can take for the sake of legitimacy.

>>4378451
/mu/ hates RATM?

Don't waste your time with her novels, cut straight to her philosophical works. It's hilariously juvenile, but it will save you time and give you clearer idea of where she's coming from.

>>4378813
Perhaps not for the reason that anon is talking about, but RAtM is generally looked down upon.

Just skip the bullshit and read some Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe or Friedman.

>>4378631

That's exactly why I read Atlas Shrugged. I came away from it with a greater sense of the importance of personal responsibility, but it's really more of a philosophical treatise than a novel. It's also telling that she has to invent a fictional world for her philosophy to make sense.

So, it fails as a treatise because it's set in a fictional world, and it fails as fiction because the philosophy is in the drivers seat. Worth reading for its' cultural relevance but only just barely, in my humble opinion,

>>4378258
don't

Never having read Rand, all I know is her inspiration of American libertarians...so what is the gist of her thinking? Social Darwinism?

>>4378940
joins discussion late, doesn't bother to read any of the posts

>> 4378919
Yep, although I would say my "greater understanding" of personal responsibility was basically that it was rooted in a really superficial, scornful egotism. It's also amazing how many of the people who love Ayn Rand aren't actually that smart and would get eaten up in a world structured the way she wants

the shorter book... 'fountainbridge' or someshit. its one of her better books as its shorter and wastes less of your time

>>4378407
3/10

you had me up to "..her writing isn't atrocious"

How come you're all bashing Rand when Atlas Shrugged is on the /lit/ wiki?

>>4379007
Because the /lit/ canon wasn't determined by democratic consensus.
It was determined by a minority of frustrated basement-dwellers who were willing to piss away their time on such an inane project..... i.e the type of person that like Rand

>>4379014
Then what else am I supposed to use as a guideline if I wanna get into reading?

Searching Google only yields shit like recommended literature for children and stuff.

>>4379007
That image features books that are long (doorstoppers), not necessarily books that are good. Notice that it includes Infinite Jest and Ulysses.

>>4378451
I would argue that all literature and writing is a platform to peddle an ideology or viewpoint

>>4379032
Wait, you mean that all literature and writing CAN BE used as a platform to peddle an ideology or viewpoint, or do you mean that all literature and writing IS used as a platform to peddle an ideology or viewpoint. I agree with the former, not the latter.

>>4379020
Nothing you faglord
See a book, read it

I appreciate that argument but not all writing is shrill, tendentious, doctrinaire, moralistic. Nearly all of hers is.

>>4379041
I think that it is. It's impossible to write a book about nothing.

>>4379042
>just read a book
>b-but pls not from ayn rand!
Bravo, anon.

she is a closed minded bitch who figured out that if you take any philsophy to the exetreme it looks bad, rather than writing a satire of this by say having a large group of extremes in some sort of conflict that prevents them from the obvious soulution she used this to sent forward here own cruel selfish belif-system

>>4378813
>>4378852
I've never seen Rage Against the Machine talked about on /mu/. They're not worth talking about and they're not worth hating.

The thing about Rand is that she doesn't write for the sake of creating "art" or "literature", but instead does so to illustrate what she believes is her ideology in practice. She isn't a bad writer, and her stories can definitely be captivating, but if you disagree with her on an ideological level, you won't like her very much. Same with books such as The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I personally like her because I largely agree with her political and social views, albeit not entirely. But, it is easy to see how someone with differing views wouldn't like her.

Of course, the second anyone says that they *gasp* agree with some of Rand's views, armies of progressives stand at the ready to screech "fedora-wearer" and "neckbearded basement-dweller" until any true logical argument can be had.

>>4378258
the trash can

>>4378947
Not in the slightest. If you'd like quotes from her on any topic, aynrandlexicon.com is available free. The Ayn Rand Institute has plenty of her essays for free on the site, there are plenty of speeches she has given free online, and many of her books are quite cheap. "Philosophy: Who Needs it?" is an excellent book from what I've heard (one of the few I technically haven't actually read, but I've heard good) Any of these would be good starting points. For the record, she is misquoted and poorly understood extremely often. I don't mind the people who legitimately disagree with Objectivism, but the people who are smearing something that isn't even actually Objectivism are irritating.

For being so "simple and juvenile", the fact that so many of her critics are so ignorant on the topic is ironic.

I'm going to be playing games and am probably going to sleep in an hour or two, but any honest questions that anybody would like to ask about her philosophy I can try to answer.

>>4379765
I can't find the quote, but she considers herself primarily a writer and did not set out to write philosophy treatises. She created Objectivism to give her characters the explicit philosophy he wanted them to have after she could not find a suitable philosophy in the world to express the kind of characters/the kind of people she wanted to write about. It's very explicit, but it isn't intended to be or is it primarily ideological.

