If you put aside John Galt's insanely long speech, what did you think of the book?

File: 176 KB, 299x475, 662.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jan 2 22:12:27 2017 No.8919129 [Reply] [Original]

If you put aside John Galt's insanely long speech, what did you think of the book?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 2 22:17:54 2017 No.8919139 >>8919129 it was big

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 2 22:19:43 2017 No.8919143 It could be so damn arrogant some times.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 2 22:26:21 2017 No.8919167 Twilight tier.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 2 22:42:16 2017 No.8919208 >>8919129 Made me a communist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 2 22:44:55 2017 No.8919220 Did Dagny really have to shoot that security guard? >>8919129 The story was interesting enough, in my opinion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 2 22:58:28 2017 No.8919258 Feces smeared on toilet paper by a sad joke of a human being. Happily consumed by borderline sociopaths with social privileges so severe that they are shocking.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 2 23:19:30 2017 No.8919318 File: 21 KB, 500x109, 1483389532959.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] From a recent thread, by Flannery O'Conner

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 2 23:21:41 2017 No.8919327 >>8919129 It helped me realize how dangerous the Randian conservatives in the US really are, and drove me towards more socialistic views.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 2 23:26:25 2017 No.8919343 >>8919129 good show of the dangers and cancer of socialism.

Anonymous Mon Jan 2 23:29:32 2017 No.8919364

>>8919129
Not an interesting book sans its philosophy. It's philosophy suffers from the same affliction of /pol/ - namely, that it thinks that it has left the cave while everyone else is stuck looking at the shadows, while still suffering from the same logical gaps.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 2 23:32:19 2017 No.8919373 >>8919364 Sans means without.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 2 23:35:15 2017 No.8919386 >>8919373 Yes, your point.

Anonymous Mon Jan 2 23:38:39 2017 No.8919398

>>8919129
I loathed it. The arrogance of the main cast, Rand's stupidity and ignorance of the human mind, the lack of knowledge about science and law... All of it just made me angry. It was the first time that I threw a book across the room after finishing it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 00:41:40 2017 No.8919561 Childish, in a literal sense of the word

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 00:43:26 2017 No.8919566 Is The Fountainhead any good?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 00:46:43 2017 No.8919577 >>8919129 I don't real cultist literature

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 00:48:11 2017 No.8919581

>>8919318
Thats an insult to Mickey Spillane. Spillane was a genuinely amazing writer that pulled off minimalism & machismo better than Hemingway

>When you sit at home comfortably folded up in a chair beside a fire, have you ever thought what goes on outside there? Probably not. You pick up a book and read about things and stuff, getting a vicarious kick from people and events that never happened. You're doing it now, getting ready to fill in a normal life with the details of someone else's experiences. Fun, isn't it? You read about life on the outside thinking about how maybe you'd like it to happen to you, or at least how you'd like to watch it. Even the old Romans did it, spiced their life with action when they sat in the Coliseum and watched wild animals rip a bunch of humans apart, reveling in the sight of blood and terror. They screamed for joy and slapped each other on the back when murderous claws tore into the live flesh of slaves and cheered when the kill was made. Oh, it's great to watch, all right. Life through a keyhole. But day after day goes by and nothing like that ever happens to you so you think that it's all in books and not in reality at all and that's that. Still good reading, though. Tomorrow night you'll find another book, forgetting what was in the last and live some more in your imagination. But remember this: there are things happening out there. They go on every day and night making Roman holidays look like school picnics. They go on right under your very nose and you never know about them. Oh yes, you can find them all right. All you have to do is look for them. But I wouldn't if I were you because you won't like what you'll find. Then again, I'm not you and looking for those things is my job. They aren't nice things to see because they show people up for what they are. There isn't a Coliseum any more, but the city is a bigger bowl, and it seats more people. The razor-sharp claws aren't those of wild animals but man's can be just as sharp and twice as vicious. You have to be quick, and you have to be able, or you become one of the devoured, and if you can kill first, no matter how and no matter who, you can live and return to the comfortable chair and the comfortable fire. But you have to be quick. And able. Or you'll be dead.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 00:48:26 2017 No.8919582 >>8919129 I don't like the capitalists who use it as a manifesto or the socialists who use it as a strawman

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 08:30:25 2017 No.8920482

>>8919129 (OP)
She touches on many important ideas which are insanely relevant in any modern capitalist society - especially the United States, obviously.

