[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 91 KB, 697x1024, safe_image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5079838 No.5079838 [Reply] [Original]

Why does everyone hate so hard on Ayn Rand? I mean, she was crazy and all, but lots of famous authors have been whackos. Ayn Rand gets a weird amount of hate. I actually enjoy her work, as well as agree with bits of her philosophy, and can see specific areas that would invite laymen to dislike, but certainly not to the degree I often see.

>> No.5079840

Her books are long and boring.

>> No.5079841

>philosophy

>> No.5079843

>baking in a roll thread

>> No.5079855

>>5079841
I don't exactly understand what it is that disqualifies objectivism as a philosophy. Its pretty well thought out from a technical standpoint. I may not agree with some major parts of it, but its still all there.

>> No.5079858

Ayn Rand is the perfect storm of awfulness

she's got all the pitfalls of terrible female writers, all the groan-inducing habits of terrible philosophers, all the self-righteous smugness of political activists, and the writing talent of DFW

>> No.5079871

>Why does everyone hate so hard on Ayn Rand?

Easy:
>jewish woman
so the /poltards hate her

>against regulation and antisocialist
so the leftists hate her


>>5079840
so people who read for entertainment don't like her

>bad prose, simplistic characters, shoehorned philosophy in bad novel form
so people who like well-written book don't like her

>tendency to dismiss contrarian opinion out of hand
so people who disagree with her don't like her

Now look at the above categories and you'll see they makes up all of /lit.

>> No.5079872
File: 31 KB, 360x235, DFW.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5079872

>>5079858
>dfw low blow

>> No.5079900
File: 359 KB, 487x536, 1371076891964.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5079900

>>5079858
>and the writing talent of DFW

I needed that

>> No.5079913

She died on SSI and is therefore a joke

>> No.5079918

>>5079855
>technical standpoint.

>> No.5079922

>>5079871
/pol/ is probably the only board on 4chan people would actually support her. You realize that Ron Paul is their fucking messiah and they believe Rand will be elected? No, of course you don't.

>> No.5079925

>>5079838
>Why does everyone hate so hard on Friedrich Nietzsche? I mean, he was crazy and all, but lots of famous authors have been whackos. Friedrich Nietzsche gets a weird amount of hate. I actually enjoy his work, as well as agree with bits of his philosophy, and can see specific areas that would invite laymen to dislike, but certainly not to the degree I often see.
ftfy

>> No.5079928

>>5079838
It's the counterpoint to the fangirls/fanboys who worship her. At my university, the economics department literally distributes a free copy of Atlas Shrugged to each economics undergraduate. I realize that here in opposite land (4chan) it may seem unwarranted, but in reality so many people repulsive creatures are addicted to her particular brand of Koolaid.

>> No.5079942

>>5079928
>my university
Which one?

University of Calgary?

>> No.5079945
File: 103 KB, 500x329, 1341208077283.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5079945

>>5079858
>the writing talent of DFW

Say that to my fucking face you faggot.

>> No.5079971

>>5079838

>each man should pursue his own rational self-interest
>what if, for any reason, the rational self-interest is my rational self-interest.
>yeah nah yer a cunt

>Withholding help from the less fortunate will give them incentive to improve their lot and better themselves.
>By the same token, hindering would give them even further incentive to improve their lot and better themselves.
>So OP? Why aren't you out stealing from homeless people and impregnating struggling single mothers of 5?

>> No.5079984

>>5079838
Ayn Rand is just Social Darwinism for people who are scared to be called "edgy".

Because a half-assed compromise is a better way of saying "fuck other people." anyway.

>> No.5079995

>>5079838
Her theories are good on paper but even crazier and more utopian than Marx's.

Plus 90% of her readers are obnoxious upper middle class kids with no friends, and the other 10% entitled, obnoxious young adult yuppies who think they have friends but really don't.

>> No.5080001

>>5079838
We're literally still feeling the damage that she did today.

