[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 184 KB, 1200x1193, B62B5FF8-CBEF-4D8F-B5B4-D669A4EC4222.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20935846 No.20935846 [Reply] [Original]

Never read her books but based on her physiognomy i can tell they suck

>> No.20935854

I can tell by her Early Life section

>> No.20935857

>>20935846
i like them

>> No.20935859

They are fine, not the greatest thing ever, but definitely not as bad as some people paint them to be.

>> No.20935861

>>20935846
Her writing is actually good and she had real talent. She's probably the best female author of the twentieth century. Too bad her philosophy and worldview suck major dick. Muh materialist egoism >le altruism is bad lol. Yeah it doesn't get more soulless than this devious fucking bitch. But she wrote well.

>> No.20935911

she cute

>> No.20935919

>>20935911
she looks like timmy from the wkyk

>> No.20935920 [DELETED] 

>>20935846
>physiognomy
meme

>> No.20935932

>jewesses look like this
You can't suffer if you're jewish

>> No.20936630

>>20935846
Imagine you find that one nerdy chick who hasn't become a depressed whore. She hangs around with you and your droogs sometimes, you find her virginal and delicious as she giggles and wipes snot from her nose. You know that, gross as she may be, that you're the only one she's known and you can touch her butthole safe in that knowledge.

>> No.20936675
File: 1.91 MB, 400x500, 1393685492850.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20936675

atlas shrugged was one of the first things i've read as a teenager in my formative years, i went down the rabbit hole of various people like hans hermann hoppe and moldbug, and basically now as a 30 year old man i can shitpost 'taxation is theft' memes with the best of them on the internet

i rate it 8/10

>> No.20937041

I've never read them too but i know they make redditors seethe endlessly, so of course they must be good.

>> No.20937070

>>20937041
unfathomly based

>> No.20937093

attractive women are more likely to be shallow

>> No.20937098

>>20937093
No, I don't think there is any relationship between those things.

>> No.20937102

>>20937098
wrong

>> No.20937111
File: 8 KB, 200x273, George_Charles_Beresford_-_Virginia_Woolf_in_1902.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20937111

>>20937102
Are you telling me that you wouldn't?

>> No.20937121
File: 499 KB, 654x440, Screenshot 2022-09-03 7.51.17 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20937121

>>20937102

>> No.20937128
File: 7 KB, 275x183, download (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20937128

>>20937102
Margaret Atwood

>> No.20937135
File: 25 KB, 360x364, ac6690f59d6b0aabaa5fcc808089b09b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20937135

>>20937102
Beauvoir

>> No.20937144

>>20937111
That is the one good pic of her desu
>>20937135
This one is cute i agree but that anon would probably call her books shit

>> No.20937153

>>20937144
She is an amazing writer.

>> No.20937167

>>20935846
Ugly women are the smartest, beautiful women don't have to be.

>> No.20937168

>>20937167
Post the GOAT uggos then.

>> No.20937195

>>20937168
All women who achieved anything are ugly or average. Never beautiful. Work is beneath the beautiful woman.

>> No.20937206

>>20937195
>Post the GOAT uggos.
I'm waiting. Beauvoir was a qt.

>> No.20937212

>>20937195
Also, my mom used to work in a high paid position in a big company, knew 3 languages and she was also a qt.

>> No.20937216

>>20937206
With the moustache and all? The tastes you have.

>> No.20937222

>>20937216
>copium
You are a woman, aren't you?

>> No.20937223

>>20937212
Yes, we do live in a time whee all women are forced to work, but it's not real work. Real work is achieving something.

>> No.20937227

>>20937223
My parents achieved a lot by themselves, they quit their jobs and started their own business and raised me and my sister.

>> No.20937244

>>20937222
I'm not.

>>20937227
Historical people?

>> No.20937259

>>20937244
>only historical authors have achieved anything
Bruh, you do realize that people didn't even used to view writing as a real job, right?

>> No.20937268

>>20937259
>Sheep
Whatever, writing is hard and will probably kill you. Only an ugly or crazy woman would choose to write.

>> No.20937337

>>20937268
>talks about being smart
>dismiss achieving things irl doing business
>dismiss philosophy
>dismiss writing
If you aren't a woman, you have to be a tranny. There is no way you aren't high on hormones to talk shit like that.

>> No.20937367

>>20937337
That's high praise. You can't understand me because I'm above you.

>> No.20937381

>>20937367
You are coping hard that the greatest women writers were smart and beautiful. That is understandable.

>> No.20937480

>>20937381
Kek.

>> No.20937591

>>20937381
You've ever seen beautiful women.

>> No.20937615

>>20937591
Why? I dated one, and she was smart too.

>> No.20937622

>>20937615
Did she have the mind of Ayn Rand?

>> No.20937627

>>20937622
No, she was religious and a feminist, one of those woke types.

>> No.20937633

>>20937627
Yes, aren't they all. Because they're so fucking smart.

>> No.20937637

>>20937633
Some are. Not all of them, but why are you so butt hurt about it?

