/lit/ - Literature

start with the greeks

That depends on how much time you're willing to waste.

>>4827348
I don't know what that means Anon.

>>4827353
Liberal detected

>>4827343

isn't this a bannable offense

>>4827365
I don't come to /lit/ very often, this is not a troll thread.

>>4827370
Lurk more. For better or for worse this title is mentioned a lot.

>>4827370
the general consensus to your question is usually no

>>4827370

in that case know that you will not want this novel's pages to befoul your anus in wiping.

>>4827343
No.

>>4827391
Why does /lit/ hate it so much?
Ayn Rand sounds like a pretty interesting woman to me.

If I get some good reasons I'll know if I should drop it or not.

Ayn Rand was positively insane.

>>4827400
Please explain.

>>4827397

we have to cough this shite up every fucking day

burn this board to the ground

>>4827403
Basically she spends numerous books insisting upon a justification of her own selfishness (which is laughably shaky). She's Albert Camus Mark II. Look up the interview where she tries to decry altruism as immoral for Ayn Rand in a nutshell. She knew she was retarded, too.

>>4827404
I'm very sorry about that Anon, I didn't know that at all.
Care to give me a quick answer though?

>>4827418
It's a common psychological defiance to write and write in a bid to bury a moral sense (some rationality trumping feeling bs). It's why you have people who are so vehemently anti-vegetarian, so well learned in silly studies, and it's always the end result of a good trolling of Christian homophobes too.

>>4827421
yeah her epistemology, ethics, politics, and metaphysics are fucked
quick hey

>>4827418
But being selfish is perfectly justified, people do it every day without noticing it.
You know the meat you eat has been a cow who got his throat slit but you still eat that fucking cow right?
Every action you do as a human is only done to gain from it yourself and Ayn Rand makes perfect sense there.

Morals are entirely subjective Anon.

>>4827460
>Every action you do as a human is only done to gain from it yourself

what if every action you didn't undertake was done to benefit others

you're nuts

>>4827460
Sure they're subjective, but that doesn't mean yours aren't going to bother you though. Living with yourself can take a lot of effort.

>>4827463
It's only rational to take the action most benefitial for yourself.
The richest, most confident people on this planet are people who decided not to let morals take a hold of them and think outside the box.

>>4827489
Don't be silly, mate.

>>4827489

I read The Fountainhead and I really liked it, haven't been able to get into Atlas yet. If you haven't read Fountainhead you should check that one out first maybe.

Ayn Rand always gets /lit/ all fuckin fired up

>>4827343
it's about 2,5kg so don't hurt your back if you decide to do it

Ayn Rand is one of literature's great jokes.

>>4827499
>>4827503
I really don't see your issue here, I'm not telling you it's ok to kill someone if that's what you think (unless you can prove your case, just like in court today).
In today's society they teach people to feel guilty about things you shouldn't feel guilty about for example.

I'm saying you shouldn't let society, teachers, parents, the church or whatever else set your moral standards, stand for what you think is righteous.

>>4827397

I just don't think Rand's philosophy is worth arguing over---it's an analytical mess, really.

>>4827489

Have you not heard of John Nash?

>>4827512
way too many socialists in here

>>4827531
I've read some John F Nash studies yeah.
I know that he wrote about every cooperation being non-cooperative which pretty much further points toward self-importance over the importance of others, what's your point?

>>4827489
I think you fail to comprehend that for better or for worse, we are struck together in this existence. You are the product of the society. Every word, every idea in your head is given to you by someone else. Of course you can think for yourself, but you can't think only for ourselves. Humanity has given everything you ever had, time to stop being an asshole and pass on the torch.

Since you're not going to get anything but one line ad-hominems from the brilliant denizens of this board I'll do you the honor of giving you an actual response.

Atlas Shrugged is one of the best books ever written, not so much for the story itself but for the message it contains therein. The novel helped me to truly understand certain things in the world, especially proper methodology when trying to understand things. For the longest time I would be filled with jealousy of certain people, people with more than I had, people who I thought were 'better' than me, etc..

I would see a pretty girl walking around with a man and felt stung, the thought would always cross my mind at why that women would find appealing in THAT guy compared to me. Why would THAT person be more popular and likeable than me? I'm smart aren't I? I'm not bad looking am I? And so on and so forth, and I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that way, especially throughout my younger years, and even into my adulthood. But I realized that I was so wrong about all of it. I cannot apply one rule to others and have the exact opposite for myself. I can't want to be judged by my ability and my character when I am criticizing others without even knowing them. I can't want things for myself when I want to deprive them from others.

