/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21032970]

>Objectivists still have no refuted this

[Anonymous No.21032983]

Why does Ayn Rand make people seethe so much?

[Anonymous No.21032992]

>>21032983
I’ve never got it either. Nobody said you had to suddenly accept all her beliefs about everything to read her books

[Anonymous No.21032994]

>>21032983
Because people who never read her books and people who misunderstand her books have spread misinformation about their message

[Anonymous No.21033006]

>>21032970
I know leftists have been obnoxiously shitting on Ayn Rand for decades but her books genuinely are bad. It's no wonder the biggest hack politicians claim to love her.

[Anonymous No.21033008]

>>21032970
I think Hank and Francisco should have fucked.

[Anonymous No.21033023]

>>21032983
Because Atlas Shrugged is fucking retarded. People say Fountainhead is better, but I can't speak to that myself.

[Anonymous No.21033035]

>>21032983
never seen anyone talk about Rand other than leftists who then start seething about the name they've just referenced. a strange and logically difficult to explain shibboleth which smacks of the "we are not political, we are just late night funny men" tv era

[Anonymous No.21033053]

>>21032983
She's jewish and I spend my entire life seething about jews

[Anonymous No.21033062]

I have Atlas Shrugged a go because of all the seething, assuming nothing that pissed of those sorts of cunts so much could be all that bad.
But it sucks. The first hundred or so pages are based, then she does them again like nine times over

[Anonymous No.21033074]

>>21032970
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is an excellent piece of Ferengi literature.

[Anonymous No.21033081]

>>21033062
I stopped when train girl and steel boy fucked.

[Anonymous No.21033108]

>>21032970
>slaves trying to shame you into giving up what is in your personal best interest, in order to spend your life force serving others (who hate you and want you dead for being different from them)
>this is somehow a mark of "maturity" over being interested in orcs and fantasy novels

Maybe maturity for a certain type of humanoid, but not for the type of human that I was born to be.

>inb4 Randist
Never read Ayn Rand, not a libertarian. I'm a Nietzschean fascist - and what is in my best interests is a white superrace dominating the Earth.

[Anonymous No.21033116]

>>21032983
They're very angry at the idea of the high-IQ white middle class no longer being enslaved through taxes and money printing (because that theft of resources and vitality exists to give the slave masses their daily scraps, and thus they vote to keep the corrupt in power).

The thing these people fear the most in their lives is the idea of normal functional white people being left alone to their own devices - not indentured to feeding a billion brown souls.

(PS - you may extend the definition of "white" to be any group of people that are congruent with civilization functioning, and with higher aspirations than mere subsistence and safety)

(You may also extend the sphere of "brown" to mean all that is concerned with subsistence, safety, and the means of mere-life and mere-existence).

[Anonymous No.21033120]

>>21033108
>Nietzschean fascist

[Anonymous No.21033126]

>>21033120
Yes. Billions of you must die.

[Anonymous No.21033158]

>>21033023
>People say Fountainhead is better
It is. It's more concise and less "epic".

[Anonymous No.21033160]

>>21032983
Because libertarians ruin political discussions like vegans ruin family dinners.

[Anonymous No.21033161]

>>21032983
I agree with her more each year. Unironically.

[Anonymous No.21033164]

>>21033116
Based, but you should be capitalizing 'White'. They do it with black.

[Anonymous No.21033380]

>>21032992
She literally said that and Murray Rothbard wrote a play making fun of her for it.

[Anonymous No.21033621]

>>21032983
Because she’s a woman with an ideology and philosophy better than any Greek philosophers

[Anonymous No.21033637]

>>21032983
Because people who never read her books and people who misunderstand her books have spread misinformation about their message

[Anonymous No.21033646]

I think Ayn Rand fell out of style, the right is all about resentment against pedophile elites who hate them in turn. Ayn Rand straight up worshipped the elites and if she were alive today would be extolling the heroic self-actualization of Bezos and insist they be given even more power so they can pursue their rational self interests at our expense.

I think the prototypical Randroid anymore is like a Silicon valley bro who needs ideological justification for their huge paycheck vs their value to society. Or like, redneck small business owners who own like, lawn care businesses, who really like the message of entrepreneurship.

[Anonymous No.21033654]

>>21032970
I thought they both have orcs?

[Anonymous No.21033674]

>>21032983
Because retards read Ayn Rand and think their sociopathic impulses are "enlightened"

[Anonymous No.21033715]

>>21032983
I have no particular antipathy towards her but also no particular fondness. Let me see if I can explain it from my perspective.

Ayn Rand was born in the Soviet Union where her father, I think he was a watchmaker or something, got his business destroyed by gommunism and then fled to the US. As far as I can tell, this means that from her earliest years she really, REALLY fucking hated communists. Understandable, communism materially hurt her family and for no good reason. The example is actually particularly pertinent--her father was a watchmaker. Not le porky maymay, not ebil gabidal, no just a guy who fixed and made watches, and he somehow gets his life destroyed in the people's revolution.