>> No.20937645

>>20937637
Women can't esteem.

>> No.20937650

>>20937645
What?

>> No.20937657

>>20937650
They can't esteem, man is the esteemer.

>> No.20937660

>>20937657
Esteem what?

>> No.20937676

>>20937660
Themselves, others, anything.

>> No.20937692

>>20936675
Hi I'm you but 7 years shy of the light at the end of the tunnel pipeline

>> No.20937701

>>20937676
Can you give me a sip of that shit that you are drinking? I would love to get as high as you are.

>> No.20937718

>>20937701
You don't see how great Ayn Rand is because you don't see women. Sure she plagiarized and her work is mostly a reaction to the Soviet union, but it's significant nonetheless. It's a valid critique o the hyper-Christianity that plagues us to this day.

For a woman to achieve what Ayn Rad did is significant because it's so atypical of female behavior.

>> No.20937722

>>20937701
>>20937718
She still can't esteem though.

>> No.20937732

>>20937718
Yes, it was transgressive, but so is Beauvoir. What are you talking about?

>> No.20937740

>>20937732
Not even that, most philosophy worth reading is like that. If it doesn't have anything like that it is probably worthless.

>> No.20937747

>>20937732
Feminism benefits women in a decadent way. It's basically hyper-Christian equality, giving a chance to the meek, at the expense of realness. There is nothing exceptional about it. Rand looks for a world where man is free, not woman, man. She saw ahead of the bullshit.

>> No.20937778

>>20937747
Are you crazy? She doesn't care about gender shit. At least, not as far as I know.

>> No.20937782

not even a philosopher just a retarded bitch who wrote YA level fiction

>> No.20937791

>>20937782
She makes philosophers seethe.

>> No.20937794

>>20937778
Have you even read her? She's anti-feminist in a very Nietzschean way.

>> No.20937799

>>20937778
Beauvoir is a typical woman, nothing worth reading.

>> No.20937809

>>20937794
Anti-feminist? Are you crazy? Dagny Taggart is unironically a woman doing whatever the fuck she feels like doing. It has nothing to do with gender, and it wouldn't make any sense either, that egoism of hers has nothing to do with it.

>> No.20937813

>>20937809
You think Rand is a feminist?

>> No.20937818

>>20937813
No, but she isn't an anti-feminist either.

>> No.20937822

>>20937813
This is where I don't like her. Fuck Aristotle. Things don't have to be either black or white.

>> No.20937823

>>20937818
Try discussing her with feminists. She's anti-feminist.

>> No.20937833

>>20937823
They won't even discuss Rand, they'll try to kill you.

>> No.20937837
File: 2.80 MB, 1378x1080, dinosaurs 2000 years ago karina.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20937837

>>20935846

all white women were pretty ugly back then

>> No.20937840

>>20937823
Not even joking, considering intersectionality, she can be considered a feminist. And those feminists who claim otherwise are oppressing Ayn Rand's freedom of being.

>> No.20937845

>>20937840
But seriously now, she isn't anti-feminist. It is basically Stirner for normies.

>> No.20937852

>>20937845
And if anything, I think that the philosopher she is making fun of on AS is Heidegger. She doesn't even put any other woman philosopher there.

>> No.20937860

>>20937845
Would you consider Stirner an anti-feminist? They don't even address feminism, how can they be against it?

>> No.20937884

>>20937840
>>20937860
Anti-feminist but not anti-women.

>> No.20937899

>>20937884
Seriously, they are not conciliable, but it is not like they are anti-feminism, they are definitely anti-Christian. Both of them.

>> No.20937905

>>20937899
Feminism actually hurts women, they just don't know it. It's a helpful cope.

>> No.20937909

>>20937905
I don't care, she used to smoke, cigarettes hurts people too, they unironically know it. It is a helpful cope.

>> No.20937921

>>20937909
>cigarettes hurts people too
That's a great comparison. But it's better to smoke and be a feminist than to fuck a hundred guys.

>> No.20937929

>>20937921
My point is that I don't care, I don't make value judgments when it comes to philosophy, moral systems, and things related (considering that I'm not memeing). I'm an instrumentalist, I use all those things as I see fit. You can call me schizo, dishonest, unauthentic, hypocrite and whatever, I don't care.

>> No.20937935

>>20937929
>I don't make value judgments
Then you have no character. You're like a hyper-woman, the ultimate non-esteemer. You must really hate yourself.

>> No.20937936

>>20935846
Books on physiognomy?
I wish to judge books by their cover.

>> No.20937943

>>20937935
>I don't make value judgments when it comes to philosophy
>I'm an instrumentalist
You should read about it. There are contexts that things FIT, it is not about just throwing shit out there and acting like a fucking retard. I don't care about this shit anymore, I'm no getting paid to educate the mentally challenged on 4chan.

>> No.20937970

>>20937943
>instrumentalism
It's a lack of being. No philosopher is detached from his philosophy.