This is the most brilliant thing I took from the novel, the fact that I was judging everything about my life through the standards of others, without understanding that what really mattered was my own happiness, and the only way to achieve that happiness is to pursue what I want because I am the one who wants it. I do not need to take from others to achieve my own greatness, I cannot judge myself by the standards of others, when their own perspective of things is wholly different than mine, as mine is from theirs.

I would highly recommend it, if you can even get the slightest bit I got out of it I think you'll find it worthwhile.

>>4827551
>implying existence contains implicit moral obligations
>implying moral value could possibly exist in the absence of choice

>>4827535
I'm a socialist and I loved The Fountainhead. I don't necessarily agree with it politically but I like the Objectivist philosophy, it's quite inspiring. The writing is pretty solid, the story is great and I actually learned a lot about architecture. The characters are unrealistic but that's kinda the point.

>>4827625
>moral

>>4827625
>David Hume
lel

>>4827624
Thanks Anon, that's a pretty big problem I'm facing these days.
I'm >>4827611 but I don't want to get into too many details again.
I'm constantly trying to find or justify my actions and let what others think of me control every major part of my life to the point where I've contemplated suicide far too many times.

My appreance for example is completely in the hands of others, I look how I would assume others would like to see or if people give me a negative snark about my body I can easily get bedridden for a month.

Are there any other books that could help me get rid of that?

>>4827630
Agreed, The Fountainhead is a great book.
It's just /lit/ hating Ayn Rand because her books are too populair.

>>4827630
>The characters are unrealistic but that's kinda the point.
>Reading this on /lit/
I fucking hate you commies but... my god... somone who gets romantic art. My hat is off to you sir.

>>4827397
>Why does /lit/ hate it so much?

As a novel it's execrable. One-dimensional characters, terrible self-insert (Dagny Taggart, dunno where the Gs, Ts and spare A came from but you work it out) overwrought dialogue, the whole enchilada. Read The Virtue of Selfishness or Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology if you want to know her actual philosophy, spare yourself the pain of 'reading' that 'book'.

And no, her philosophy itself isn't really any more worth while.

The best bit about Ayn Rand is that she knew she was a hack herself

Yes.

Libereddittards on /lit/ will tell you no. It is worth it. Ayn Rand is an alpha female.

>>4827730
I read through a good chunk of her "The Romantic Manifesto". It was fun and interesting for a while, but I got tired of the dogmatism. She makes some good points that are worth thinking about, but it's clear she was too wrapped up in her own vision to notice or care if it actually matched reality.

Although anybody who complains about her unrealistic characters should probably peek at the manifesto.

>>4827846
>implying the realization that Ayn Rand was a total hack has anything to do with political ideology

Yes it is anon. Great novel.

>>4827653
You could try 'The Myth of Sisyphus', and then 'The Rebel', by Camus.

>>4828433
I'm currently reading Sisyphus. Just about 30 pages in or so but I find the general concept of the book very appealing. Nice read.

>>4827343
Sure. it'll be good exercise. don't waste your time reading it though.

>>4829434

>>4827343
The response you've gathered with this post is reason enough to take it for a ride.

>>4827343
just pick up Nietzsche, don't waste your time with Ayn Rand.

selfishness is okay for a stage in life, its just that she didnt go beyond that, but sooner or later you will feel empty inside and will want something more trascendental

>>4829662

delicious self-flagellation

>>4827843
what
sauce foo

>>4827343
the greatest thing ever written about Ayn Rand is the one act play "Mozart Was A Red" by Murray Rothbard. And I've read Atlas a couple times, minus the hectoring non-fiction passages.

>>4829812
>Sklavenmoral level 80

>>4832611
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html

lels and keks to be had.

no.

>>4827624
>I was once a fucking moron but I read a 1000 page book and now im able to be slightly less of a fucking moron.

>>4827418
>talking shit about Camus or absurdism

>>4832922

This is pretty much what I'm getting from every thread on /lit/ that isn't about Game of fucking Thrones.

>>4828433
>>4829433
Also, Camus' L'Etranger/The Stranger/The Outsider. Helps you move beyond that and realise "Shit doesn't matter, be happy for whatever reasons you can be."

>>4827397
/lit/ hates her because she advocates for a philosophy that is completely against the common moral principal. Rather than seek to counter her arguments on an intellectual level (which is possible, she has a lot of flaws in her reasoning), they just attack her personally.

Really though, Atlas Shrugged is worth the read. It has good prose. Skim over the 30 page speech in the end, most of it is unnecessary to the plot, and really the most glaring flaw with the novel.