Remember that. So Ayn Rand's idea of Communism--and indeed of left-wing thought, her earliest experience of it, is a man who produces brilliant devices being torn down by a bunch of disgusting criminals out of what amounts to envy. To her, that IS Leftism.

So Rand develops this whole Objectivism thing, which is basically Anti-Communism. Not like, a force that fights Communism, but the actual logical antithesis of Communism. It inverts ALL Communist assumptions, it assails utterly every assumption, and the underpinning of every assumption of the Left, at every turn, relentlessly. She goes as far, at times irrationally so, as the Left does ideologically, but in the opposite direction.

Rand then writes some fiction stories about, essentially, her ideology, and very openly as mouthpieces for it. This causes Leftists to seethe because only THEY are allowed to use fantasy to promote their ideology. It causes seethe because for better or worse Atlas Shrugged is an immensely famous novel, everyone who is anyone and has ever been anyone has read it or at least has an opinion on it, and that's a challenge to the culture in which everything new that you should read is Left-wing propaganda.

But what really makes it fascinating is that whereas Left-wing thought uniformly boils down to envy, and Leftists get asshurt about having that pointed out, Objectivism doesn't need to be boiled down at all, it's pure concentrated Greed from start to finish and it screams this directly in the face of everyone who engages with it. Objectivism is like a Jew took the cartoon version that communists draw of evil capitalists, and without changing a thing, said "This is good, actually."

Or, I guess it isn't LIKE that, so much as that is literally exactly what happened.

[Anonymous No.21033735]

>>21033715
Well summarized

[Anonymous No.21033742]

>>21033715
I've read Marx and Rand. I kinda like Rand's venomous non fiction writing style but I digress.

The one hole in her ideology is she couldn't figure out where labor unions fit. Commies love unions, but isn't a labor union just a bunch of fellas trying to pursue their rational self interests through mutual agreements and contracts? Don't they help the market with price discovery for the price of labor?

She has had positive, negative and neutral opinions about them all through her writing. One topic she couldn't apply the usual crystalline binary logic to.

Commies are all over the place too. Unions are not vehicles for class conciousness or class struggle. They are class collaboration. The union takes input from it's members and sits at a table with capitalists and work out something mutually beneficial.

[Anonymous No.21033757]

>>21032983
russian jews have been pissing everyone off forever

[Anonymous No.21033766]

>>21033735
Thank you, I'm sure I got some detail in there wrong but it's the broad strokes.

>>21033742
I agree entirely, and it's actually somewhat to Rand's credit that she didn't just ignore the problem but struggled with it. I myself has struggled with the subject and I came to the conclusion that "That wasn't real X" actually applies to Unions unironically. Unions can be good but they can also be corrupted like any institution. When they are good, and honestly represent their honest interests of all parties involved, they're very good not just for the workers but in the long term for capital. When they're run by the mafia or by bolsheviks, obviously bad.

[Anonymous No.21033774]

>>21033008
Dagny should have fucked a train.

[Anonymous No.21033776]

>>21033715
>Rand then writes some fiction stories about, essentially, her ideology, and very openly as mouthpieces for it.
This is gay. I will never read fiction like this. If they want to tell me about their ideas, they need to write an essay.

[Anonymous No.21033786]

>>21033674
>MUH SOCIOPATHY
shut up, faggot

[Anonymous No.21033796]

>>21033786
Refute him.

[Anonymous No.21033802]

>>21033766
The real problem is how hard is it for the real world version to be similar to the ideal concept vs how easy it is for it to become the corrupt shitty version. Anything can be great in theory, but is the system of well intentioned, functional unions stable enough that it weeds out internal corruption on the short/medium/long term? If not, what's necessary for the system to do that? Can that mechanism be stripped if enough bad people get in power?
The merit of systems that can be good or bad depending on how good the people running it are is how good the system by itself is at preventing other conditions from happening.

[Anonymous No.21033809]

>>21033380
>Murray Rothbard wrote a play making fun of her for it
Based. I remember reading about how much Rothbard made fun of her.

[Anonymous No.21033819]

>>21033164
Why would I ever mimic a black person?

[Anonymous No.21033837]

>>21032983
rand wrote literary fiction aimed at academic/intellectual types while being explicitly right wing - she wouldn’t play ball and pander to the left at all. which doesn’t work in her favor because the people that inhabit the circles she was aiming at are the people she wouldn’t budge for. so obviously, if she wrote completely opposite to what her intended audience believed, they would hate it, and never let it be accepted within their ranks. they’ll claim it’s because her work itself was bad, but it doesn’t really matter that she wasn’t that good of a writer, they prop up worse hacks daily, but rather that she wouldn’t tow the line. tolerating her presence, unmocked and unmolested, would be creating space for ideologies they found objectionable, so they reacted with vitriol in response, and continue to do so.