>> No.20937984

>>20937212
Post mom

>> No.20938000

>>20937935
The idea that value is subjective presupposes a priori harm to ethics

>> No.20938044

>>20938000
It is because you can't use the fucking CI when it comes to women. They experience reality in a whole different way men do. If you use it, you are doing it wrong, because it is not the fair thing to do.

>> No.20938057

>>20938000
>>20938044
You give up what makes you men. Why?

>> No.20938073

>>20937216
French girls, what’re y’all gonna do?

>> No.20938086

>>20938057
Who are you to tell me what I am? You are a piece of shit considering my standpoint.

>> No.20938105

>>20938086
So you do it to be nice?

>> No.20938113

>>20938105
Fairness, it is not about being nice, I don't care about that. I just called you a piece of shit, do you think I bother with being nice?

>> No.20938120

>>20938057
Don't hide behind words, say what you mean

>> No.20938124

>>20938044
That's a shame because if the CI was applied uniformly, sexless men wouldn't exist

>> No.20938129

>>20938113
But you think you're better than me, because you don't judge, but judging is esteeming, and we are esteemers. To not esteem is to not be.

>> No.20938133

>>20938120
>>20938124
To be or not to be, he chose not to. And what is a man that isn't? No man at all.

>> No.20938161

>>20938124
I mean, whoever understood that shit would assume their mother/sister when it comes to women. Seriously, how fucking autistic do you have to be to consider your own experience when it comes to women? But even then, it is not ideal.
>>20938129
I'm not being judgemental, I don't know you, I'm just saying things to you.

>> No.20938174

>>20938161
You better be a woman.

>> No.20938178

>>20938174
Seriously? It is THE FUCKING TRIVIAL THING TO DO, what the fuck is wrong with you? Would you be ok with people treating your mother like they treat your father? Are you a fucking retard?

>> No.20938183

>>20938178
Ok girl, calm down.

>> No.20938190

Did you have to pay to study this shit?

>> No.20938193

>>20938183
Dude, seriously, I watch porn, anime, and all sorts of stupid shit. Unironically used a shit ton of drugs, and I had no issues figuring that shit out practically instantly. What the fuck are they putting on the food of people in the US?

>> No.20938287
File: 507 KB, 500x477, 1662114976545654.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20938287

>>20938193
4channel, where all the well-adjusted people hang out!

>> No.20938301

>>20935861
i remember you faggot from the last thread. she didn't attack altruism, she attacked what she called "the altruist ethic". instead of reading Stirner and judging Rand, read Rand and judge Rand

>> No.20938313

>>20935846
She took public money when she got old, lol hypocrite

>> No.20938319

>>20937195
Ever heard of Beyoncé?

>> No.20938320

>>20935846
Atlas Shrugged is a great book. It's honestly what most people who browse lit are looking for, a book to INSPIRE them.

>> No.20938335

OP here. Wow this thread turned to shit.

>> No.20938339

>>20938320
Rand is a HORRENDOUSLY bad author and her books are dull, pretentious, and unnecessarily long. If brevity is the soul of wit, the fact that she is pointlessly verbose should tell you everything you need to know.

>> No.20938635

>>20935861
>Muh materialist egoism >le altruism is bad lol. Yeah it doesn't get more soulless than this devious fucking bitch
she was jewish

>> No.20938659
File: 161 KB, 1600x900, nog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20938659

>>20937128

>> No.20938951

>>20935861
>soulless
While I have grown to dislike Ayn Rands philosophy, I dont think it is right to call it soulless. The best part of her books is the rampant hero and strength worship, the very definition of sovl.

>> No.20938956

>>20935854
I can tell her Early Life section FROM her physiognomy and based on that I can tell they suck.

>> No.20938958

>>20937153
Yes Beauvoir is very good

>> No.20938998

>>20935854
That’s the same thing tho

>> No.20939007

>>20937167
uggo cope

>> No.20939010

>>20937837
>any rand
>white
Guess again

>> No.20939208

>>20938320
Yes, kinda this.
>>20938339
Not really if you are into it, some people like it.

>> No.20939357

I read this and it was ok, still not reading her books though
https://courses.aynrand.org/works/extremism-or-the-art-of-smearing/

>> No.20939440

>>20935846
>physiognomy

Is this just astrology for incels?

>> No.20939660

>>20935846
Wasn't she a sexist?
>>20939440
Yes.

>> No.20939663

>>20938951
They're heroic for soulless reasons though.

>> No.20939674

>>20939663
They are interesting regardless, and I don't get why some people would even think that her books are dangerous.

>> No.20939706

>>20935846

I know that Mike Mentzer was a big fan of hers. She's often referenced by lolbertarians so I've always associated her work with that but I'll have to read them for myself someday.

>> No.20939806

>>20938193
You sound ideal, please be my gf. I'm from the EU

>> No.20939821

>>20939806
Are you a woman? Not interested.
Are you a man? Send me money, first.

>> No.20941015

>>20939208
Most people agree her prose are clunky and her writing style is dismal. Have you read her work? You basically have to be ideologically committed to her message in order to have the fortitude to wade through the pools of sewage which are her novels.