>> No.5080010

I like Ayn Rand's ideas when filtered through Ditko. The early Question stories are fantastic pieces of objectivism. For a few years I had thought they were an accurate portrayal of Rand's thoughts before I read Rand's work.

>> No.5080016

>>5079995
>Her theories are good on paper
>implying

>> No.5080023

>>5080016
Should've wrote 'sound'

>> No.5080044

Because /lit/ is full of manchildren who love to suckle on the government teet and refuse to be responsible for themselves. They don't know economics, evident through their support of the minimum wage and welfare programs, they hate 'bourgeois' yet they refuse to work, and they think Marx is to be taken seriously. Don't listen to /lit/ on this.

>> No.5080056

>>5079942
Nope. Clemson University.

>> No.5080065

>>5080044
the proletarians will unite together, plebs like you and the patricians to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

>> No.5080067

>>5080065
You do know the labor theory of value was debunked years ago, right?

>> No.5080083

>>5080044
If they want to rule us, they have to be able to handle having their teats suckled, otherwise they are unfit.

Ayn Rand is just encouraging poor government.

>> No.5080086

>>5080067
>IT'S BEEN DEBUNK GUISE
by who?

>> No.5080109

>>5080044
>they hate 'bourgeois' yet they refuse to work

pretty sure that's the point.

>> No.5080112

>>5080086
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theory_of_value
>>5080083
>implying Rand isn't a precursor to anarcho-capitalism

>> No.5080118

>>5080086

"Debunked" is perhaps too strong a term.

Marginal theory of value offers an alternative account that, at least, doesn't depend on such a vague, metaphysical concept as "socially necessary labor time."

Here is an interesting critique of LTV from two very sympathetic readers:

>http://www.umass.edu/preferen/gintis/bowles-gintis%20rrpe%201981.pdf

>> No.5080129

>>5079855
>I don't exactly understand what it is that disqualifies objectivism as a philosophy.

Well, let's start with the fact that it's particularist.

A = A states objetivism. Things are what they are.

What this statement also implies is that something can be known without knowing how it is known. This is particularims.

Contrasted with methodism, which states that how something is known must known, else the thing is not truly known.

This doesn't actually disqualify objectivism as a philosophy, it just means it's a mushy, non-committal, un-rigourous, "I just know it, ok dad, jesus!" philosophy. The laughing stock of the philosophical world or what have you.

>> No.5080133

>>5080112
>>implying Rand isn't a precursor to anarcho-capitalism

Rothbard was friends with Ayn Rand for a while but he developed his philosophy by merging Mises with individualist anarchists. Rand and him just happened to be similar on a number of points.

>> No.5080166

>>5080044
>who love to suckle on the government teet and refuse to be responsible for themselves.
Isn't me suckling just one way to be responsible for myself? I got food, shelter, entertainment; what else do I need?

>> No.5080208

>>5079838
Most people are exposed to Ayn Rand through Atlas Shrugged, or really retarded republicans claiming her as inspiration for her policies. The latter aren't really criticizing ayn rand, they're criticizing the idiots that republicans have turned into and use her for.

As for the people exposed to her through Atlas Shrugged, that's actually Rand's fault. She chose in many places to be deliberately controversial, and I think it actually mischaracterizes her philosophy. Additionally, her choice to spend most of the novel focusing on her heroes (or what she considers heroic at least) makes it seem like Objectivism sets up some impossible or really pretentious moral standard, at least to most people. Her main characters are industrious, super intelligent, and beautiful (in atlas shrugged. Roark was actually ugly IIRC). So people see that and think that they aren't good enough for objectivism, that any actual objectivist society would eat them alive because of the hyper competition and backstabbign and all that junk.

It's not exactly accurate. I liken it to judging the greek view on morality by looking at hercules. Then coming and saying greeks were retarded because they thought you had to be super strong to be moral.