Rand has an extreme tendency toward pontificating, or using her characters less like characters and more like microphones (like in the 40 page rant at the end), but her mediocre writing skills aside, it is an important work.

Also, the best novel I've ever read by a female author. No offense, ladies.

>>8919143
Very true.

>>8919167
If you think that, you are either a fool, or you have never lived in the United States. Her criticisms were scathingly accurate.

>>8919258
Your charaturization of her readership is what's sociopathic and shocking.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 08:38:51 2017 No.8920499 >>8919566 Yes, it's better than AS.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 08:57:22 2017 No.8920557 I'm unfamiliar with Ayn Rand, why does she trigger people so much?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 08:59:36 2017 No.8920565 >>8919582 I don't like metacriticism that's been

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 09:14:29 2017 No.8920633
File: 36 KB, 568x318, freaks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8919129
>unrealistic, cardboard character "protagonists"
>tissue-paper thin strawman "antagonists"
>an idiot plot driven by a marty sue
>incoherent stance on morals, ethics, and even economics
It is a 4th rate piece of shit science fiction novel with poorly written erotica, with or without the "speech".
As a writer, Rand was a mediocre novelist.
As a philosopher, Rand was a mediocre novelist.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 09:18:49 2017 No.8920640

>>8920482
>She touches on many important ideas
FFS
The Twilight books 'touch on many important ideas', the problem is the person doing the touching is a low-grade moron.
Same with Miss Rosenbaum.
At best her works prove that she had no grasp on ethics, economics, or human nature.
>the best novel I've ever read by a female author
Andre Norton's juveniles are Nobel-level compared to the trash of AS.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 09:24:39 2017 No.8920650

>>8920557
Imagine Danielle Steel declared that her potboilers were actually advanced psychology disguised as soft-core erotica and that if you read them and studied them you could become the most charismatic, influential people to walk the earth, the true leaders of Mankind.
And millions of impressionable young dorks with stunted social skills *believed it*.
Replace 'psychology' with 'philosophy' and that is essentially Rand. She wrote terrible potboilers but told people that they held the hidden gems of the Only True Philosophy and rubes bought it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 10:03:44 2017 No.8920767 >>8919129 i dropped it when weapon X or whatever it's called was called useless i can think of a lot of uses for weapon X

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 10:07:00 2017 No.8920773 >>8919129 also i'm not an ugly woman so i don't want to read about an ugly nerd girl seducing the man of her dreams away from shallow mean stacey

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 10:16:56 2017 No.8920807 >>8920650 Shit, is her following really that expansive? I've only heard people mention her name in spite desu

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 11:07:02 2017 No.8920968 >>8920807 http://www.oclubs.org/

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 11:45:40 2017 No.8921102 >>8919139 3Y

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 13:32:51 2017 No.8921560

>>8920640
No, they don't touch on a single IMPORTANT idea.

If you think that, you're a raging idiot.

Rand was a wealthy active investor who attended investment seminars alongside financial scholars, senators, congressmen, and even presidents.

I'm sure she knew more on the subject than you.

Likewise she held a degrees in history and philosophy.

I'm sure she knew more on the subjects of human nature and ethics than you.

You're altogether unqualified to even compile an argument, much less understand the implications of her work.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 13:46:30 2017 No.8921633

>>8920557

She didn't believe that exceptionally talented people had an obligation to help the greater good.

This is why people react so vociferously against her. Sure, her Objectivist philosophy is very flawed, but many philosophies are. The immense hatred people have for her books comes from something else.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 13:49:03 2017 No.8921640 >>8919139 for you

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 13:52:12 2017 No.8921650 The chapter where the train is destroyed in the tunnel is one of the best written chapters of any novel.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 14:20:11 2017 No.8921739

>>8919129
It was incredibly bleak and depressing. I kind of liked The Fountainhead's optimism, but in Atlas Shrugged Rand put forth a horrendously dim view of people in general. She doesn't really understand how people think. She can only empathize with other people through the proxy of what her philosophy tells her people must be thinking. That her entire philosophy, as spelled out in John Galt's ridiculous speech, was built on a fallacious appeal to nature was fucking stupid and actually embarrassing to read. I can't believe I actually sat through the whole thing. That said, her books highlight some fundamental human truths, whether she understands them or not. Everyone should at least give The Fountainhead a try, if only so you can see how you react to it.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 14:32:03 2017 No.8921790