>> No.20941040

>>20939706
Basically, her novels are propaganda. She has an explicit political stance she is forcing into the narrative of her stories and it converts it from any semblance of art to a kind of fantasy where the world operates exactly how she wants for her politics to be the best thing ever. It's juvenile, childish, and quite frankly, embarrassing. She has zero interest in exploring the nuance of other political view points, zero interest in exploring the possible downsides of her own political view point, it's all just fluff to rub herself off on how genius her politics are and inviting those who share that ideology to come and have a circle jerk over how great that ideology is.

>> No.20941050

>>20941015
No, anon. She is okish, but yes, you have to not despise her message completely to go through it. Some stuff is a bit repetitive, at least considering Atlas Shrugged. I definitely think that she had a great idea for a book, but that it would definitely be an amazing book if it were written by Ray Bradbury or someone who is a bit more concise. And I bet that the film adaptation of it would end up being better too.
I'm not really into her thought, but I think that it is very important to keep those things. I wouldn't feel like destroying an antagonist standpoint, and all things considered it was what got me started into philosophy. You can say what you want of it, but I'm one of those ridiculously obnoxious individuals (I'm trying to change), and being exposed to her ideas was not as boring as you would think, despite me not being commited with them.

>> No.20941056

>>20941040
Yes, but that is what young people need, anon. You are missing the fucking point. They need some aim, something that is inspiring, and I think she does a good job at building that. It is like Lord of the Rings for entrepreneurs.

>> No.20941104

>>20941056
Shut the fuck up retard

>> No.20941120

>>20941104
You are the one acting like a retard projecting your own insecurities on others. Are you that scared of "propaganda" that isn't even being memed?

>> No.20941239

>>20941056
>It is like Lord of the Rings for entrepreneurs.
Haha I don't know whether that is the perfect comparison or massive cringe. Maybe both.

>> No.20941244

>>20941120
You're responding to a random anon, not me. I think her works lack soul and integrity which is why I class them as propaganda. They aren't interested in uncovering truth, they are only focused on forcing a particular set of ideas upon the reader. This is why I deem them as terrible novels and I would not recommend them to young readers.

>> No.20941265

>>20935846
She made dudes have sex with her

>> No.20941283

>>20941244
Yes, but they are important books for a lot of people. This is what you are missing, books can change lives. I'm not saying that every single person should read that and turn into the same thing. I don't think that most people should read the same books, that is definitely a thing if you are into /lit/ stuff, however, more people are "normal". They need something to make them do whatever they want to do with their lives.

>> No.20941295

>>20941283
And honestly, I wouldn't have any issue with my children reading it. Considering that they are teenagers or whatever, she writes about some things that aren't appropriate for children.

>> No.20941584

Where are my glowie homies at?

>> No.20942810

>>20935846
Atlas Shrugged is great
The Fountainhead is meh, I really didn't like it all that much.

>> No.20944391

>>20938951
Strength worship taken to its philosophical extreme in writing is exemplified in cultivation trash manhwas and isekai. For bonus points, just make the main character do nothing good for anyone but themselves.

>> No.20944397

>>20937167
Ironically good genes express themselves in aesthetic attractiveness which would mean they are more likely to be higher IQ than a really ugly woman.

>> No.20944404

>>20937718
>It's a valid critique o the hyper-Christianity that plagues us to this day.
Lmao. You're so short sighted.

>> No.20944411

>>20935846
this but hitler Goebbels

>> No.20944428

>>20941015
>You basically have to be ideologically committed to her message in order to have the fortitude to wade through the pools of sewage which are her novels.
Basically all meme libertarians who don't think very far ahead.

>> No.20944500

>>20941040
She doesn't believe her own shit anyway because she was a welfare queen.

>> No.20944526

>>20941056
>They need some aim
Which is what?
>Lord of the Rings for entrepreneurs
You are super special and deserve to keep 100% of the value your ideas produce and all the labor going into it is worth 0?

>> No.20944551

>>20944526
Whatever they want, don't you understand that people aren't all the same? Isn't it fucking obvious, that despite most people feeling like they want money and whatever. The things that they would do with it are probably different, at least after they get over the "high" of it.
>>Lord of the Rings for entrepreneurs
>You are super special and deserve to keep 100% of the value your ideas produce and all the labor going into it is worth 0?
I don't know what you are talking about, it is an inspiring book, it has some characters that are heroes and they have different values than other people. I don't even agree with it, but I don't see what is wrong with it. Have you ever considered that most "heroes" are murderers? That they kill people, and they are heroes regardless, I'm not even complaining about that. Just understand that morals aren't the same for everyone.

>> No.20946150
File: 18 KB, 219x215, merchant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20946150

>>20937837
>jewish
>white

>> No.20946570

>>20944404
Would you rather hear it as hyper-equality? Worship of the meek?

