/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5917479]

I'm new to /lit/, so what's is y'alls take on Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, and objectivism?

[Anonymous No.5917485]

>>5917479
It's objectively shit.

[Anonymous No.5917488]

this thread everyday
yummy i love it

[Anonymous No.5917516]

>>5917479
It's great, you'll love it! I really liked the part when you as a reader realises that he is actually asking for advice on a website famous for posting cp and being a Le meme factory!

[Anonymous No.5917517]

>>5917488
I'm just a literately repressed teen who was exposed to Objectivism through Bioshock and would like to understand it and see if Atlas Shrugged is worth buying </3

[Anonymous No.5917528]

>>5917517
>Literately
></3
>I can't understamd objectivism
Actually, go ahead and read this shit. I'm sure you and this embarrassing piece of shit will get along fine.

[Anonymous No.5917576]

>>5917528
Ouch

I'm just trying to gauge /lit/'s thoughts before I possibly buy AS, read it, and form my own opinion.

I just wanted /lit/'s perspective, surely there is nothing wrong with finding out what other people think right? Or should I have come crawling?

[Anonymous No.5917628]

>>5917576
Badly written. Flat unrealistic characters.
It's basically Ayn Rands own fantasy world where she has (as the main character) sex with every man she admires in the book. And she is the only woman of note in her own universe. There are like 3 other women in the book, one is a punctual secretary, one is a admiring young woman(admires the main character) and the last is some token woman in her fantasy land valley.

The equivalent book written by a man would be despised.

As far as objectivism goes it's taking things to the extreme. Interesting thought play, but hopefully it will never be put into practice.

The underlying idea of the book is great, the execution is horrible.

[Anonymous No.5917634]

>>5917576
No you should have know that Ayn Rand is not a subject that is supposed to be talked about and used to be a bannable offense on /lit/

[Anonymous No.5917935]

>>5917628
While I'm not too familiar with Ayn Rand, something that I keep picking up on is that she was an ego driven cunt who didn't even play by the rules of her own philosophy at times.

But what of objectivism as a philosophy? Does it actually have merit? I've heard of people taking some the ideas it has to heart while being revolted by others.

[Anonymous No.5917971]

>>5917628
>Flat unrealistic characters.
Its a philosophical representation of a school of thought. Ayn Rand admitted herself that characters were meant to represent certain ideas about life. She openly said that they are unrealistic by choice, and i liked it a lot.
>Badly written
No its not. I enjoyed and so did millions of people.
>>5917628
>As far as objectivism goes it's taking things to the extreme
You don't know shit kid.
Point out the errors in Ayn Rands epistemology and/or metaphysics. Cool thing about objectivism is that it is logically derived from the nature of human condition and if you are capable of disproving it then please, show me
your thinking.

>>5917935
>who didn't even play by the rules of her own philosophy at times.
No she didn't.
>b-but she used welfare! she was against public insurance and she used welfare!
Stealing something back from a thief is considered a moral act in objectivist philosophy.
>But what of objectivism as a philosophy? Does it actually have merit? I've heard of people taking some the ideas it has to heart while being revolted by others.
Its pretty fucking simple really
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VSBGu7-1rU

[noko No.5917992]

>>5917479
there is no objective reality.
thats the problem you fool

[Anonymous No.5918078]

>>5917971
I don't care to debate anyone who goes for name calling right of the bat. Why did you have to confirm the stereotype of objectivist assholes right of the bat?`Or maybe you're just an elaborate troll.

[Anonymous No.5918088]

If you're looking for literature that offers nuanced comments about politics, philosophy, and how to live your life, try Dostoevsky. Sartre. Don DeLillo. Just about anyone but Ayn Rand. But if you're looking to justify a kneejerk anti-government stance, an exaltation of the individual over the community, and a way to feel good about being rich, she's your gal.l

[Anonymous No.5918214]

>>5918078
and there we go. As always you just start dancing around the problem instead of exercising any sort of rigor and trying to make a constructive counterpoint to objectivism. I don't even identify myself as an objectivist, but i am yet to see someone on /lit/ create a logical argument against Rand's philosophy of self-interest.
Instead we get those pieces of shit >>5918088

I guess you disagree with Rand because you can prove her wrong.
If you can prove her wrong then do it so we can correct our ways of thinking.
If you can't then anything you have to say about her is worthless.
If you can't

[Anonymous No.5918231]

>>5918214
Let's take a minor point.
Address the problem of free riders with regards to voluntary taxes in an objectivist society when it comes funding national defense/military.

[Anonymous No.5918280]

>>5918231
>>5918214
So where does this leave us

[Anonymous No.5918285]

Atlas Shrugged is a good work, but Fountainhead is better fiction. Objectively, she's a Russian immigrant who wrote some great works of fiction and some light philosophy, and is one of the greatest exemplars of the opportunities which abound in America.

Pic related, another awesome immigrant.

