[ 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: 79 KB, 280x367, AtlasShrugged.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.2188125 [Reply] [Original]

I just finished reading Atlas Shrugged, and I can't for the life of me figure out why everyone hates it so much. Most of the negative remarks about it are baseless statements about "That book is for 14-year-olds," but after reading it I don't understand why. In negative criticisms, it seems like reviewers' Christianity gets in the way of agreeing with anything in the book because of its atheist views. Can someone give me a good reason why this book should be considered as bad as it is?

tl;dr Why do so many people hate Atlas Shrugged?

>> No.2188126

i really thought we were past this

>> No.2188130

It isn't the Christianity aspect at all

It's because Rand seeks to instill in objectivists a sense of self entitlement that neglects others entirely. Where one is born somehow detached from society despite society being the thing that feeds and clothes them. Your own best interest is entirely at heart. Not a thought goes to your neighbors. You cannot slice a piece of the pie with them, you rat the entire pie yourself. You gorge yourself with the greedy filth until you become a heaping mass of gluttony. A swine.


I'd go so far as to say its an anti-humanist philosophy

>> No.2188132

I think you're right OP. it is the Christian aspect

>> No.2188133

>>2188130
If you were on a desert island with one other guy and that pie, you have two options: share the pie with him, assuming he can help you survive on the island, or eat the entire pie because he doesn't contribute anything. The philosophy is about self-preservation. If this guy is able to help you survive, you share with him because in the end it helps you.

That works perfectly within the idea of Objectivism.

>> No.2188134

Objectivism pretty much throws any semblance of morality, no matter how subjective, straight out the window. It's the Asshole Philosophy. It's a complete disregard for the value of human life, an Ayn Rand was an evil woman.

>> No.2188136

It's for sluts, by a slut. She was in love with the cock, the phallus, the object, the bridge, the skyscraper, whatever. And she thinks everybody else should be to. It's understandable, for a woman, but any free thinking man should see her 'philosophy' for what it is, garbage, super-gay garbage.

>> No.2188142

>>2188134
Why is it that way? Everyone I've talked to about objectivism has the same knee jerk reaction, but I can't get a real answer about why it's actually disregarding human life or morality.

>> No.2188143

>>2188133
IF

also you don't need to eat the entire pie. Conserving the pie and getting the minimum caloric intake is good enough. And I always shared my meals. There's a good deal of materialism and possession behind the mindset of objectivists. All that does is weight you down, being so consumed by your possessions.

>> No.2188148

>>2188143
Well no you miss the point. I mean you eat the entire pie over a span of days and don't allow him any. If you share the pie, your one lifeline, with this guy who's not helping you survive in any way, you're effectively cutting your lifespan in half. That's a fact.

>> No.2188150

>>2188143
btw I'm skinny. eating is boring and boring people do boring things.

>> No.2188151

>>2188130
I don't hate the work itself, because it's hard to hate something that states a unique philosophy, but nearly all of the people who are adherents to this philosophy have been extremely annoying, and for the most part, extremely ignorant about the way society works. It's hard not to look down on a work if there are a section of the populous using it as misguided justification for being douchebags. Which is why I don't personally read the bible for it's literary qualities. Though I understand that it has them. In both cases, it's adherents' mania detract from the pleasure you might get from reading it.

>> No.2188153

>>2188148
A lifespan spent sulking on some island. Might as well enjoy the other guys company and work with him. You see, through investing all of your interest in yourself you effectively dismiss the potential in others. That other stranded could have a plethora of skills to aid in your survival. But no, you just had to eat all the pie yourself.

>> No.2188155

>>2188151
If you want to criticize Rand, please do so, but to employ the BIBLE as comparison is just intellectually weak. They are not comparable in any way.

>> No.2188156

>>2188142
Because that's just what it is. To put it bluntly, Ayn Rand's message is that you're only awesome if you're a rich white male, otherwise go fuck yourself.

>> No.2188160

>>2188153
Again you're missing the point of my analogy. In the book the characters state the importance of trade over handouts. If he has something to offer me (good company, potential skills) then I support him. But if he does nothing to help, then I don't. If he's good company or has skills, then that would fall into the "can help you survive" category in the post with that original analogy.

>> No.2188163

>>2188160
Everybody has the potential to become someone of value. I wouldn't cast out an illiterate child. I would do my best to see to it that the child received the help to become a better person. Even a junkie I would give the benefit of a doubt. These are humans. Not indentured servants tending to my own rise to glory in the game of life. A society where a majority of people are given sufficient means to succeeds to the best of their ability, or at least given a chance, is one where progress will be made.

There's a reason Jim Henson wasn't an objectivist.

>> No.2188167

I thought the story was interesting. I thought her delivery sucked. I just didn't like the writing and found it boring. I didn't want to read some speech that goes on for pages and pages and still feel fucking bored. Had someone else written this story I might have finished it. Hell it's a neat idea. But damn it was transparent and not worth getting through to me.

Oh wait. You just want to talk about her philosophy. Two words: bull shit.

>> No.2188169

>>2188163
Deist you need to lose that <3 and you can join the club. :D

you can care for others and I'll hate them doubly as much for both of us <3<3<3

>> No.2188168

>>2188163
The society you describe is capitalism. Everyone can achieve success to the best of their abilities, but not above their abilities. If the child has no desire to read, why should someone force it on him? Similarly, if he wants to read, but doesn't do his homework and wonders why he is still unable to read at the end of the school year, that is the same as an unemployed man not doing any work and wondering why he isn't a millionaire. It's not about being mean to people at all, but not giving unfair advantages to people.

