/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19880543]

Why does she make so many people seeze?

[Anonymous No.19880560]

because she was a spergy halfwit who developed a cult of personality followed by other spergy halfwits and also millionaires (many of whom happen to be spergy halfwits)

[Anonymous No.19880610]

>>19880543
Cause she writes like a college freshman who has narrow views of the world and who still hasn't learned to source their claims so her books read like gossip, with confidence and arrogance that she inherited to generations of conservatives

[Anonymous No.19880628]

>>19880543
because she's an evil jew simple as kek her books boil down to you turning your back on your own people and ethnic consciousness

[Anonymous No.19880632]

>>19880543
>NOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST BE A KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOUR YOU CAN'T JUST BE A MARTYR OR A HERO NO NO NO NOOOOOO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!@!@!!!!! YOU HAVE TO ONLY THINK OF YOURSELF NOT THE GROUP AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Anonymous No.19880664]

>>19880610
And btw not sourcing your claims and oversimplifying others' arguments isn't just an Ayn Rand thing on the right, Hicks' Explaining Postmodernism is another example.

[Anonymous No.19880685]

>>19880543
>Woman
>Would call feminists moochers
>Would see nothing wrong with marrying Mark Zuckerberg then dumping his ass for Jeff Bezos the second he asked.

[Anonymous No.19880692]

>>19880610
this is sexist

[Anonymous No.19880721]

>>19880692
kek

[Anonymous No.19880740]

>>19880685
>Would see nothing wrong with marrying Mark Zuckerberg then dumping his ass for Jeff Bezos the second he asked.
Zuckerberg and Bezos are complete cronies of the State, they've nothing in common with Rand's protagonists.

[Anonymous No.19880763]

>>19880543
I'm pretty sure "she" was actually a man
Her ideas are pretty dumb but there's no way a woman could make any kind of philosophy, even a shitty and incorrect one, on her own.

[Anonymous No.19880942]

>>19880560
>>19880610
>>19880628
>>19880763
So why isn't she outright dismissed? She must have done something special to have such a lasting impact.

[Anonymous No.19881640]

>>19880942
Because that's not how ideas work: you can't get everyone rallied behind one idea and think it's objectively, demonstrably... true. Ffs, we still have people who think the earth is flat.
So it's not that she's not"outright dismissed" because she must have done something special; it's rather because ideas die hard.

[Anonymous No.19881686]

>>19880543
Because no one has refuted her strictly philosophical arguments.

[Anonymous No.19881697]

>>19880543
I think Rand and Devi have been the only women writers in all of history to be edgy enough to never be retconed as "feminists" or progressives.

[Anonymous No.19881745]

>>19880942
She heaped sycophantic praise unto the laps business and industrial magnates who saw their worldview and their position in society vindicated by her fiction. They have a material, not to mention narcissistic interest in seeing her work promoted. She was already positioning herself to fill this roll as early as the 40s by giving ridiculous testimony about Russia to the HUAC. Besides the point made here >>19881640 it’s important to ask cui bono when her ideas live on. Who might have an interest in keeping Rand relevant?

[Anonymous No.19881759]

>>19880543
>Dominique Francon...
What the fuck is her problem?? Fucking bitch.

[Anonymous No.19881767]

>>19881745
This would just show how impotent "the capitalists" are at directing intellectual discourse. Rand remains a marginal figure intellectually.

[Anonymous No.19881786]

>>19881767
Yeah dickhead, if only it were intellectuals we were talking about. There are hoards of idiots out there who sleep with a copy of the fountainhead under their pillows, or otherwise hold Randian beliefs without recognizing them as such.

[Anonymous No.19881872]

>>19880942
Because she makes impotent lefties seethe.
Seriously.
For every "idiot who sleeps with a copy of The Fountainhead under their pillow" there are 5 Marxists who haven't even read her and yet constantly rush into any conversation about her to claim she "writes like a college freshman" and to claim that "industrial magnates have pushed her work everywhere". If her work didn't send those people into conniptions, she would be significantly less visible and more-or-less irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.19881922]

>>19881786
Are there really? Lefties seriously overrate the popularity of ayn rand, the way you guys talk you'd think the majority of Americans were ancaps.

[Anonymous No.19881925]

>>19881872
Kek, spoken like someone who's neither read Rand nor Marx. But apparently you feel like you need to have an opinion about everything. You couldn't even tag the people you mentioned in your comment.

[Anonymous No.19881931]

>>19881925
I've read Rand, but not Marx. And why would I give people who haven't even read the author we're discussing (you)s?