[Anonymous No.21033845]

I'm sick of leftists seething over her. Atheistic? Materialistic? Looks the same to me. It should be Traditionalists that do more of the visible hating.

[Anonymous No.21033871]

>>21033802
I agree. In fact if you look at any country in the world their prosperity is predicted almost exactly by the level of corruption in that society, not how their economy is organized.

Singapore and Japan and Haiti are all very free market.

Imo, if you wanted to do socialism, you would entrust the ownership to organizations to independent public entities directly accountable to people or it's employees, never the state. Non profits that distribute dividends to the public with only passive government oversight, labor unions, credit unions that sort of thing. They'd be run identically to corporations but the shareholders would be the citizenry. Also I don't think it's necessary, practical or desirable to eliminate all private ownership of capital. Just the major industrial sectors.

That nullifies some of the critique of socialism from the libertarian standpoint, as it divorces the state and it's authority and violence from the economy somewhat. It also prevents the government from simply selling their SOE for their scrap metal value to the mafia like the Soviets did.

You might not beable to eliminate corruption or people's inclination to it, but you could structure things in an immutable way that prevents opportunity for corruption and I think that should be the priority vs who owns capital or whatever.

[Anonymous No.21033892]

>>21032970
Incredibly cringe picture, cringe quote, cringe subject for a thread, cringe post.

[Anonymous No.21034090]

>>21033809
>https://youtu.be/tuSodwE4q6s
They gave an amateur preformance of it for him at some Mises event held in his honor. He also wrote an essay called "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" (or something like that). I read it over a decade ago but I remember it being decent--check it out if you're interested.

[Anonymous No.21034203]

>>21033158
Hb We The Living?

[Anonymous No.21034231]

>>21033776
>Doesn't understand that's what art is
You're gay. And I bet you butcher subtext and nuance just like Rand does

[Anonymous No.21034264]

>>21033674
Because naive retards like you don't understand that we're all solipsistic "sociopaths" who are doomed to be grifted if we cannot form and chase after goals that have intrinsic (greedy) meaning to us as individuals

And that with some effort, this can be done without becoming an insufferable person

[Anonymous No.21034282]

>>21032983
>Why does Ayn Rand make people seethe so much?
Inspires good music.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FYH8DsU2WCk

[Anonymous No.21035213]

>>21034282
That's catchy.

[Anonymous No.21035218]

>>21034282
I expected a Rush song
How did Rand inspire New Order?

[Anonymous No.21035223]

>>21033116
With the PS points why did you make the post racist if you were gonna broaden the definition anyway

[Anonymous No.21036316]

>>21032970
if you read one you become a nerd,, if you read the other you become president

[Anonymous No.21036334]

>>21033742
Rand on labor unions

>Labor’s concern was aroused only in defense of its rights; still, whoever defends his own rights defends the rights of all. But labor was pursuing a contradictory policy, which could not be maintained for long. In many issues—notably in its support of welfare-state legislation—labor violated the rights of others and fertilized the growth of the government’s power. And, today, labor is in line to become the next major victim of advancing statism.

>It was business, not labor, that initiated the policy of government intervention in the economy (as long ago as the nineteenth century)—and business was the first victim. Labor adopted the same policy and will meet the same fate. He who lives by a legalized sword, will perish by a legalized sword.

TLDR: unions are good unless they ask for statism

[Anonymous No.21036336]

>>21032983
Because she's 99% correct

[Anonymous No.21036340]

>>21033776
then just read Galt's Speech. The whole book is just a framing device for galt to say an essay

[Anonymous No.21036347]

>>21033023
It's much better. I read Fountainhead first and loved it, then tried Atlas Shrugged and found it incredibly overlong and boring. She really went way too hard into the "characters giving multi-page lectures about the author's philosophy" shit in Atlas.

[Anonymous No.21036365]

>>21034203
>The theme of We the Living is: the individual against the state, and, more specifically, the evil of statism. The theme of The Fountainhead is: individualism and collectivism, not in politics, but in man’s soul. The theme of Atlas Shrugged is: the crucial value of the human mind. The plot-theme is: the mind on strike.” “For instance, the theme of Anthem is the word I, and the story is built around one idea: What would happen if a man lost the concept I, and how would he regain it?


I think Anthem is a good first read, followed by fountainhead. We the living is the weakest imo since the theme-plot is "cummunism bad" which we all knew anyway.

[Anonymous No.21036372]

>>21032970
Lord of the Rings has been far more damaging to our society than a book that encourages you to better yourself for yourself. Its baffling that fashy folk here complain about diversity, weakness, and black-and-white shitlib thinking, but still endorse Tolkien. There's no idea in Tolkien's work that is fundamentally against leftist ideas, people on here are just too stupid (and cowardly) to bring them towards their logical end conclusion.
If Lord of the Rings were any good, Frodo should have taken The Ring for himself, learned to control it, and become the world-king. Even if a few old men, midgets, and trees bitch about it.