>>8920482
>the best novel I've ever read by a female author
>hasnt read Behn, Austen, the Brontes, G. Elliot, Woolfe, Stein, etc.
Look here kid, if you dont read books then don't come to /lit/. This is discounting the fact that Rand is utter trash, less valuable than the paper she's printed on. Get your shit outta here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 14:37:24 2017 No.8921807 >>8921560 >she held a degrees in history and philosophy Are you claiming that having a degree makes her intellectually outstanding?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 14:38:03 2017 No.8921811 >>8920482 >If you think that, you are either a fool, or you have never lived in the United States. Her criticisms were scathingly accurate. God forbid it, who would want to live in that shithole?

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 14:43:23 2017 No.8921830

Ayn Rand changed my life. I was confused about my sexuality, was beta af and had got back together with the ex that cheated on me. I picked up the book and by the time I got to D'anconia's money speech, I had dumped her, stopped fapping to gay porn, became fully straight, starting working out, and began reading the Greeks, especially the Stoics.

Now I make 150k at a company and I'm not even 30.

Thank you, Ayn. See you in Durango

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 14:53:41 2017 No.8921868 >>8921633 and who says people have to help the greater good? not even trying to be edgy. pls explain

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 14:54:31 2017 No.8921871 >>8919129 I have never read it but her philosophy sounds very toxic to society.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 14:57:24 2017 No.8921887 >>8921871 >toxic >>>/tumblr/ >>>/SRS/

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 15:03:59 2017 No.8921916 >>8921830 8/10

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 15:41:41 2017 No.8922087 >>8919129 I loved it. A true gem of economic and sociological insight. Should be taught in schools.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 15:44:08 2017 No.8922095

>>8919129
It's ok. If viewed as a novel it's like 4/10. If viewed as a philosophical work with a thin plot to keep you engaged it's slightly better (despite her philosophy being full of practical and logical holes) 6/10. People should read it if they wanna understand libertarianism and unchecked free-marketism. Other than that it's skippable.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 15:44:56 2017 No.8922099 >>8921868 Because a healthy and thriving community benefits everyone, and it all comes back to benefit those who gave toward the greater good. You have to be absolutely blind not to see that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 15:45:00 2017 No.8922100 >>8919129 A turd flung in the collective face of the book-buying public.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 15:51:54 2017 No.8922131 >>8922099 lol you obviously didnt even read this book. what is good for the individual is good for everyone. get your kike communist sorcery nonsense out of here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 15:53:13 2017 No.8922140 >>8919139 Pour toi

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 15:53:19 2017 No.8922142 >>8919129 Rand was more interested in the aesthetic of individualism than the actual practice or efficacy of it. Shit books, shit philosopher

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 15:54:05 2017 No.8922148

>>8922131
Look, don't make me start quoting Adam Smith on you.

What is done in the self interest CAN be good for the social interest but it is not always so. Jesus, do you just read a book and let the opinions of the author become your own? Rand is a hack.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 16:16:05 2017 No.8922234 >>8920633 Despite that. I think the psyche of post 29's crisis is the key factor for Ayn's appeal. It gave shape and words for the elite who lost control.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 16:37:40 2017 No.8922347

>>8922131
>lol you obviously didn't read this garbage doorstop harangue that spends 1000 pages repeating how laissez faire is the tip-top system and everything else is base and immoral
>lol you must be a communist if you disagree with me and my doorstopper
can you fuck off already? AS is shit, just like you

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 17:08:55 2017 No.8922485 >>8922087 t. Paul Ryan

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 17:09:50 2017 No.8922486

>>8921807
No, but I am saying it is clear from her writing she wasn't the sort who didn't take her studies seriously - she gave the history and course of man a lot of thought, decades in fact, and it shows in her work. Likewise she gave a large amount of contemplation to ethics and philosophy in general, and was well versed in these subjects.

I am also ABSOLUTELY claiming, by comparison, you are a philistine and have no authority to denounce her expertise.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 17:11:45 2017 No.8922491

>>8921811
>that shithole

You mean the one who has 1000x more relevance from literally ANY point of view than whatever country you live in?