>>4379002
I'm genuine, I don't think it is. It's not great, but it's not as bad as people on /lit/ make out.

>>4379932

Did a quick Google search, found no such quote.

What makes this seem even more unlikely is the fact that she did write purely philosophical treatises, such as Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness. She was definitely a political philosopher, though she showed her ideas through writing.

>>4379939
Have you read any of her books? Take Atlas Shrugged: it fetishizes wealth and condemns everyone who is not one of the wealthy genius industrialists as lazy freeloaders who deserve what they get. Do you actually think the rich should intentionally ruin the markets and retreat to somewhere in the Rocky Mountains where they can live amongst themselves? Do you think you would make the cut to live in their gated community? Objectivism is all about the individual, laissez faire capitalism, and blind faith in industrial progress. It is 100% incapable of understanding any of the social, familial, institutional, or economic structures that form a part of our life. It preaches selfishness and blind disregard for the poor, weak, or less fortunate.

>>4379917
Here is a question for you: if what is important to objectivism is the individual's unfettered pursuit of truth and happiness through engagement with the world, why do disciples of Objectivism like you feel the need to educate people about it? Should the tenets of objectivism be self-explanatory or something that people are led to on their own through their life experiences? Doesn't the impulse to explain the philosophy undercut the belief that the individual has to discover truth by themselves?

>>4379967
I think the issue is that the Randian's own unfettered pursuit of truth and happiness is, in their view, bettered by attempting to ensure that others agree with them and that society structures itself in accordance with those views.

>>4378258
the trashcan

But for real, man up and read Atlas Shrugged

>>4379988
so basically it is a coercive use of reason in one's own self-interest?

You don't start anywhere, it's not worth your time

I wouldn't mind the fact that she uses literature to push her ideology down your throat if it wasn't for the fact that the ideology is shit

>>4379917
How does Objectivism propose to deal with accumulated wealth that gives some people a massive head start in life, making it, in turn, easier for them to trap other people in wage slavery, control access to resources, and lock in a contractual system based on "free consent" (i.e. I agree to sign this paper to slave away for you so that I do not starve to death) so that they can continue to accumulate even more wealth? without some coercive state power, how does objectivism propose to counter this cumulative effect from generation to generation that leads to a new plutocracy? are we just going to talk with the super rich until they eventually admit that the game is rigged and they are squandering the lives of millions? are the rest of us who didn't start out with any money just supposed to passively accept their monopoly of all the resources, which amounts to a huge violence committed against the billions of people who aren't born into the gated community?

>>4380006
Hope that they fuck it up badly and clever people can take it away from them.

>>4379954
If I can find it in a bit, I'll share it. Not all her quotes are very easy to find. Maybe check out my copy of her journals for it.

>>4380010
Except the only legitimate form of "taking" in Objectivism is by entering into a legal market exchange. It would be (and is) extremely easy for the super wealthy to pay off the best and brightest to rig the legal and economic system to their benefit. The rich can just sit on their bums all day and drink margaritas while their grand vizirs take care of everything for a minimal fee (i.e. enough to keep them happy). In the end, the best and brightest will always be subordinated to people born into wealth

>>4380021
Why wouldn't the vizirs attempt to overthrow their masters, as they have done repeatedly through the history of class struggle?

>>4380026
Vizirs overthrowing their masters? When has that ever happened? I can't think of a single time. People overthrow the system only when they are totally backed up against the wall. They will endure mild and even harsh hardship for an extremely long time before they will risk social upheaval

>>4379967
You can learn philosophy completely through another person. The key factor is that you honestly use your own independent judgement to evaluate anything, whether that be first hand sensory information, ideas shared in discussion, or the opinions of experts. It must be accepted or rejected by the standard of the context of your knowledge. That is what rationality requires. First hand judgement.

As for why do we explain it? Because other people are a value to us, to try to advocate for the kind of world we want to live in, the kind of world that we believe humans can thrive in, to whatever extent we can manage to get towards there. Because the ideas are enjoyable to discuss. Because intellectual discussion is satisfying. To better understand ones own ideas through expressing them. Lots of reasons.

I don't believe in spending too much time trying to "convert" as there are many more important issues in my life to enjoy. Most Objectivists after they get settled into the philosophy take the same position. Politics isn't life, and the goal of Objectivist political involvement (other than those who wish to actually be politicians or active intellectuals) is to be involved in politics so that one day you don't have to, or to get closer to that point. Every degree helps.