[Anonymous No.19881936]

>>19881922
Many conservative American politicians over the years quoted her work. You know the people who draft legislation in the US?

[Anonymous No.19881938]

>>19881697
Virginia Woolf sometimes gets larped as being feminist even though she was pretty racist and hated Jews.

[Anonymous No.19881939]

>>19881931
No, you didn't. Your attempt at trying to sound like you know what leftists criticize her work for blew your cover :( sowwy

[Anonymous No.19881978]

>>19881939
> Your attempt at trying to sound like you know what leftists criticize her work for blew your cover
Her prose is actually pretty strong at times. You'd know that if you'd read The Fountainhead. I have no idea what academic leftists criticize her work for; I'm just going off of what I've seen here, which is leftists wildly claiming that her work is all poorly written and that any appreciation of it is driven by some conspiracy to push it. If there's some obscure academic leftist critique I haven't read, I really don't care.

[Anonymous No.19881981]

>>19881936
Fair enough, I was thinking about people my age. I think baby boomers are the last people to care about rand(in a positive way).

[Anonymous No.19881996]

>>19881978
Isn’t it fair to critique her writing on the basis of politics when her fiction is an expressly and intentionally part of her political project? I agree that it isn’t fair to criticize her prose per se if one hasn’t read and evaluated her work on the basis of writing ability, but even commenting on her merits as a writer falls well short of the point leftists are arguing I think

[Anonymous No.19882052]

>>19881978
At times? Just "at times"? kek
Her poor writing skills aside, when I said she writes like a freshman, it wasn't because of the quality of her writing, I'm talking about the way she argues. She makes jarring claims, without defining the concepts she refers to or citing the works of the relevant philosophers. This is something a freshman would make when writing a paper but would soon learn not to do.
This isn't a lefty criticism of her work, it's a criticism that is valid to give no matter what the political affliation of the reader.
Even if you haven't read her, do you think 100 - 200 pages are enough to substantively criticize Spinoza or Kant ... let alone ALL ethics?

[Anonymous No.19882067]

>>19880543
Rand mirrored back at the leftist the behavior he worked all his life so hard to hide from himself. They can never forgive this.
Rand has struck so many chords they will seethe for all eternity, as they have been seething for the past 70 years without fail.

You can dislike someones writing or their ideas or their delivery and not go full retard everytime their name pops up. You can simply say “I didnt like this book“ and move on, you can be indifferent to things you didnt love or like, but here its ain't thusly. Whenever people choose anger and hate instead of indifference, there is pain underneath. The truth in her pages hurt them deeply, right to their very core. Look at what lengths they will go to discredit her. Everytime. Like clockwork. Because they must.

[Chud No.19882069]

>>19880628
>>19880632
Are you sure that she is against people working together for a common goal? I have only read anthem but my takeaway was that she was only against the group or state holding individuals down. The book ends with the main character saying that once he has enough people on his side they will form a group fight back against the corrupt world council. I see people say this stuff a lot but it sounds like a strawman made up by leftists and nazis to me.

[Anonymous No.19882083]

>>19880543
She fought for the individual, collectivists hate that shit.

[Anonymous No.19882106]

If you defend Rand you are a straight up sucker that can be fooled by waving around a few special words. Hurr durr it says on the tin that it is “rational” and based on reason, so even though it is a childish, petty line of thought for maladjusted teens, it collects low IQ individuals just by throwing the buzzwords in.

[Anonymous No.19882191]

>>19882069
If I remember correctly, her argument for why people wouldn't manipulate, cheat, steal ... from other people is because human beings are rational and can fend for themselves + it's not a sustenable way for survival.
But neither are a good justification and both leave too many cases uncovered. I'm pretty sure you can scam people legally by using loopholes (like banks, car dealerships... do) or underpay workers without putting your survival chances at risk (like you would by mugging someone for example)

[Anonymous No.19882206]

Not even /pol/ but Jewish philosophy is just a pendulum that goes from envy to greed

[Chud No.19882283]

>>19882191
That doesn't have anything to do with if she thinks groups working together for a common goal are bad or not

[Anonymous No.19882337]

>>19882283
if the individual's interests align with the group. Otherwise, her philosophy doesn't justify why exploiting others and fucking over is a bad thing

[Anonymous No.19882341]

She's a terrible writer and I don't even care that much about her (undeniably repulsive) philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19882343]

>>19882337
*fucking them over

[Anonymous No.19883929]

>>19880543
>>19880632
>I'm the protagonist! me me me!