[Anonymous No.21036478]

>>21036372
its not LOTRs fault modern people are babies who base their personality on a fantasy fiction book.

[Anonymous No.21036571]

We the Living is probably her least autistic novel. I think it's the perfect entry point for Rand as a novelist.

The Fountainhead is her masterpiece. Peter Keating and Gail Wynand are some of the most interesting characters in 20th century english-language literature.

Atlas Shrugged is worth a read, but she indulges too much in her own excesses there. Still, I think her rhetorical skills are as strong as ever.

[Anonymous No.21036652]

>>21036372
>If Lord of the Rings were any good, Frodo should have taken The Ring for himself, learned to control it, and become the world-king.
You are mentally a child, completely incapable of understanding any higher concepts. Or even the most simplistic and basic concepts presented in that book for that matter. LOTR is practically a biblical story. It's fundamental premise is something we see in the Bible over and over in the story of good triumphing over evil, where man on his own is weak and easily corrupted but ultimately can find redemption through god.
Everyone is succeptible to that corruption, whether it is the noble and strong, like Isildur, Boromir, Gandalf or Galadriel. Or the meek and small, like Gollum, Frodo, Sam, Bilbo, they all are too weak to resist the corruption. Everyone is too weak and if you think you aren't, you are the weakest of all and most easily to corrupt.

[Anonymous No.21037757]

>>21033161
Why?

[Anonymous No.21037987]

>>21035218
>I expected a Rush song
>How did Rand inspire New Order?
Look at the cover of ‘Atlas Shrugged’
Look at the cover of the single for the 1988 release of ‘Blue Monday’.
Things like this have meaning.

[Anonymous No.21038016]

>>21034282
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDDukLyXY-M

[Anonymous No.21038203]

>>21036652
>practically a biblical story
Yeah, that's my problem with it. Keep rejecting "The Ring of Power" to avoid corruption, but our enemies won't do that and will use that power to kick your ass.

[Anonymous No.21038410]

>>21038203
That's why they destroyed the ring, to avoid the temptation. Corruption finds root anywhere it can, the only way to deal with it is to eliminate opportunity.

[Anonymous No.21038418]

>>21038410
>That's why they destroyed the ring

But they didn't. They couldn't. God did. The Lord of the Rings relies entirely on divine providence for its eucatastrophe. It's absolutely unsuitable as an approach for understanding the world if you reject the existence of providence.

[Anonymous No.21038434]

>>21037987
>she didn't
K. Also, Rush suck.

[Anonymous No.21038488]

>>21037987
are you a schizo? it doesn't look remotely similar other than both featuring circles. and it's not even the right cover, it's a remix. there is zero connection there.

[Anonymous No.21038501]

>>21032983
She targets the people who are really in power. The same people the majority of individuals have been trained from an early age to protect.

[Anonymous No.21038585]

>>21032983
She was hated in her time because she offered cultural criticism of traditional conservatives and boomer leftwing counter-culture shit. Most people still criticize her over this stuff even today.

However, she promoted a cultist ideology she labelled a "philosophy" and people who take it seriously end up NPCs of a bygone Cold War era. Her fiction writing, what she primarily wanted to be known for, isn't particularly good but she does certain genre elements really well (e.g. I personally liked the pacing in Atlas Shrugged, especially the first 1/3 where Dagney was building the railroad--albeit it falls apart gradually after that and eventually becomes laughable when John Galt spergs for 80 pages about Objectivism).

[Anonymous No.21038745]

>>21038585
the speech is wayyy too long. Every point is repeated three times with three examples

[Anonymous No.21038806]

>>21033715
well put

[Anonymous No.21038812]

>>21038745
Yeah, it's a total sperg. I still enjoyed the first section and a lot of her talking head cultural criticism shit still stands up today--but taking Rand so seriously that you end up indoctrinating yourself into her cult of ideology is a pretty pathetic look (but I'd say it isn't quite as bad as raging against her in current year). Basically, just point out to a Randtard she idealizes the free market to a nonsensical degree and call them out for paraphrasing communists in saying "NOT REAL CAPITALISM THO!"

[Anonymous No.21038886]

>>21032983
It's strange because she was jewish but went on to influence republican/conservative figures or ideas. I guess in her time it was due academia trying to gate keep "outsiders" for philosophy circles.

[Anonymous No.21038949]

>>21038886
im sure her genetics really effected her philosophy

[Anonymous No.21039092]

>>21033116
this is exactly right. The idea that our civilization can exist in peace without having to subsidize the existence of those who can't take care of themselves is an existential terror to them.

[Anonymous No.21039108]

>>21039092
It's unavoidable. You suppose it's better for the losers of society to live in prisons? Expensive too. Genocide them all? They might come for you too if they raise the bar above your own contributions.