>> No.20947619

>>20946570

They pushed their philosophy to replace god not realizing at minimum 50% of people aren't intelligent enough to understand what they were trying to replace it with and the remaining 40% would disagree with that portion of their philosophy so we are left with 10% of the population being libertarians with who are materialists that want no power to enact their goals and 90% of the US population being materialists who want a huge government to use its power to take things from the other tribe. Fighting religion only worsened the human condition.
What I'm getting at is human beings aren't advanced enough to exist without worshiping something, Replacing god with rationalism and materialism is just more of the same shit.

>> No.20947680

>>20947619
>Replacing god
There was no replacing, every American worships Jesus. Why do you think the meekest are celebrated?

>> No.20947710

>>20938133
No, its always been that the women select ultimately, unless you count prehistory

>>20938161
I'm far from an empiricist. empiricism almost destroyed science

>>20938193
Not to get political, but I'm starting to see less of a difference between euro sceptics and jews. Both want us destroyed. hell even the Changs are in on it. Their ideals and goals are practically the same

>>20937718
I see things getting more secular outside certain circles. Religion isn't dying per se, but its becoming more insular and initiation based. Outside those circles, r*ddit is real life.

>> No.20947753

>self-aggrandizing person of the book from priviliged background carpetbags Manifest Destiny Americanism

>> No.20948008

>>20935846
i like them

>> No.20948441

>>20937718
Ayn Rand is in her own category both as a human being and especially as a woman. In a way, she is still a woman, caring strongly about the psyche and emotional well-being over the material world (what men typically focus on) and uniting it with a life-affirming philosophy is what makes her novels and philosophy so interesting.
You can't really find any woman to compare Ayn Rand.

>>20937778
Are you kidding? Ayn Rand was very much into gender shit, wanting men to be strong and independent and women to be feminine and worshiping men who are great. Hell, Ayn Rand was vocally against feminism in its early days and saw it as nothing more than collectivism bullshit for women under the guise of fighting for rights. Which is exactly what feminism became in the latter decades.

>> No.20948455

>>20941040
>her novels are propaganda
People who say this dismiss how well-written and structured she made her novels. What they actually mean is that her themes and philosophy are very clear to the point where no one can misinterpret them. This is actually the mark of a good artist.
Also, this 'explicit political stance' is not present at all in The Fountainhead. As for Atlas Shrugged, this is wrong on multiple accounts, as the novel is very much anti-statism and pro-capitalism but you don't really see an established political position because she could not find one. Atlas Shrugged literally ends with the heroes going into the sunset and say that they'll create a new civilization. And the only time it appears that she established a civilization, a character explicitly says 'this is just a group of people hanging out on a property, this *IS NOT* a state.' Every other buzzword is just repeating that you think it's bad without giving examples.

>> No.20948465

>>20948455
>a book is not propaganda because the author says so and it has an open ending
Whoa

>> No.20948589

>>20948465
>it's propaganda because.... it just is, okay?

>> No.20948595

>>20948589
>nooooo you can’t call completely unrealistic portrayals of political ideologies in novels propaganda

>> No.20948617

>>20948595
>they're unrealistic because... they just are, okay?

>> No.20948696

>>20937128
reminds me of the game show vietnamese sigma male

>> No.20949118

>>20947710
I'm talking about morals, people are more judgemental when it comes to women. Who would you think is worse a womanizer or a "whore"? You can't treat women in the same way you would treat men, if you are a man and vice-versa. Yes, it kinda sucks, but I don't make the rules.

>> No.20949179

>>20948441
I don't know, I didn't get any of that while reading Atlas Shrugged. I'm not crazy about her, so I'm probably wrong considering her personal positions, however, I don't think it shows in that book. And if anything, her views on women being on the workforce, on their competence and the kind of work that they should be doing, are quite clear, at least, considering what I took out of it.
And also, she despised any kind of collective, but don't think that Dagny wouldn't be one of those "feminist heroes" if some men told her that she would not be allowed to to whatever. I'm sure that she is the kind of character that would end up dressing as a man or something.
The problem with feminism is that it isn't exactly a single thing, she was probably against it, because at the time it had lots of links with communists. But if you consider a somewhat more "broad" view of it, one that considers Hedda Gabler (Ibsen) and Nora (Ibsen's Doll's House) as feminist characters, you could count her as a feminist.

>> No.20949980

>>20949179
Atlas Shrugged does have a few mentions about it with Dagny. Characters mention that she doesn't act or look feminine, and her father is overjoyed when she happens to wear a feminine outfit for a party. There's another mention that Dagny realized at 16 that people might not approve of her being in charge of anything as a woman, but never thought of it ever again afterwards, saying fuck it I'll still do it. Ayn Rand clearly emphasizes that women should be compassionate and strong-willed, and sexually tender during off-time. In a way, Ayn Rand's fiction adheres to individualism feminism where women can do male occupations (outside of manual labor) and thrive. She also makes a point that women are quick to emotionally blackmail men to get what they want, and men aren't psychologically equipped to deal with it. This is most predominantly seen with how Readen deals with his wife compared to how he deals with government men trying to fuck with his business who are more direct.