>>4827551
Humanity hasn't given me everything I have intentionally. Everything I have that comes from some sort of nebulous "you didn't build that" society comes not from intentional charity, but me being a passive benefactor.

If that is truly enough to justify some sort of moral duty to give back, then all it justifies is humanity being a passive benefactor of my presence.

The only actors in the world this really doesn't apply to are my parents.

>>4835824
people with more than two brain cells hate here because they realize that using a work of fiction (with magic substance, no less) as evidence that your ideology is True™ is beyond retarded

>>4835840
And the post is almost immediately proven true!

Atlas Shrugged doesn't "prove" objectivism, it describes it. Her basis for believing in objectivism is laid out in it (and it isn't rearden metal) and her papers.

Come on anon, educate yourself. Even the wikipedia article on objectivism has more poignant criticisms. Though I would guess it'd take more than your two braincells to understand them.

>>4835856
but ayn rand does:
>>4835824
>/lit/ hates her
see? "her", not the book

learn to read you dumbfuck

if you knew anything about her life you would know Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be (and in fact was) the bible of her little cult

>>4835869
Atlas Shrugged is her magnum opus, but that doesn't mean that rearden metal is necessary to the conclusions of it.

I also find it amusing that you quote me both times, saying I somehow misread my own post. If you think I somehow thought you were criticizing only atlas shrugged, then frankly you're retarded since my post discusses the book, her, and her philosophy.

I bet you hate dune too.

>>4835888
>Atlas Shrugged doesn't "prove" objectivism, it describes it.
this sentence is a strawman because I state it's SHE who tries to prove HER ideology with HER book, a fact that can be independently, historically verified and is universally known

you braindead fucktard

>>4827624
review copied from amazon

>>4827343
No really. And I'm not saying this because I don't like Rand, I'm saying it because her philosophy is much more accessible in book likes: "The Virtue of Selfishness", "Anthem", "Capitalism, The Unkown Ideal" and "Introduction to Objectivist Epitomology". I personally was never able to get into Atlas Shrugged or The Fountain Head, because for me both books were too damn uninteresting for me to sink my teeth into. If you've go a lot of time on your hands, and are the type that like getting into long convoluted story lines, then go for it. but if you're more interested in her philosophy, just reads the books I previously listed.

>>4827343
Read The Fountainhead first.
The Fountainhead is infinitely better. Atlas Shrugged is garbage; this is coming from someone who actually likes Ayn Rand.

I recomend you start with the Greeks so you understand her allusion to Atlus

SPOILER
>>4827343
It is important to note and often overlooked that Atlas Shrugged is a fantasy about genocide. Whatever else may be said about it, it was her fantasy of killing off every person in the world who failed to measure up to her system. The triumph of the ending is when the last light goes out, signalling the cannibal apocalypse has begun. The most ghoulish and inhuman speech act of the piece is when she abandons Eddie Willers to die with the disabled locomotive - Eddie was loyal to a fault, diligent and competent and he did nothing wrong. Her treatment of his death is the gravest flaw in the novel, and its system.

>>4836340
This is a strawman.
This is not a fantasy about genocide. This is a horror story about self-destruction.
Ayn Rand's premise is that taking altruism to its logical extreme, and trying to operate rationally within the framework of an altruist society, would result in only self-destruction.
Her premise may be wrong, but that's not fully relevant. What is relevant is that she didn't fantasize about committing murder. No genocide was committed. The people brought death upon themselves.

The death of Eddie Willers served to cement Ayn Rand's idea that altruism must be rejected in its entirety; you can't just take this part or that part, you have to abandon it all. Eddie Willers refused to do so.

If you're going to critique Ayn Rand, Queen of the Straw Men, it would be best not to construct a straw man in response.

>>4836377
"Rand said she “set out to show how desperately the world needs prime movers and how viciously it treats them” and to portray “what happens to a world without them.”" - she said.

>>4836387
Yes.
She attempted to provide a demonstration for her statements.
It is on you to critique her demonstration, not to twist her words and attack the new mess.

>>4836395
>the new mess
Since it was published in 1957, being 57 years old, I'd have to say that at best it is a middle-aged mess.

>>4836404
I was talking about your strawman.
If you honestly think Ayn Rand is wrong it would be best for you to say why without fucking up her arguments. Every time someone posts a dumbass strawman against Rand, someone comes by, reads Ayn Rand, sees that she got some things right, thinks people must hate her because, if she got some things right, perhaps she got EVERYTHING right, and people don't like being told they're wrong. This person, who you attempted to sway away from Rand, instead becomes a Randrone. And so if you think Rand is wrong, you have officially done the world a disservice.