>>4380006
I don't have the time tonight to cover all the moral issues involved here and how this entire example is economically unrealistic. Especially the very idea of "wage slavery". Sorry.

wage slavery is unrealistic? you have never encountered someone who is working their job, because they have to make money to feed themselves or their children? you have never encountered anyone who had to hold down two jobs just in order to pay their bills? it is too bad you don't have the time to engage this, because it seems like a major problem in today's society

>>4380049
Doesn't this totally ignore the role culture and family play in forming our judgments?

>>4380074
The fact that you attach the word slavery to the word wages is the issue. Yes, life is sometimes hard. Yes, reality does not feed you. Some people make bad economic decisions, some people are thrust into bad economic situations. This does not at all forgive the idea of calling it "slavery", or vilifying business men, or claims that this need gives them a claim on others property, or anything of the like. A stomach doesn't make one a slave. Voluntary trade is the basis of mutually beneficial peaceful human interaction.

>>4380090
But it isn't voluntary when one person has all the resources and the other person has none, when one person determines all of the conditions of the agreement and the other just has to accept it. The only other choices for the worker are to starve or to rebel.Also, the qualifier "wage" implies that this structure is different in nature from the typical understanding of "slavery". You aree arguing on semantics and not on substance.

>>4380087
Is it difficult to not subconsciously accept ideas? Yes, but to the extent one is capable, one must check their premises. Is it impossible to grow up in a vaccum? Yes, but that doesn't mean that a human being is an intellectual sponge or some creature ruled by cultural determinism. The only means of survival man has is his capacity to reason, and reason requires the best of his independent judgement. Man cannot think second hand or perceive reality second hand. Regardless of the greatness or meekness of his mind, he has to evaluate all that he can himself.

Though it certainly does make it a lot easier to be raised in a healthy family or a health culture than to try to rewire ones entire belief structures with nothing but abstract philosophy and a few scattered experiences instead of being able to pick up on a lot of it through culture and example.

>>4380031
Really? I've always seen that revolution happens for the most part when a small glimpse of benefit is given to a class that sees itself as deprived of certain rights it believes it is entitled to, and that small window of possibility makes them lash out.

>>4380064
When you call critics juvenile and then you don't even try to respond to a contrary assertion, instead calling it economically unrealistic without any real argument other than bickering at the connotations of the term "wage-slave", it's hard to take the sincerity of your posts seriously. You probably know full well that the real meaning of the term wage-slave is a person whose freedom and productive capacity is bound down by his wage, as he can't attain particular benefits that would allow him/her to attain full productivity, such as market share or education, which are all completely left to one's wealth in a minarchist government, by the way.

>>4380049
How can you really tell what is your own judgment and what is a judment based on things you have absorbed from your culture, society, or family over the years?

That is a fair observation. I would add that this only happens at very specific times when that small upwardly-mobile class sees an oppurunity. They could wait for decades or centuries before they make a move. And this all does not address the more fundamental problem: do only the atrong, intelligent, and clever deserve to have a good life?

>>4380103
So you are constantly on the look out for ideas that might not be your own? Wouldn't that lead to an obsession, since it is basing the self around a negative idea, i.e. what is not determinism? You could go deeper and deeper into your thoughts trying to find a kernel that is "your judgement" but you won't reach it. What's more, isn't reason precisely one of these cultural values that we have integrated? Western society is obsessed with reason and logic, so isn't it possible that we only value reason because of our particular culture? Or is reason just a cold, methodical, formal thing independent of our judgment and culture--but on that case it is not "our" judgment that we rely on, but an external formal, mathetmatical evaluatove process.

>>4380101
But the only way such a situation could arise, in a voluntary society, is if people willingly give someone all resources for nothing in return. Therefore, if someone has all the resources, it cannot be a voluntary society, as someone must have taken the resources from someone else, as the state does.

Ayn Rand and Objectivists are not in the business of giving power to corporations. Rather, they wish to destroy the ability for corporations to unfairly gain power, by destroying the state.

It amazes me how similar Rand's Minarchism and Marxism can be. They both are just alternations between placing blame on the bourgeoisie and the state.

>>4380113
Honest introspection. Yes, certainty is difficult. To the best of your ability, which is all that can be asked of a man morally speaking.

>>4380111
I didn't call my critics juvenile, and if I did, I mistyped. I said that people calling her philosophy juvenile and then those same people failing blatantly to understand it is ironic. Frankly, I'm going to be heading to bed shortly and I really this specific argument would take far too long to resolve. Plus, ignoring definitions and using words wildly (such as wage slave) doesn't even allow for any kind of functioning discussion. Wage slave is a broken package deal that combines contradictory elements and is not a valid concept.

>>4380121
Is a good life defined by what the people around you have achieved? One can live a good life without much money. Secondly, a highly productive society with growing business raises everyone's standards of living. This has been made remarkably clear, even with how corrupted the market has gotten by government influence.