You've also made my point then. You don't have the point of reference to understand her work or why it was written.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 17:18:09 2017 No.8922514 >>8919129 I know it seems trivial but this book has absolutely epic chapter names. It seems to give the events a very dramatic weight.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 17:28:46 2017 No.8922549

Out of curiosity does anyone know the first logically invalid statement made in John Galt's speech? I keep hearing the logic is utter nonsense and not accepted by any real philosophers, and I don't dispute that, I am just curious at which sentence the logic becomes invalid.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 17:29:21 2017 No.8922550

>>8922486
She used a layman's version of dialectical materialism and called it objectivism while simultaneously putting down Marx. The only rigor she employed was the rigor with which she sucked capitalist dick.

Take a look at how she viewed the masses and unproductive parasites then read how the Bolsheviks thought of people, the similarities are uncanny. There is a reason that Orwell's 1984, a much better critique of the USSR, was brought into the Soviet Union almost 50 years before anything Rand produced.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 18:40:52 2017 No.8922922

>>8922549
Logic is very trivial. All of logic is based on assumptions. Rands assmptions are retarded. She thinks a government (which will mainly exist to protect property rights) can function without taxes. That's because she assumes taxes=evil. That's like the only thing she ever says in AS, over and over. Rich man virtuous, poor man base. Socialism bad, capitalism good. There is nothing special about John Galt, he simply arrives at the end and repeats everything said by francisco dagny and hank. Also, magic generators, magic forcefields, and the good guy ensemble is one collective Mary Sue. I recommend this book for narcissists and libertards who intend to skip econ 101.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 18:51:17 2017 No.8922961

>>8919129
I guess without it.....good. I guess.

Ideologically, it's claptrap, but claptrap I sympathise with, so I can abide it. Fun dialogue, pretty fun in a pulpy way overall.

Seriously though - the protagonist lady (I read it 5 years ago) her arc was literally fucking her way to the best ideological symbol. The fuck was Ayn Rand like at parties.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 18:59:41 2017 No.8922992

Recently finished it. I didn't hate the storyline and philosophy, but the style was often a little trivial. One-dimensional characters, but that's because they're meant to portray archetypes. I guess Eddie Willers is fine.
Where the book really shines in my opinion is as a first introduction to libertarianism, anarchism and the whole bunch. If AS is your first exposure to this topic and way of thinking, I can understand being extremely fond of it. Otherwise, you probably don't need to bother.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 19:18:02 2017 No.8923046

>>8922550
No, the reason 1984 was brought in to the USSR first is probably the same reason it has more popularity among US high school students than almost any other novel - it is simplistic and accessible.

It's also one of the most overrated novels of the 20th century. Congratulations.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 19:19:49 2017 No.8923053 >>8922140 >not "pour vous"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 19:36:33 2017 No.8923131 >>8922491 >You mean the one who has 1000x more relevance from literally ANY point of view than whatever country you live in? This is way other countries think that the people living in the US are shitheads.

>>	CIA Tue Jan 3 19:44:09 2017 No.8923176 >>8921640 Get out of here, /TV/.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 19:45:10 2017 No.8923183 >>8919129 Very bad.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 19:55:06 2017 No.8923229 >>8923046 Yes that is true about 1984 but Atlas Shrugged is more accessible and simplistic. The reason 1984 was brought in was that even people who lived under the terrible yoke of communism could recognize what a piece of shit Atlas Shrugged was.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 20:11:47 2017 No.8923292 >>8922550 ohh, its a butthurt commie. probably from sheltered america.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 20:13:39 2017 No.8923298

>>8922922
>She thinks a government (which will mainly exist to protect property rights) can function without taxes. That's because she assumes taxes=evil.

I don't recall her saying that. She was not an anarchist, she thought that we needed government in some form.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 20:54:19 2017 No.8923489 ITT a bunch of people never read anything written by Ayn Rand

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 21:16:32 2017 No.8923566 >>8923489 If only We were so lucky.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 21:22:12 2017 No.8923592 >>8920968 wew

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 21:26:53 2017 No.8923611 File: 134 KB, 600x342, What?.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8919129 Un-ironically shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 21:35:23 2017 No.8923651 >>8923229 It's an 1100 pg novel. You're kidding yourself if you think most people would even commit to reading it. Just accept that your argument fell apart long ago, friend.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 21:42:39 2017 No.8923685

>>8923651
Many people have read every single Harry Potter book all combined total well over 1100 pages. Length isn't the issue here, it's content. Atlas Shrugged is a piece of shit and any person living in a former socialist republic would roll their eyes at the depiction of collectivism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 22:32:49 2017 No.8923874 >>8919139 para você

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 22:36:15 2017 No.8923882 File: 91 KB, 600x509, 1480668148504.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8922087 >>8922131 >>8923292

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 23:18:59 2017 No.8924043 >>8923882 Not an argument.

