[ 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: 35 KB, 331x550, 1271887247189.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
580558 No.580558 [Reply] [Original]

Ayn Rand villainized looters because they ruined her stupid theory that people were good on the inside.

>> No.580565

they should be villainized regardless of what your political affiliation is

>> No.580578

>>580565

Why? It is a human beings true nature to put his own survival above that of anybody else regardless of circumstances.

I thought we should be accepting people for who they really were.

>> No.580580

For Rand, looters were people who lived off of others instead of living up to their full potential and creating for themselves.

I don't think any reading of Rand can suggest all humans are essentially moral. She's pretty cynical really.

>> No.580594

if ayn rand was in a room full of money and nobody to say "no ayn rand please dont take this money" what would she do?

>> No.580596

>>580580
this right here OP. it's the main reason i have so far refused to read rand. i can't believe that she could be so cynical about the human race she was a part of.

>> No.580623

>>580558

rand had a lot of problems. she was barely coherent.

>> No.580635

>>580578
The problem with this theory is nobody has ever survived without the help of something someone else has done. EVER. So all of humanity relies on everyone else, even if some rely on others without having others rely on them in return.

Basically, Rand was an idiot, and it becomes even more obvious when you do some research and find out just how much of a "Do as I say, not as I do" bitch she was.

>> No.580671
File: 49 KB, 960x540, 1271378305638.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
580671

>talking about ayn rand on 4chan

LOL

>> No.580684
File: 65 KB, 790x416, atlass.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
580684

>>580635 The problem with this theory is nobody has ever survived without the help of something someone else has done. EVER. So all of humanity relies on everyone else, even if some rely on others without having others rely on them in return.

And that right there is what Ayn Rand and her retard brigade are unable to accept: that the unwashed masses are just as valuable as they themselves are.

>> No.580707

>>580684
She knew this but her characters didn't. And that's what makes the characters such interesting yet ignorant people.

>> No.580709
File: 287 KB, 676x650, 1270437317332.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
580709

>> No.580712

>>580684
Exactly. They also can't accept that none of them would have any of the advantages they had in life if it wasn't for someone else providing them. Really hard not to come across as a hypocrite by claiming man shouldn't be altruistic while at the same time living a life their parents allowed them to have by being altruistic :P

>> No.580721
File: 10 KB, 320x240, riddler.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
580721

>this thread

>> No.580723

>>580558
I agree with you, but I'm not joking when I say that discussions of Ayn Rand are bannable on /lit/ these days. It's in da Rules.

>> No.580740

>>580723
Technically, we're discussing Objectivism, but I see you're right, lit discussions on lit are indeed bannable. Thanks for the warning.

>> No.580868

>>580740

No man, it's in the rules. You should read them.

>> No.580887

>>580868
Huh? I said >>580723 was right, I'm not sure how much more reading of the rules I could have done to find out he was. Maybe we have different ideas of what "reading the rules" is? Mine involved checking the rules for lit and finding that, indeed, Ayn Rand discussions were bannable. What does your idea include?

>> No.580893

>>580887

Oh, I thought you were being snarky. My bad.

You must not have been here in the early days when half of the front page was Ayn Rand threads.