There's no solution.

[Anonymous No.21039126]

>>21038949
no but it may had an effect on her works distributions and covering on media

[Anonymous No.21039148]

>>21039108
>You suppose it's better for the losers of society to live in prisons?
No. But it's better for the criminals of society to.
>Genocide them all?
Absolutely not; that would be an abomination.
>There's no solution.
Absolutely there is. All you have to do is not try to actively punish people for being a majority ethnicity in a functioning civilization. Doing what most civilizations did for almost all of history would solve almost all of it.
>actually punish criminals
Public executions for murderers and rapists. Repeal the 8th amendment; executions need to be grisly, painful, and a reminder to the public what happens to you if you actively attempt to ruin peaceful life. Drawn and quartered, beheadings, disruption; all need to return.
>no more welfare
that's it; turn that shit off. It's gone. You need to work to eat. You need to work to pay rent. This will not only stop the subsidization of the growth of a parasite class; it will actually improve the quality of life for those who can step up to the plate.
>enforce the border; enact protectionist trade laws
The government has a duty to protect the financial wellbeing of its citizens and in doing so should promote its own industry. Remember how Obama said he can't wave a magic wand and bring jobs back? That's exactly what needs to be done; use the government's monopoly on power to use overt threats of violence and seize corporate assets if they do not comply.
>anti-racism
well, super anti-racism actually. It needs to be illegal to discriminate by race and by illegal I mean tar and feather them. You might be thinking aren't you racist? No, I want the successful and capable members of the minority class to be able to succeed. I just want the majority of them who are incapable of participating to slowly fade away. They won't reproduce if they don't have welfare. The criminal factions will dissipate within one generation if we treated criminals the way a civilization is supposed to. In 50 years the surviving blacks and mexicans will be nearly indistinguishable from the whites in terms of culture, class, etc.

[Anonymous No.21039230]

>>21033845
Exactly, the true antithesis to the Jewish thesis is tradition, which means spirituality. Not a different brand of material clinging.

[Anonymous No.21039242]

>>21032983
The needless 60 page monologues really bore me in how many times she beats you with the message but even I think it’s hilarious how hard she makes midwits seethe.

[Anonymous No.21039257]

>>21032983
Imagine you read a book. Its not very good. The plot is stupid, the characters are awful, the author has autism, and it has the obvious and groan inducing signs of the author inserting their fetish.

You read it because someone told you its great and it changed their lives. What you get instead is an awful novel thats primarily didactic. It's like reading School Days but the writer has a quarter of the ability and the opinions she is shilling are retarded.

[Anonymous No.21039281]

>>21039257
I also hate the postmodernists, anon

[Anonymous No.21039367]

>>21032983
Because her entire argument is a hypocritical fantasy. People are selfish, so we should harness our selfishness to make the world a better place. What a neat idea, but it fails for the exact same reason Rand’s hated communism fails.

In 99% of situations, people gain power/wealth by putting other people down. It wasn’t Tesla who got what he wanted, but Edison. Did Andrew Carnegie make it big because he was good at inviting things? No it’s because he was good at crushing his competition.

Even more recently, guys like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Steve Jobs made it big because they rode on the talent of their employees.

Which brings me to my main point. Why objectivism fails in the same way communalism does. Selfishness in it’s nature requires that people take from others. Sure things like companies can bring employment and other good things for a time, but that will rot quickly. Communism look pretty good when it brought down old/corrupt regimes, but failed when it adopted these very same traits.

Amazon, Tesla, Apple, etc also did a lot of good when they were still expanding. But since their creators had the selfish desire to simply enrich themselves, their invention and positive world impact have diminished to point where they’re now doing more harm than good. Because if I simply care about money/power, why would I keep trying to improve things when I am already getting the things I want for doing nothing?

Instead I’m simply going to find ways to keep what I already have going, by stopping upstarts from taking my market share.

So yes objectivism/selfishness can do a great job building things, but it does a horrible job maintaining them. Love and sacrifice is how relationships/ communities have any longevity. You just can’t build a government off love since there’s always selfish/ruthless people who will exploit this.

[Anonymous No.21040452]

>>21039367
>In 99% of situations, people gain power/wealth by putting other people down
stopped reading. This is verifiably false.

[Anonymous No.21040672]

>>21032970
The Fountainhead is leagues better. If you only know Atlas Shrugged, you have only touched the surface and a pretty bad one at that.

[Anonymous No.21040682]

>>21033035
>shibboleth
The first time I actually came to /lit/ and learned a new word. Thank you anon.

[Anonymous No.21040711]

>>21032970
Im thinking of reading Atlas Shrugged mainly because it is such a famous book. But, I have a few questions:
1. Is there anything within her philosophy that could be beneficial or is it all rot?
2. I'll admit I'm pretty easily indoctrinated. Can a fool like me withstand this book?