Anonymous Tue Jan 3 23:50:19 2017 No.8924163

I above all else, love the idealism in that book. Is it shakespeare? No. Is it Kant? No. But it is a book which openly believes that it is good for man to be his own end, that there is a beauty and a righteousness to what man does and is. Is it logical? Not always, but it was an affirmation of my own right to exist and pursue my own happiness that I badly needed at the time. It was the right book for the right man at the right time. It's a book for seekers, not for intellectuals. The intellectualism can come after.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 3 23:55:49 2017 No.8924177 File: 56 KB, 600x800, 1472188111180.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8919581 >You pick up a book and read about things and stuff

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 01:14:23 2017 No.8924425 >>8924163 >illogical >not for intellectuals >gives this person reason to live >is the right book

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 01:15:34 2017 No.8924426 >>8919139 para usted

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 03:49:44 2017 No.8924791

>>8919129
Amazing beginning, honestly it has the best 20 pages of any book I've read set in the modern-ish era.
After that is becomes anarcho-capitalist propaganda, then the main character discovers a perpetual motion train engine and I threw the book away.

I loved how the amount of words compared to action is commentary on government bureaucracy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 03:52:21 2017 No.8924797 >>8919129 Her criticisms of socialism are extremely valid, yet it's better to read Hayek for these. Other than that, it's a decent Train Tycoon fanfiction.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 04:03:20 2017 No.8924820 >>8924797 >Other than that, it's a decent Train Tycoon fanfiction. I'm fucking dying. Someone has to put Atlas Shrugged on fanfiction.net under the train tycoon section. (Maybe change the names of characters or write a new book with the same plot?)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 04:28:36 2017 No.8924862 >>8923131 You didn't prove him wrong. What country are you from anon?

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 04:33:47 2017 No.8924873
File: 1.89 MB, 1820x694, marxist restaurant.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's only good for the first 300 pages or so when Dagny leaves her company to save it. It's probably the best time to drop it. The rest is filler shit and the reveal of who is John Galt is such an anti climax that it's insulting. I get that he's supposed to be a vanilla blank state microphone for her philosophy but he's so bland that it feels weird when Dagny falls in love with him.

The Galt speech actually makes sense when you picture that it's talking directly to what people on the internet refer to as ''SJW''. In that aspect, Galt speech is actually on the nose. When you read the speech, it feels completely patronizing and you don't understand how such a group of people could exist. But with the recent rise of internet leftist SJW that argue for collectivist values, it shows that Ayn Rand was entirely right.

>>8919566
Much better.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 04:43:17 2017 No.8924890

>>8919220
>Did Dagny really have to shoot that security guard?
If someone puts a gun to your head, what would you do? Anyone would reason with the person or run away. All that security guard had to do was break the chain of command and decide for himself to save his own life. He couldn't do even do that, he had to ask for someone else to tell him if he should live. Slave morality at its best. When no one is able to make decisions, you keep asking for your neighbor until only the insane can make the decision for you.
What's more important, your job or your life? A spook, or your life? Anyone would pick their life but that security guard couldn't even save his own life. He wasn't even alive at that point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 06:38:07 2017 No.8925144 >>8919129 Even the guy on the cover is ashame of this shit.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 10:26:43 2017 No.8925793

>>8921560
>they don't touch on a single IMPORTANT idea.
Any romance novel mentions loyalty, fidelity, honor, and personal attachment. Frickin' Flowers in the Attic "touches on" important ideas!
Mentioning them != adding anything of value to them.
>Rand was a wealthy...
That made me laugh. Her estate that was settled at her death was below average for the residents of her neighborhood and only about equivalent (after adjusting for inflation) to a middle-class American living in the suburbs of an American city.
Or, shorter, she wasn't wealthy.
Why?
Despite attending all those seminars she wasn't got at getting her money to grow.
Indeed, based upon book sales and speaking fees she typically lost money in the market.
>I'm sure she knew more on the subject than you.
What subject? Economics?
I have a Bachelor's degree in Ethics with a minor in Economics and my Master's thesis was on the impact of theological anthropology on macroeconomic behavior.
I also make money in the market.
So - not likely.
>I'm sure she knew more on the subjects of human nature and ethics than you.
You never even asked!
>You're altogether unqualified to even compile an argument, much less understand the implications of her work.
Lamest ad hominem EVAR!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 10:27:59 2017 No.8925800 >>8919129 It was actually pretty good >>8919208 No that was your own autism and lack of a life outside of this board