Objectivism doesn't require you to be industrious, super competitive, or beautiful. Those are just heroic qualities to Rand, which she chose to write about. Objectivism only requires that you pursue your rational self interest, which for some people could be smoking pot all day or being super unkempt and ugly.

And this is where Rand really lets down her philosophy. She had this great idea almost like the non aggression principle, the oath about never living for another man, nor forcing another man to live for you. But then she goes and ignores it when it's inconvenient because she really hates gays. In some ways she really was the perfect republican media darling, but modern objectivism has really moved on from those qualities of hers that fail to live up to the philosophy.

Not an objectivist btw,

>>5079913
This is a common criticism that has no merit. She lived paying into SSI because it was against the law not to. Might as well get something out of that.

>>5079971
These kinds of strawmen are also pretty common. They ignore the second half of her philosophy, that is to not be violent.

Also, I have no idea where you're going with your first 3 lines of greentext. The 2nd 3 lines of greentext though are just retarded. You can do better.

Basically, most people hate rand because they don't understand her, either due to her own poor writing decisions (though I enjoyed most of Atlas Shrugged, it has several flaws) or inaccurate portrayals of her ideas through modern politics. There are those who actually understand her ideas and hate her, but I really doubt any are posting in this thread. /lit/ is generally retarded.

>> No.5080214

>>5080129
>This doesn't actually disqualify objectivism as a philosophy, it just means it's a mushy, non-committal, un-rigourous, "I just know it, ok dad, jesus!" philosophy. The laughing stock of the philosophical world or what have you.

But that is nearly all modern philosophy. If Rand wrote today, she would probably be billed as a po-mo "free thinker" and do just fine.

>> No.5080224

>>5080166
It isn't illogical but it is immoral. Your life is lived by the detested charity of others.

>> No.5080232

>>5080208
>a genuine randian is somehow extant
disgusting

>> No.5080233

>>5080044
>>5080044
Ding ding ding. Marxists are pretty much ingrained into philosophy and literature as a whole. I personally just like reading Rand for a change of pace even if she was batshit crazy (then again, who would want to read about a well-adjusted, happy, successful individual)?

>> No.5080237

>>5080232
>another critic of rand doesn't read the entire thing

I'm not a randian or an objectivist. I just don't buy most of the criticisms you idiots constantly post. There are better reasons to be critical of her philosophy other than "well cletus she tells us to be selfish so I'm taking your gold teeth!"

>> No.5080240

I really enjoyed The Fountainhead, but Atlas Shrugged was far too much a heavy handed polemic. It was fascinating to watch Roarke straddle the line between genius and insanity.

>> No.5080248

>>5080240
This is pretty true. Fountainhead has a much better story. Though I enjoyed the prose of Atlas Shrugged more than I did the Fountainhead. The descriptions of factories and trains and such always stand out to me in Atlas Shrugged as very well done.

>> No.5080306

>>5080208

Too smart for this board anon, so please leave

>> No.5080319

>>5080240
The amount of time he spent bitch slapping people made me wonder what the fuck was wrong with him. It's like he's a monument to what she admires in people, but he's a complete dick.
Do you praise him for his work and contribution or do you hate him for how he acts towards people. Not that most of her characters don't give a fuck about others unless it helps them in return or they act the same way somehow. Apathy until money is involved I guess.

I wouldn't say Atlas Shrugged is completely bad since I somewhat enjoyed the first 200-300 pages but the rest was pure bullshit.
Up until the train track is built, it was decently enjoyable.

>>5080208
I find it funny how people give such ridiculous criticism towards her ideas. There is a lot of shit that she wrote that was completely wrong but a lot of people just give her stupid criticism which never really made sense to me.

For example, she makes intelligent people out to be geniuses who own companies and whatnot, like in Atlas Shrugged.
People interpret it as though *only* business people are good enough for her when she just praises anyone who seeks out their own goals.

Or my favorite being that she extensively wrote in her journal about a serial killer who butchered some people. Just because she was praising the guy for not giving a shit about societal norms and just doing whatever he wanted. She was looking for an ideal and she found it in a killer. Morally wrong I guess but whatever.