[Anonymous No.5918324]

>>5917479
From what I know of her character and writings, I dislike her. Most would agree she was remarkably arrogant and pointed about her views as evident in her statements in the art of fiction (I can justify every line in my book, or something to that effect with regard to shrugged) and lambasting of other respectable writers -- Joyce in particular I read she held in low esteem with his subjective idioglossia. Considering her writing, I'm not a fan. To me (a subjective implication sure to aggravate her), her own style was simply too stilted. I only got into the first 30 pages or so of Shrugged and found her description and dialogue far too choppy and rehashed with little regard for aural devices, her symbolism too contrived -- both in choice of image and focalisation of such. Naturally the narrative failed to maintain interest either (quite a feat considering I usually survive plotless literature eg the scarlet letter, moby-dick, ulysses, blood meridian). Moving to her philosophy, I never paid much attention to it. I admit I only frisked through the wikipedia entry, but on the surface it appeared as a conflation of the pleasure principle with Nietzsche's will to power.

(I also find her laissez-faire approach too exaggerated displaying little knowledge of the economy, both on micro and macro levels. No regard for issues of market failure and equity can be gleamed.)

[Godel, Escher, Bach No.5918359]

>>5917479
I think it's very interesting, but DO NOT start on her by reading Atlas Shrugged. Start with The Fountainhead. Much more enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.5918376]

>>5918324
You use big words. I agree.

[Anonymous No.5918390]

Why must we have this thread every day? Ayn Rand is a poor writer and her 'philosophy', if you can even call it that, is terrible. Go away.

[Anonymous No.5918435]

>>5917479

I'm reading it right now. I like her portrayal of corruption and the dialogues where truth gets distorted.

But apart from that I think it's really bad, laughably at times. And insanely repetitive. The only reason why the book is 1200 pages instead of 120 is because she keeps ruminating a handful of ideas.

[Anonymous No.5918471]

>>5918231
>>5918280
This has nothing to do with objectivism, but there are number of ways in dealing with such a problem.

Keeping in mind that we are not discussing the philosophical foundations of Ayn Rand's work:
Generally it is easier to defend a disorganized nation, since there is no infrastructure to be taken over. Imagine invading a completely voluntary society:
There is no parliament or capital to be taken over. I would argue that in such a society people would organize a territorial defense, based around militia groups and private contractors that would have all the incentive to protect an are where a big part of a society is a source of profit for them. The so called "free-riders" could be easily incentivised for example by fewer work opportunities (employers could demand a proof that they gave their share for defense of a given area).

If you have any problem with this explanation then its not too much of an issue since you haven't addressed the fundamentals of objectivism.
It is not up to us to design a volountary society from the ground-up, since we could sit here all eternity making up stories about thousands of different theoretical problems such a society could face.

Objectivism has a set of fundamental, proven principals that take their root from the fact that a man is the forger of his own fate, and as long as they remain not-dis proven her ideas stand.

Do you have a specific problem with any of the following elements of objectivism?:
>Metaphisics
>Etymology
>Ethics - Rational Objective Morality
>Politics - Capitalism

[Anonymous No.5918477]

>>5918390
No one gives a fuck about your subjective oppinion.

[Anonymous No.5918482]

>>5917971
its not worth it lad, let the simple pigs splash around in their mud and shit.

[Anonymous No.5918485]

>>5918390
Lel this ass fury

[Anonymous No.5918504]

>>5918471
>>Metaphisics
There is no objective reality, just subjective interpretations.
>>Ethics - Rational Objective Morality
Social darwinism doesn't work in practice
>>Politics - Capitalism
Capitalism is a failed collectivist ideology and goes against individual freedom

[Anonymous No.5918591]

>>5918471
Objective morality a proven principle?
Since when.

[Anonymous No.5918702]

>>5918504
>Capitalism
>Collectivism
pick one

[Anonymous No.5918730]

>>5918485
What made you so retarded and pointless? Do you realize your posts could be replaced by a bot simulating your underage, stupid ass?

[Anonymous No.5918743]

>>5918591
philosophically she proves them. read her essays "The objectivist ethics" and the "the virtue of selfishness". "Man's rights" is also another good one. She goes step by step through her rational. If you don't believe you have free will--don't read her. if you think the goverment should take care of your problems (or anyone else really--don't read her.

[Anonymous No.5918802]

>>5918702
>Capitalism
>Collectivism
pick both

[Anonymous No.5918841]

>>5917479
>the evil dirty jew commies respect nothing (ayn rand describes how dirty and greasy their hands are in great detail) and steal everything
>capitalist ubermen and woman get really pissed at jew commies
>they find out about an ideal society built by other capitalist ubermen isolated from the rest of the world
>theres only about 15 people in said ideal society

[Anonymous No.5918906]

>>5918743
>If you don't believe you have free will--don't read her.

Is her whole philosophy founded on existence of free will?

And how does she prove that we have free will?

[Anonymous No.5918936]

>>5917479

Pure ideological hypocrisy from a self-entitled cunt.