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 10:30:00 2017 No.8925809 File: 236 KB, 200x200, hysterical laugh.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8921650

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 10:40:19 2017 No.8925856 File: 19 KB, 385x375, 1478256511656.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Well thanks for fucking spoilers on that Galt even exists, now I have even less willing to finish it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 10:42:25 2017 No.8925866 >>8925856 Galt is a literal meme in the story. Ayn Rand was beyond her time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 10:42:39 2017 No.8925869 >>8919139 voor u

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 11:16:10 2017 No.8925969

>>8919129
I thought it was good, but you need to understand how to read it since it requires a little bit of interpretation. I had to read it twice to figure out why I didn't like it the first time and why I still thought it had value despite that.

It's basically a very simplistic depiction of how unambitious and unmotivated people can (often) only find meaning in short-term greed and the destruction of large-scale works, like statues or art or railroads, and how the other side of that coin is people who can ONLY find meaning in making those same things, and how civilization can be viewed as the interplay between these two types of people. AS isn't necessarily an essay against government, but against the mindset of the kind of people that use govt as a weapon to restrict the activities of people they're envious or jealous of. AS doesn't go so far as to claim outright that government will ALWAYS fall to the kind of people who want to use its power for ill, merely that in the story's particular instance of govt, that's what happened, and then demonstrates the consequences at a personal level.

AS does a few things well:
>AS shows you how to be ambitious and accomplished and derive satisfaction from doing great things
>AS clearly shows the importance of action over verbosity
>AS does larger-than-life characters that are meant to convey/illustrate complex concepts very well.
>AS expresses a moving illustration of the importance of letting capable people be free to work on large projects.

Things AS doesn't do and wasn't meant to do:
>AS doesn't do realistic characters (characters are not meant to be fully developed people, but illustrate actions and motivations within the framework of the philosophy/conceptual framework.)
>AS doesn't do realistic worlds (The world is stripped down and basic, meant to be a place big enough to show the effect of restricting)
>AS doesn't do realistic solutions to the problems outlined (She had to end the book somehow :^) )

Most gripes I've heard are of a couple forms:
>>8919258
>>8919318
These are examples of the first kind, which is people who didn't like it because they identified with someone besides the Motive Power people. They're unable or unwilling to articulate any concrete objection, so they just call it bad and hope you don't inquire further.

>>8921739
The other kind is usually some type of misunderstanding resulting from trying to read it as a fiction novel, instead of an attempt to demonstrate Big Ideas using characters as plot devices.

>>8924163
I can agree somewhat with this idea. It's a good read for anyone who feels like they have potential and want to do big things but are lost or don't understand where they fit in the Big Scheme of Things.

>>8924797
>Train Tycoon
lel

AS isn't for everyone, but I think that if all the asshurt commies ITT gave it a read with the same level of epistemic charity they're willing to give to goons like Zizek, they'd glean some interesting gems.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 11:17:54 2017 No.8925977 >>8924873 Dagny falls in love with John because >Rand (thought she) wanted a man who espoused all her Objectivist virtues and lived that life >John Galt was a supergenius who invented a radical motor that got Dagny wet af >John Galt is hot as fuck :^)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 11:19:00 2017 No.8925981 >>8925969 boy golly this is a big post

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 11:20:53 2017 No.8925987 >>8922131 When asked about situations such as risking your life to save a drowning child, Randroids say, >'In emergencies you must suspend Objectivism for such things' It is incoherent.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 11:21:25 2017 No.8925989 >>8925981 >tfw people can't read big posts on a literature board

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 11:23:18 2017 No.8925999
File: 98 KB, 576x768, retard chamber.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8922234
It was published in 1957, during the period of the greatest economic expansion in world history! The primary audience for the book was HS and college-age readers, none of whom had any clear memories of the WWII years, let alone the Great Depression!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 11:26:07 2017 No.8926016 >>8925969 Forgot to finish a line lel: >AS doesn't do realistic worlds (The world is stripped down and basic, meant to be a place big enough to show the effect of restricting the actions of talented people, but not so big as to distract from that.)