I think the reason most teenager latch on to her philosophy is mostly because she has a ''stop giving a fuck about what people think of you and just do it'' which is something teenagers have a lot of anxiety while growing up and forming their own personality.

>> No.5080327

>objective morality

>> No.5080332

>>5080327
This really depends on how narrowly you defined metaphysics. If you mean in the sense of something more real than the physical, then of course philosophy doesn't take it seriously any more; in this sense, metaphysical = supernatural

>> No.5080336

>>5080327
Are you confusing objective with absolute?

>> No.5080339

>>5080336
>asking her a question
now we'll never get this shit thread gone

>> No.5080344

>>5080339
>her

>> No.5080346

>>5080344
>xer

>> No.5080358

>>5080336
Oh no. I firmly understand the distinction, and I think both are absurd. Ayn Rand posits an objective morality, I don't know whether or she believed it absolute tho

>> No.5080368

>>5080358
So you think there is no right and wrong? Do you believe in popular morality, morality decided upon by the population?

>> No.5080369

>>5080368
Nope. I don't believe Right exists absolutely, relatively, objectively or subjectively.

>> No.5080373

>>5080368
I believe whatever my university professor tells me. Since they change every semester, what would my belief system be classified as?

>> No.5080377

>>5080373
Semesterist professorism.

>> No.5080379
File: 24 KB, 266x338, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5080379

>>5080369
Bane?

>> No.5080382

>>5080208
Wow. A well thought out response in an Ayn Rand thread... mind blowing.

>> No.5080388

>>5080369
That is retarded. Go home and think about what you did.

>> No.5080402

>>5080224
Cry me a river faggot
>muh morals

>> No.5080403
File: 134 KB, 447x841, 1402891153018.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5080403

>>5080379

>> No.5080408

>Why does everyone hate so hard on Ayn Rand? I mean, she was crazy


you answered your own question


bother us not with this crap

>> No.5080414
File: 149 KB, 598x934, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5080414

>>5080403
>taking Kneechee seriously as an ethicist

>> No.5080416

>>5080403
First Bane image I felt I needed to save. A shame it has no utility.

>> No.5080423

>>5080369
also believes
>This really depends on how narrowly you defined metaphysics. If you mean in the sense of something more real than the physical, then of course philosophy doesn't take it seriously any more; in this sense, metaphysical = supernatural

>> No.5080433

>>5080423
That is correct. Philosophy deals quite a bit with metaphysics today, but not in the sense of a world of essences.

>> No.5080488

>>5080433
I'm with her on this, tbh.

>> No.5080492

>>5080433
>>5080488
This really depends on how narrowly you defined metaphysics. If you mean in the sense of something more real than the physical, then of course philosophy doesn't take it seriously any more; in this sense, metaphysical = supernatural

>these people are allowed to post on your Internet

>> No.5080497

>>5080492
In the sense of it being inherently rationalist, and, let's say, 'extra-empirical', it thus has to rely on induction, but can provide no premises for itself, you know, from which to launch that inductive chain.

>> No.5080499

So having new ideas is crazy. Rand wasn't crazy. She was however a shit writing and a warmongering zionist jew.

>> No.5080504

>>5079922

You do realize that /pol/ is now mostly Nationalist Socialist and think Libertarianism is a Jewish plot because many of the economists were Jews right?

>> No.5081302

>>5080214
>But that is nearly all modern philosophy.

For people who sit and ruminate modern philosophy is fine, but anyone trying to apply a philosophy for practical purposes soon finds that they need a base justification for more subtle knowledge and action.

Ayn Rand tries to have the best of both worlds. The ability to just make statements and hold them as true without justifying them on a philosophical foundation, and she wants her philosophy to have practical applications. If you don't know how you know something it is difficult to justify actions based on that thing you supposedly know. Your justification becomes "because I said so" which can be used to justify *any* action at all, not just your particular actions.