>>4380129
Uhhh.... I'm not sure you've really read much of Rand or Marx. Are you trolling/at a new level of high?

>>4378407
Because she thought she could create a better philosophy than Existentialism and her writing sucks. Even one of my ultra conservative History Professors who used to read her said "yeah she's nuts" after We discussed how her "philosophy" Objectivism is deeply flawed.

>>4380128
Sorry, I don't have time to get into the discussion of whether or not we can ever actually perceive the origins or independence of our own minds or things similar to that boiling down to the very validity of our senses. Was more aiming just to clarify views. Sorry.

>>4380130
Well I respect the drive towards introspection and doubt, but personally i think it is better to base one's identity on more positive factors: we know that our environment plays an important role in determining our judgments, and it isn't always a bad thing. I see people as more the intersection of ideas, environments, institutions, cultures, etc. and am not so interested in a metaphysical search for "me".

As for the second point about "the good life"--it depends on your country, city, situation. For many people is near unatatainable, thus the famines and death that occur everywhere in the world. Even in rich countries like America, a lot of people are struggling just to feed their families. We have hard data on the number of people living on basically starvation wages in the US, forced to eat the cheapest and worst foods, work two jobs at a time, etc. Read something like "Nickel and Dimed" to get a picture of how incredibly expensive it is to make ends meet for the people at the bottom of the pyramid.

The problem with Minaarchism and anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are that they proceed from the premise that we are on a level playing field. People have already ceded these roghts "voluntarily" en masse. There are already people with far more wealth and power that most. If you fet rid of most of the state and let these people do what they want, they will just buy up the guns and force and barricade everyone else on. The current government might be helping corporations, but government in general is the only means through which the majority of people can agregate their power to resist the disproportionate power that a few already have.

>>4380170
this was in response to >>4380129 #

>>4380170
sorry righting on phone there. lots of typos

>>4378264
This.
I started with Atlas Shrugged but gave up midways when I realized the plot was just some bullshit that happened between each character rant. Went straight to the source instead

>>4379958
I never said I liked her philosophy, I said her writing wasn't as bad as people on /lit/ claim. You've just confirmed my suspicion that most of /lit/ dismiss her writing because of her views, yet you can enjoy literature without enjoying the author's views. Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is enjoyable despite me not being a libertarian.

>>4380139
But her philosophical views do not make her a bad writer - you can enjoy a piece of literature without agreeing with the views of the author.

>>4378258
I've read Atlas, Anthem, and We The Living. I liked them.

Anthem's short as I remember. We The Living kinda shows why she is how she is.

Either shouldn't take too long to read. Both will give you an idea of what her writing and ideology's like.

Despite what many has said in this thread, there's much worse you can waste your time with.

stylistically she just rehashes some tired blend of realism and the fantastic moral tales of someone like Voltaire. There are plenty of people in this thread saying they disliked her writing and thus went straight to the ideas. I would say the ideas are as tired as the style, but the ideas are far far more troubling. There is plenty of benign boring didactic semi-realist lit out there that I don't care about enough to critique. But I apologize for misinterpreting your post on thinking the Fountainhead wasn't half bad.

>>4380289
and much better, but follow your heart

>>4380282
Different person here.

I agree with what that post in its entirety. However, I believe, as a fact independent from her philosophical views, that she is a mediocre (not terrible) writer.

She's the hunger games of philosophy

>>4380505
Yes, comparisons are fun. We all really appreciate your insight here.

>>4380289
Finally someone who actually seems like they read her work as opposed to forming an opinion on her work.
I also would recommend anthem. The least preachy of the three I've read (anthem, atlas, and fountainhead). Also very short, this is where I'd start OP.
Should I read We the living guys?

I would recommend Fountainhead to start with, the writing is not as good as in Atlas but it's more fun to read and it focuses more on the philosophy of the individual rather than it's implications for society. If you want to get just the philosophy read virtue of selfishness (it's also a lot shorter).
The main thing to remember while reading her is Objectivism is more complicated than one would assume so I'd recomend reading her pure philosophical texts if you like the novels.

>>4378919
>It's also telling that she has to invent a fictional world for her philosophy to make sense.
This! Because when the #1s are dropping out in Atlas, it's telling that the #2s doesn't step up. Real life example of a #1 that didn't fuck it up:

ALCOA (ALuminum COmpany of America) managed to steadily increase it's profits by cutting down on the costs. If it tried to increase profits by increasing prices people would've moved on to plastics, wood or bamboo.

And if ALCOA vanished overnight, then the ersatz plastic, wood or bamboo would've ruled the day.