Would you help the bum for no reason? I doubt it. Maybe you'd toss him some money, but let's say he's also illiterate. Would you teach him to read for 20+ hours of YOUR life if you don't know him? Not unless you're gaining something. Maybe you enjoy his company. Maybe you expect him to help you with something in the future. Maybe you just enjoy the feeling you get from helping people. All of these reasons are inherently selfish, Rand just stops us from sugar coating them.

>> No.2188175

>>2188168
>needs to learn why people used to be tribal.

There's immediate self interest and randroid self interest. Immediate self interest is the fight or flight survival. Randroids however believe every little thing is done out of self interest. Which is just retarded. People do things at a basic, instinctive level to help the species survive and help the family survive. Sometimes people do things because they are just stupid. Sometimes people do things out of compassion or sympathy or love. Doing something for the group or the greater of society at one's own risk isn't selfish. It is stupidly called selfish by randroids who for some reason think that people desire adoration more than self preservation or they want to look good to the most people instead of being alive. And if they were truly selfish they'd not risk their life for some cause or someone else.

>> No.2188176

jesus fuck i reported this ages ago wake up mods

>> No.2188179

>>2188175
Well now this is just devolving into what it always devolves into. The base of your argument is flawed, because you define "selfishness" by a different standard from the people you label as "Randroids." Therefore, you don't see the comparison when I refer to something as selfish and fall back on the "sometimes people just DO stuff" argument you've just presented

>> No.2188216

>>2188155
I'm not here to criticize Rand, and the comparison wasn't weak, it was apt.
A book containing or espousing a doctrine that I don't personally follow/believe in, which has literary value in itself, but whose value is detracted from because of the actions of it's adherents. I understand if you don't agree with my summation, but dude, that's a relevant comparison right there.

>> No.2188217

>>2188179
Does not understand my post.. Cherrypicks... Okay.., okay.

>> No.2188257

Objectivism is just watered down Stirnerite egoism with a sidedish of superfluous ethics and metaphysics to benefit a certain class of people: the rich.

If one is an actual egoist one would also go with his own physical might to get what he wants, one would resort to violence, deception, et cetera. Ayn Rand seems to think that you can with fuck people as much as you want, as long as its on the financial level. You can ruin someone's life by making his business go bankrupt and then he would starve to death, since he has no right to take other peoples property by force.

This creates an aristocracy of fat bankers and businessmen. They want to reign, so they adhere to the system that rewards riches. They are competent in getting what they want within the market. But they are afraid to measure their actual powers, which means their competence as a whole. Not only financial strength, but also social and physical strength. If one were to be consequent, one would say 'might is right' instead of 'capital is right'.

Objectivism is just a rationalization by the economically apt to design society according to the benefit of their talents, in the same way a poor laborer tries to establish this with socialism/communism.

Which is of the course is perfectly reasonable. I myself, being an egoist, would support the socialists as long as I am poor and the libertarians as soon as I am wealthy. And I too would lie and deceive and rationalize and convince people to adhere to my sophistically crafted belief-system in any way I could to optimize my situation. As we all do.

>> No.2188385

>>2188125

I dislike it because it's shallow and transparent. It's blunt, the philosophy doesn't shine through as much as being outright stated with the narrative serving only that purpose. After a while, hearing wealthy people go "bawwwwww, the poor want to eat every day, I'm being opressed" get's quite tiresome since it's done so blunty, throughout the book it is as if the characters next sentence could be "hey ugaiz, this Ayn Rand bitch got it right, it would solve errthang".

This has nothing to do with the philosophy itself, I actually quite enjoy rands straight-up philosophical works (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, For the New Intellectual etc) even though I wholeheartidly disagree with them. Also, I find it hilarious how objectivists get butthurt over people failing to see Rands "greatness", much the same way socialists get butthurt. And let's not even discuss the perplexing act of creating a "movement" to oppose collectivism.

>> No.2188389

GO AWAY SHIT THREAD

DEPLOYING SAGE WITH ADDED HERBS

>> No.2188402

>>2188257
That's not really an aristocracy, is it, seeing as aristocrats must be "excellent" individuals, going by the Anc. Grk. root of the word.
That's selfishness, greed, a lack of ethical or moral development or awareness and capitalism, pure and simple.

>> No.2188478

lit hates Atlas Shrugged because it champions highly motivated entrepreneurs as opposed to lazy self indulgent apple users

>> No.2188494

>>2188389

Lol @ sage parsley and sage and herbs. Cheered me up.

I do agree however that Rand was quite insane, and genuinely dangerous.

>> No.2188572

>>2188478
This.

>> No.2188576

>>2188478

i thought we hated her for being an ugly unoriginal (objectivism is just a pastiche of plagiarized ideas) jewess

>> No.2188786

>>2188402

I know it isn't, but I meant it more in the elitist/ruling class sense of the way. Aristocracy in the literal sense is a different thing all together and a glorious thing at that.

>> No.2188794

selfishness is gross and lame

also, just not that into screeds, man

also also, permaban litmod

>> No.2189076
File: 10 KB, 254x254, 19658685.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Just finished this in an hour or two. It was nice. But felt like the whole begging was just fluff to get to what she REALLY wanted to talk about.

>> No.2189087

i agree with a lot of what objectivism has to say, she just can't fucking write

>> No.2189107

It's about being a cunt.

Either you're a big fat selfish cunt and support survival of your own genes and legacy, or a big sopping pussy and support the betterment of the human race as a whole.