[Anonymous No.21040728]

>>21040711
Just don't read Atlas Shrugged, it really isn't that good. If you want straight up poorly written propaganda for objectivism, go on, but for genuinely good literature with the more ethical and aesthetic implications of objectivism, read The Fountainhead.

[Anonymous No.21040734]

>>21040728
yah i just found some good porn so now i dont care lol

[Anonymous No.21040747]

>>21040711
She has some valid critique of authoritarianism and collectivism, the latter is more a critique of a strawman version of collectivism that nobody really believes, the collectivism of a criminal cartel or jolly band of brigands.

A lot of it is non sense. Owning an entity that produces something of value to society doesn't make you valuable to society. She conflates ownership with agency which is flatly illogical.

[Anonymous No.21040773]

>>21032983
Her philosophy is unapollegetically selfish and anti-social, she also writes like a pretentious cunt and her fans are annoying.
Her only credit, IMO, is that she's the only woman who ever admitted to her brutal rape fantasies.

[Anonymous No.21041234]

>>21040711
1. her philosophy is pretty interesting and good, the non economic parts are barely touched in the book. IMO the storyline is really good.
2. Just read the cummunist manifesto after or something to even it out
>>21040773
her writing is super basic. Its like standard English.

[Anonymous No.21041267]

>>21033006
This, I lean heavy libertarian - but my god her book is not well written.
A book like Fight Club, has an interesting contrarian (anti-establishment) message - but conveys it in a none shitty / boring way.

[Anonymous No.21042023]

>>21033776
Nabokov felt the same way.

>>21034231
Someone who only sees "art" as a vehicle for promulgating ideology is a philistine. You're a philistine.

[Anonymous No.21042148]

>>21036372
>There's no idea in Tolkien's work that is fundamentally against leftist ideas
Reread The Scouring of the Shire, you absolute retardo.

[Anonymous No.21042264]

>>21042148
Nothing is as leftist as monarchism

[Anonymous No.21042293]

>>21042264
Firstly, that's retarded and wrong. Secondly, the shire is not a monarchy. That it exists vaguely underneath a monarchy only at the end of the book doesn't impinge on the fact that the shire continues on its way unchanged after the return of the king.

[Anonymous No.21042306]

>>21033796
He has no argument to begin with.

[Anonymous No.21042630]

>>21034231
retard

[Anonymous No.21042655]

>>21032983
She's just a dollar store version of Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.21042687]

>>21042655
>version of Nietzsche

Why do people insist on this meme? Their only similarity is on some of their rhetoric. As far as literally everything else, they're not only different but antagonistic to each other. If both love to praise the superior man, their idea of what the superior man is couldn't be more different. Rand explicitly shits on the "Dyonisian" that Nietzsche loves and expresses her preference for the Apollonian.

https://courses.aynrand.org/works/apollo-and-dionysus/

[Anonymous No.21042755]

>>21033621
idk man she sounds like a blunt version of Aristotle imo

[Anonymous No.21042777]

>>21042755
>Aristotle is the champion of this world, the champion of nature, as against the supernaturalism of Plato. Denying Plato’s World of Forms, Aristotle maintains that there is only one reality: the world of particulars in which we live, the world men perceive by means of their physical senses. Universals, he holds, are merely aspects of existing entities, isolated in thought by a process of selective attention; they have no existence apart from particulars. Reality is comprised, not of Platonic abstractions, but of concrete, individual entities, each with a definite nature, each obeying the laws inherent in its nature. Aristotle’s universe is the universe of science. The physical world, in his view, is not a shadowy projection controlled by a divine dimension, but an autonomous, self-sufficient realm. It is an orderly, intelligible, natural realm, open to the mind of man.

>In such a universe, knowledge cannot be acquired by special revelations from another dimension; there is no place for ineffable intuitions of the beyond. Repudiating the mystical elements in Plato’s epistemology, Aristotle is the father of logic and the champion of reason as man’s only means of knowledge. Knowledge, he holds, must be based on and derived from the data of sense experience; it must be formulated in terms of objectively defined concepts; it must be validated by a process of logic.

-ar

[Anonymous No.21042885]

>>21042777
So should I read Ayn Rand or Aristotle?

[Anonymous No.21043254]

>>21039148
I'm going to be straight up honest with you, spergaloid, as a gesture of charity.
I want to give you an insight into the mind of the average productive person in this country:
We are so tired, spent, and fed up from dealing with dysfunctional groups of people, that your average working class white person WOULD probably be okay with mass genocide at this point.
Maybe 10 years ago this wouldn't be the case. If you freaks and mutants had just kept your mouths shut, you could've kept your goodies and not been noticed.
But you just kept pushing in your stupid neurosis - completely unaware of how your behaviour brings about the hatred you fear (supposedly) so much.
Honest, honest POV from a variety of private conversations I've had with strangers: the average American would be okay with genociding blacks and trannies, - and if that's not the average opinion right now, then it is going to be soon

[Anonymous No.21043338]

>>21041267
Fight Club has a gay (literally) nonthreatening message. Consumerism is le bad, man.
Rand wrote something that actually and intelligently spoke truth to power hence the campaign against her. It's the same as happens against all of those who make cogent arguments against the fundamentals of leftism we see around us every day.