It's better to categorize Ayn Rand as an individualist who recognized the differences between the sexes, that both preform their gendered roles, but that they each have specific preferences and needs that differentiate them. What makes Ayn Rand different in the canon of feminist work is that for all Dagny's strong exterior where people call her unfeeling, she really wants to lust over a strong man and be submissive. I see that as being honest compared to the 'I need no man' feminism that try to erode any differences between men and women for the purposes of elevating women and lowering men into an egalitarian playing field.

>> No.20950089

>>20949980
Yes, I always saw it as an existentialist book, not even joking. That being submissive and lusting for a strong man things are mainly personal characteristics of her character. I don't think it would make any different to consider her as a lesbian or something. I think it has more to do with her view that people should look for their "equals" when it comes to relationships, because what you just said about being submissive and lusting for a stronger partner is exactly the behavior of Hank. He got hooked by Dagny as soon as he laid eyes on her.
That is why I think that you could consider it a somewhat feminist book, but I definitely think that it is more of an existentialist thing, as in showing the journey of entrepreneurs in a decadent world. Their struggles in connecting with other people, how their activities and society interact, and how their "meaning" is built while living. Which is weird considering that it is a dystopian book, but it gave me a lot of insights about people who identify themselves with those characters. As in, how they view other people, themselves, society, how important are their things, and most importantly, how they feel about all of those.

>> No.20950117

>>20950089
But also mind you, that Hearden is even more submissive than Dagny, he was willing to be bound to Lillian, despite her not really appreciating his effort and feats. He did not act on lust, I think that Rand justifies this whole thing when Lillian trades her "Rearden chain" with Dagny. That was definitely way more than a simple exchange, it was representing that Lillian didn't really care about it. She was cheating on him, if I'm not mistaken (I can't remember the whole order of events in the book, since it has been a while since I've read it), with James.
So Lillian sent Hank away, he was definitely a submissive to his wife, until she sent him off, and off he did.

>> No.20950131

>>20935854
In life I have learned that it is always wise do as a Jew suggests. People who fight against Jews have a bad habit of getting utterly BTFO: see Europeans, Muslims, etc.

>> No.20950145

>>20935854
So heckin based my dude. Early life section memes in 2022 are so hilarious

>> No.20950157

>>20950117
Rand even hints that, he gave her the chain on that dinner, and Lillian proceeds to talk about being bound by them. But what she doesn't talk about is that while she is chained to him because of it, he is also chained to her. Which is kinda telling about Lillian to some extent. And it is a chain, it is not some other piece of jewelry, like a ring or whatever.

>> No.20950470

>>20948455
Holy cope. "The mark of a good artist" is that she makes her themes so plain and dumb that the biggest blockhead can't miss them? Sounds like a pretty crass artist! Also "We're a group of people who have come together in the name of certain rights and who live together... but... but... WE'RE NOT A STATE, OKAY?!". CRINGE!

>> No.20950628

>>20950117
I disagree about Readen being more submissive. He's more emotionally broken. In his personal life, he's a whipped guy who lowers his head, going 'yes honey' on everything, while acting strong and independent while working. The point is to show the contradiction between his work life and personal and social life and how they are alike. It's meant to parallel how his work life and political life are also interconnected in the same way until Dagny makes him more assertive in his personal life.

I see this as a thematic connection between The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. In The Fountainhead, Roark affirms his integrity to work by his standard, but the novel intentionally omits anything political. So Atlas Shrugged takes Roark's integrity to his work but removes his discovery at the end of The Fountainhead, making him a slave to others. Unsurprisingly, Readen and Roark have names that start with the letter R and are redheads.

>>20950117
She cheats near the end of the novel.

>>20950470
I don't think you understood why having an unmistakable theme makes a good artist. The essence of art is the integration of the whole towards a specific value and theme, and the higher the degree of the whole integrating towards that point, the greater the work is. The Fountainhead is about integrity in a moral sense, to never let go, while Atlas Shrugged is about integrity in both a moral sense and political sense, where one must let go to achieve freedom. The reason why it makes Ayn Rand a good artist is that everything she wrote acts in service to those themes while at the same time having very dynamic plots.

You can't read The Fountainhead and conclude that altruism is good actually because every part of the whole, from Gail Wynand to Peter and Toohey and Roark unite to convey the theme of the importance of integrity. It's master-class craftsmanship.

>> No.20951128

>>20950628
>The essence of art is the integration of the whole towards a specific value and theme, and the higher the degree of the whole integrating towards that point, the greater the work is.
Great art opens the mind, it's not ideological. Rand is not an artist, she's an anti-communist.

>> No.20951138
File: 160 KB, 392x471, 1613701911107.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20951138

>reverse search image
>find this
lolol

>> No.20951196

>>20951128
>implying Ayn Rand didn't open the mind of people
>implying art that opens the mind isn't ideological in nature
>implying ideological works can't open minds because tautological reasons
Brainlet take and pure cope. Name me a single 'great art' that isn't ideological. All art comes from an artist's philosophical understanding of reality and therefore becomes ideological when concretized in their chosen artform.