[Anonymous No.21043433]

>>21042885
Plato, of course

[Anonymous No.21043530]

>>21040734
There is nothing you can be taught about objectivism anymore. Follow your dreams, young master.

[Anonymous No.21043657]

>>21033715
Just say you're a communist sympathizer already Jesus

[Anonymous No.21043683]

>>21036478
Why did he hate it though

[Anonymous No.21044139]

>>21043683
because he was trying to write a fun fantasy book that takes hold of the imagination and critics and intellectual were trying to say it was all one big allegory for their cause or against their cause etc.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

[Anonymous No.21044451]

>>21032983
Because shes a fucking jew

[Anonymous No.21044546]

>>21032970
The book isn't very good but this is again one of the things I will only ever know anything about because people will never stop seething about it.

[Anonymous No.21044547]

>>21044547

[Anonymous No.21044563]

>>21042777
Aristotle didn't really deny plato's world of forms he just tried to apply it to real world. He saw the world of forms as a metaphor where it was not real but it was useful to think of things in that way.

[Anonymous No.21044577]

>>21033715
/bread

[Anonymous No.21044612]

>>21040672
I beg to differ. The Fountainhead's characters are shit, the protagonist is a king of one-liners, character development is quite limited and the premise that one keeps an excellence in architecture above all things didn't age well at all. Modern "architecture" whilst being utilitarian is bland, ugly, soulless and lifeless and is destroying heritage, art and culture. Modern architecture is modern art.
On the other hand, Atlas Shrugged has much better fleshed out characters (Dagne's brother is a very crappy character though), a simpler plot, it uses real-life examples of certain events and legislation, demonstrates the difference between logical governance and emotional governance and the consequences of both and most importantly, it uses bureaucracy and statism as the antagonists. That by itself is a perfect example why XXXXXX and american YYYYYYY will ultimately fail because logic isn't used, feelings are and "experts" are brought in to offer advice for which they will face no consequences and ultimately lead society worse off.

Both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged carry very powerful messages which intertwine, but I (personally) find Atlas Shrugged to be the superior of the two. "It's too long" is a non-argument if I've ever seen one.

[Anonymous No.21045791]

>>21043338
It was really more about how consumerism leaves man feeling soulless but fascistic reversion to "natural order" shows why consumerism exists. In the end both are shown as stumbling blocks to true liberation.

Ayn Rand wrote a book about Mercantile tyranny with the worst plot I've ever read.

[Anonymous No.21045804]

>>21038203
Hello, Saruman

[Anonymous No.21046906]

>>21032983
>Seethe

I dislike Ayn Rand but I wouldn't say that I'm "seething"; I simply find her narratives dull and her prose utterly intolerable through and through. Everything she has ever written reads like a half-baked and juvenile attempt at mythology via an inversion of socialist realism. That last one is kind of tricky to explain, but I'll try thusly: when I read her depictions of her protagonists and their actions and convictions I feel like I'm looking at a big gleaming poster of the New Soviet Man ca. Moscow 1925 except that instead of grasping a hammer and sickle in front of some piece of hideous modern architecture while wearing overalls and glaring down fat, cowering capitalists he's grasping a stack of bills in front of some piece of hideous modern architecture while wearing an expensive suit and staring down fat, cowering bureaucrats. It's equally insufferable as far as I'm concerned.

[Anonymous No.21046964]

>>21046906
i love rand, but agree. You can immidietly tell when a character is a good guy or bad guy just from how they are described

>Monty Money swiveled his chiseled jaw and perfect golden hair and said with a godly voice...

>Horace Gluck slithered out of his stained office chair and whined....

[Anonymous No.21046992]

>>21033674
So it's fear?

[Anonymous No.21047111]

>>21046964
Also all the bad guys have stupid sounding names out of a kid's cartoon show. Cuffy Meigs, Mort Liddy, Wesley Mouch.

[Anonymous No.21047259]

>>21046964
This is really only true of Atlas Shrugged.

[Anonymous No.21047273]

>>21033715
I would like to add an addendum to this: she is also a terrible writer. I'm not even talking about philosophy or politics, she's just absolutely abysmal when it comes to character, plot, prose... anything that makes an author good, really.

[Anonymous No.21047461]

>>21046964
>>21047111
spoiler that shit

[Anonymous No.21048264]

>>21032970
Filtered

[Anonymous No.21049041]

>>21047461
It's been over 60 years, why haven't you read it yet? Why do you feel others have to cater their discussion of a book multiple times older than the average poster to your ignorance?

[Anonymous No.21049309]

>>21032970
Technically both are in the real world just alternate timelines

[Anonymous No.21049379]

Quite interesting, that Atlas Shrugged is widely unknown outside of the US. Even in England and Australia it's not much more than a book that exists somehow and noone actually discusses or even considers it readworthy.
In non english speaking countries (central european here) I haven't seen in on display in a single bookstore, let alone public library.
I read it, because of the seething leftists surrounding me and must say, it's just not a good book.

tl;dr: Why do Americans love the jew?

[Anonymous No.21050387]

>>21033774
tranny*

[Anonymous No.21050402]

>>21039367
Apple wouldn't have even been a thing if it wasn't for Jobs. People who hate Rand, for the majority seem to be collectivist idealist turds. People like Jobs, and Bezos, and Musk don't even care about the wealth and power nearly as much as you make it out. They genuinely care about forwarding humanity and the customer. You're the one who's too self-absorbed to see it.

[Anonymous No.21050586]

>>21032983
Because she has an actual cult formed around her and her worldviews. Compare her with other bad fiction writers like Meyer or Goodkind. Although they get plenty of their share of long-term hate they don't live in people's heads rent free as much as Rand does, and for good reason. There's writing bad fiction, then there's writing an obnoxiously ill-thought-out philosophy and convincing people to form their lives around it to the detriment of society.

[Anonymous No.21050589]

>>21033023
I'm extra sad because Atlas Shrugged is one of the better book titles I've heard. Such a waste.

[Anonymous No.21050617]

>>21032970
That's funny. I thought he was going to say "Lord of the Rings", but instead he implied "Atlas Shrugged" by mentioning orcs which are mythical figures that appear in the fantasy novel Lord of the Rings, but not in Atlas Shrugged. It was funny because the last phrase subtly contravened my expectation of what was going to be said. It's also funny because the characteristics listed by the speaker seem to pertain to only one of the novels in question, namely, the Lord of the Rings; however, through the clever turn of phrase at the end, I was forced to mentally "reread" those same qualities as 1) pertaining to both novels in question and finally 2) to the novel to which I was not expecting them to have pertained. For these reasons I laughed at this post (see number above) on 4chan.org/lit/, made at 22:37:32, reply number 135.

[Anonymous No.21050633]

>>21039367
>objectivism/selfishness can do a great job building things, but it does a horrible job maintaining them
nail on the head

[Anonymous No.21050668]

>>21043338
>Spoke truth to power
kys

[Anonymous No.21051798]

>>21032970
Great thread

[Anonymous No.21051852]

>>21032983
because the values promoted in her books are the polar opposite of christian morality, and she doesn't hides in anyway.

[Anonymous No.21051874]

>>21036478
Man he would have hated Rand so much.

[Anonymous No.21052408]

>>21050586
why is it a cult

[Anonymous No.21052883]

Rand simply wrote books about Nietzsche's superman and the women they pursue. You can read the whole sub-genre of trashy Romance novels all you want, but they aren't philosophy or literature.

[Anonymous No.21052940]

>>21032970
Objectivist here, what's to refute? That guy didn't like it and that's his shitty take.

>>21032983
Rand makes people seethe because she's a good writer supporting things people don't like or are against, like capitalism or rational selfishness.
Because she has high standards, for mankind, for art, for economics and politics... She's very opinioned. She made Russia look bad. She mad the commies look horrible. She has a target on her back. The Christians are mad at her for being atheist and debunking them philosophically.

People don't like her starting her own philosophy, which I totally don't understand. Many a writer has done that, tons of writers have their own philosophies or religions. All religions are just philosophies of writers.
Rand called hers something she believed in "Objectivism" for Objective Reality... A belief in objective reality.
She wanted it to grow beyond her death and ego, so it's not "Randism" ... it's not supposed to be about her.

She's very misunderstood or understood and makes people seethe.

I've followed Objectivism as a philosophy my entire adult life.
It has it's ups and downs, kept me out of a lot of trouble though.
I think it's a good place to build one's own unique philosophy too.

[Anonymous No.21052945]

>>21032970
The Looters are the Orcs.

[Anonymous No.21052949]

>>21052408
>>21050586
Yeah why is it a cult?
Many writers have followings.
She didn't do anything mystical like healing people or promising mansions in the after life or superpowers or curses.
She didn't really rob anyone or con or fraud anyone, she got conned by others actually.

[Anonymous No.21052971]

>>21050589
Atlas Shrugged is great, don't let them tell you otherwise.

[Anonymous No.21052975]

>>21033116
This is a good explanation too. Rand didn't support the welfare state and that pisses off a lot of people.

[Anonymous No.21053000]

>>21032983
She's a female egotist.

[Anonymous No.21053014]

>>21052940
>The Christians are mad at her for ... debunking them philosophically.
kek
mega kek