>> No.20951292

>>20950145
>>20950131
Post nose

>> No.20951562

>>20951196
I don't know, anon. I wouldn't really consider everything ideological.
1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
The thing is that stupid retards are using it as a derrogatory term or as a way of demeaning some system as "just ideology". I mean, I understand that if someone isn't talking about politics it means that they are happy with the current state of affairs so anyone making art of the sake of beauty would be behaving ideologically, considering that they are expressing beauty, instead of some kind of critique or alternative. But those works are only ideological if you consider them with their historical time.
Now getting into the first point of it, I'm not the quoted anon, but I definitely agree with you on that. It was her book that actually got me into philosophy, and I definitely don't agree with most of her ideas, I definitely thought that she was kinda too radical, but still, it was an interesting read. The only thing that I found a bit boring while reading Atlas Shrugged was that John Galt monologue on the radio, but while I didn't thought the book was perfect, it was a good read, all things considered.

>> No.20952579

>>20951196
>ideological
Everything ideological is dogmatic and low IQ.

>> No.20952909

>>20950628
Are there any posters more cringe than Rand fans?

>> No.20953689

>>20951562
I use ideology as interchangeable with philosophical or philosophy. I disagree that ideology only applies to economics or politics because that's reductive, but that's my usage of it and it might have brought miscommunication. Not to mention that, if taken under the framework, The Fountainhead isn't ideological because it has nothing to do with economics or politics but morals, and therefore it is wrong to say her works are ideological.

>>20952909
That which you call cringe is merely your own value system said explicitly without shame. Do you think arguing and defending accurately about what you enjoy is cringe?
>defending something people disapprove of is cringe because I sure wouldn't dare to do that
I like Ayn Rand as an artist and philosopher, and I think she's heavily misunderstood because people are intellectually lazy, willing to just call her bad rather than engage with her on her own terms. It's much easier to say that she's not a philosopher, never created art and that she's a poor man's Nietzsche rather than try to understand her position and judge it accurately.

The truth is that Ayn Rand wrote some of the best novels ever made, made her philosophy in a very interconnected way that is unique within the realm of philosophy, and made it comprehensible for the general audience while at the same time writing her novels within the standard of pulp fiction. So people with 'elevated taste' look down on her as not being high art (the same way no one would accept anything that the general masses enjoy is good) and dislike how she made philosophy accessible to the common masses. It's no surprise that, to a lot of people who read her, their first reaction is 'wow, someone who actually says it as it is.' And the problem with Ayn Rand is that she was only 95% correct, and no one is really willing to fix her views because they either dismiss her or adhere to her views dogmatically, so you don't get any nuanced views on her books or view on life.

>> No.20953704

>>20936675
dangerously based

>> No.20953723

>>20938951
A true hero can only exist within the context of a collective. Self sacrifice for the greater good, community or an idea is essential for heroism. Power and strength for your own sake is just a bugman's idea of a hero. An true egoist cannot be a hero, for when he commits a truly heroic act he ceases to be one.

>> No.20953762

>>20953723
>self-sacrifice is what makes a person heroic because.... it just does okay? Only bug people think living for oneself is good.
That tautology lol. So only an altruist can be a hero because acting non-altruistically means you're not acting altruistically? How insightful.

Why can a true hero only exist within the context of a collective? Why is self-sacrifice for the greater good, community or an ideal essential for heroism? Why is power and strength for your own sake not representative of being a hero?
There are a lot of old myths about heroism concerning power and strength with a hero's accomplishments. Why are those invalid?

>> No.20953775

>>20953762
>Only bug people think living for oneself is good
Wrong. Most people are not heroic and there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't deserve praise or admiration. A healthy dose of selfishness is just an instinctual default. Only a bugman would see someone acting purely out of selfishness as a hero worthy of praise.
>Why can a true hero only exist within the context of a collective?
Because hero status is conferred by the collective's perception of the individual. You cannot self-title yourself a hero.
>There are a lot of old myths about heroism concerning power and strength with a hero's accomplishments.
Bugmen societies exist and they create such worthless heroes for themselves. Their heroic status is still conferred by the collective, but undeservedly so.

>> No.20953811

>>20953775
>Most people are not heroic, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't deserve praise or admiration.
Most people aren't heroic because they haven't accomplished heroic deeds. You fail to explain why most people aren't heroes because you don't know how to quantify a hero properly.

At its core, a hero is an individual noted for admired virtues and outstanding achievements. The admiration of virtues is reflected in one's character and actions, and their incredible achievement reflects the praise that elevates such people over others. Most people aren't heroic because they do not live by heroic values or possess the strength of character matching a hero, nor have they done anything outstanding.

>Only a bugman would see someone acting purely out of selfishness as a hero worthy of praise.
That doesn't make it invalid. You just disagree because...? Bugmen? Is name-calling all you can do?

>Because hero status is conferred by the collective's perception of the individual. You cannot self-title yourself a hero.
Sure you can. The mark of a hero is their actions, not the perception of such actions. If you do something impressive, it is heroic. The difference is what deed qualifies as heroic under one's value system (and that of society). If a person self-sacrifices themselves to save a million people and no one sees them, by your definition, they aren't heroes because no one saw them, yet they are also heroes because they acted selflessly. Hence you're mistaken either way.

The Greeks saw a great show of strength and accomplishments as acts of heroism. The Japanese see following the state and telling how the people should act as heroic. Americans see standing up for your values, having integrity and creating something new as heroic. Christians see Christ sacrificing himself to save everyone as heroic. The point is that too narrow one's definition of hero to altruism is myopic and objectively wrong.

>Bugmen societies exist, and they create such worthless heroes for themselves.
Do name these 'bugmen societies,' you coward. It's much easier to pretend to call people and places under a fake name rather than give examples because they can immediately be refuted. Which places are bugmen society? Africa? America? Europe? Asia?

>> No.20953831

>>20953811
>admired
>impressive
Then you admit that hero status is conferred by the perception of others, ergo the collective, when they are impressed by or admire your actions. An act cannot be impressive if nobody is impressed by it.

>> No.20953843

>>20953831
You've mistaken admired acts for admired values. Read the rest of what I wrote.

>> No.20953873

>>20953843
No, I don't think I will. I actually think we're both retarded and I concede my point on heroism requiring altruism but your refusal to admit that a hero cannot exist in a vacuum and requires someone to perceive him as heroic is equally retarded.

>> No.20953891

>>20953873
I don't deny that people perceiving one's heroism is a factor, I merely disagree that one's deeds necessitate observers and that one can only be crowned a hero by others, as it is inherently second-handed. I just see it as your adherence that one can only be heroic by being altruistic manifested in the definition of others granting you the title, thus no one does anything for themselves by themselves. Again, if a person sacrifices themselves to save millions and no one sees it, they did a heroic act and are a hero, regardless of whether people saw it.

Consider the possibility of Jesus sacrificing himself on the cross, alone, with no one watching him. Would it have been valid? If his persistence to overcome pain for the sake of mankind makes him a hero, I don't see why people not seeing him negates him from his actions being heroic.

>> No.20953914

>>20953891
The action is heroic in nature but he is not a hero. Hero status is a cultural phenomenon first and foremost and requires subjects for the object of praise. If you take the word outside of that context it becomes a meaningless spook.

>> No.20954270

>>20953914
I see. We won't agree either way; I consider someone doing a heroic action in nature to be a hero, as the action makes the person, not whether people observe the act.

>> No.20955778

>>20953723
I somewhat agree but I think that even just overcoming limitations on it’s own is heroic and inspiring and it is not necessary that it would be done for the sake of a collective.
Besides, randian heroes usually do benefit others in some way, even if they autistically claim to do it only for profit.

>> No.20955797

>>20955778
I'm not that quoted anon, but yes, it was kinda weird. The thing about them is that they care about certain values, it is not even about their relation to other people. Ultimately, they played everything fair on Atlas Shrugged, at least according to their values.
They are not the classical hero type, who would embrace regular values, but they act the same, that is what makes it inspiring, I think.

>> No.20956075

This thread is full of women isn't it.

>> No.20956079

>>20956075
Is it? I didn't really notice anything. Quote some examples.

>> No.20956147

>>20937718
I'd say Nietzsche and Stirner made better critiques of the judeochristian/abrahamic slave morals deeply entrenched in modern culture.

>> No.20956156

>>20937732
>transgressive
the words of a hedonist fag who wants bland, empty platitudes as opposed to philosophy. Anything worth a damn is going to be painful, offensive or hard.

>> No.20956172

>>20956156
What? Are you crazy? Have you ever read Kant's morals? It is unironically the most unnofensive thing ever, so simple that it made to common sense, there are people who can't read and yet repeat his CI as if it was nothing.

>> No.20956268

>>20956147
Stirner doesn't make better critiques, and while Nietzsche identifies the source of Christianity through Plato and altruism, Ayn Rand is offers more direct and insightful observations on why altruism is morally corruptive and bad. Nietzsche resorts to identifying aspects with slave morality whereas Ayn Rand identifies the method. Either way, saying that X made better critiques is just a lazy argument from people who never bothered understanding Ayn Rand's view because they can't admit that she's on the same degree as Nietzsche and perhaps surpasses him.

>> No.20957307

>>20935846
>>20935854
Assholes

>> No.20957802

>>20936630
This post makes me feel weird

>> No.20957943

>>20956268
Well said, though Nietzsche is much more power than Rand. He's the one that dissected altruism as something only a person with a overabundance of strength did, and quite nonchalantly at that, without much care for it. To depend on altruism for happiness is a disease, and a lot of people carry it.

>> No.20957949
File: 744 KB, 721x546, dark BAS.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20957949

>>20935854
kekekekekekekekekekekekeke
also: is that her actual spine?
(hint: it's a jew)

>> No.20958124

>>20935846
>Russian
>Jew
When will you demented faggots learn?!?!

>> No.20958145

>>20935854
/thread

>> No.20958150

>>20935854
fpbp