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 11:26:25 2017 No.8926017

>>8925977
It's still stupid. The direct implication, when Rand remarks that Dagny is essentially her self insert in the story, is that Rand is in love with her own philosophy.
There's nothing that Dagny has done to earn the love of Galt. All she's doing is worshiping him.
But maybe Galt is also just a self insert of her husband who was stoic and defended her, and in the book, Rand even mentions that she loves her husband just like Galt, so meh.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 11:28:14 2017 No.8926027

>>8925987
Objectivism is trash as a single philosophy, and a great illustration of le Trashgan ov Ideologye. It has some good points that should be integrated into your worldview, but you can't live on those alone, just like a person can't live on a diet of pure Vitamin C alone.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 11:30:31 2017 No.8926037

>>8925969
>they're willing to give to goons like Zizek, they'd glean some interesting gems.
It's funny because even Zizek understands that Ayn Rand represents everything he opposes.

>>8926027
Oh? And how is it trash? And please tell me something that doesn't involve politics. I swear, people only talk about her politics rather than her overall philosophy on individualism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 11:31:06 2017 No.8926039 >>8924797 >>8924820 >million chuckle idea

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 11:38:44 2017 No.8926061

>>8926017
Yeah that's probably closer to it. It's hard to figure out where Rand's personal baggage ends and Dagny's character development begins. I normally just ignore all that shit because it's not really important at all. I liked Dagny better when she was a serious go-getter in the first half of the book.

>>8926037
First off, budder, you should know I'm on your side, I'm the guy who wrote the bigpost.

Objectivism fails as a personal philosophy IMO because
>personal philosophy as a concept is unnecessarily restrictive, since you're constantly checking yourself against a code instead of integrating correct items into your worldview and originating action there
and
>Objectivism's disregard for the poor unfortunates with sub-100 IQ who CAN'T just haul themselves up by the boostraps, combined with the swift encroachment of automation-driven obsolesence of jobs means that we will have to either kill 2/3rds of the planetary polutation in 100 years, or let them all starve.

Objectivism claims that not only do people have no ethical duty to help others, helping others is explicitly immoral and damages ones own moral fiber, since its enabling the feebleness and moral bankruptcy of another. I reject this.

However, there are some good parts to Objectivism, like demonstrating the importance of letting talented people be free to make really cool shit all the time since that's what they do. That's important to understand, and it's why I like Atlas Shrugged.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 11:57:05 2017 No.8926136

>>8926061
>Objectivism's disregard for the poor unfortunates with sub-100 IQ who CAN'T just haul themselves up by the boostraps, combined with the swift encroachment of automation-driven obsolescent of jobs means that we will have to either kill 2/3rds of the planetary pollution in 100 years, or let them all starve.
I highly disagree. It's only the overt tone of Atlas Shrugged because it focuses on business elites. Objectivist only posit that people who go to whatever highs they can with what they have. If you're born somewhat normal, it doesn't mean you can't try to get the best job you can get.
If all you can do is become a store clerk, then that's good enough. Just don't rely on others as it is weakness in the nietzschean sense. If you work to the best of your abilities, even if you have limited abilities, then that's good enough. Of course, people use that as justification for their sociopathy but that's not entirely the fault of Ayn Rand in that respect.

>personal philosophy as a concept is unnecessarily restrictive
I keep seeing people that say that but I don't see how it is restrictive at all. The only thing Ayn Rand said was important was your own life in your hierarchy of values. Every other value can be rearranged on what you deem to be valuable. It's the reason why a person might value honesty over honor, and visa versa. So long as you value your own life in a civilized society, then everything is allowed except the use of physical force.

Even then, Ayn Rand said that if a person loved something so much that they were willing to die for it, then it's their choice and decision. So having your own life as your highest value isn't entirely restrictive either.

>Objectivism claims that not only do people have no ethical duty to help others, helping others is explicitly immoral and damages ones own moral fiber, since its enabling the feebleness and moral bankruptcy of another. I reject this.
I don't see why anyone should reject this. There are countless people suffering in the world. Have you given all your money and house to help the poor? Or how about those poor starving children in Africa?

In the book The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand argues that there are emergency scenarios where it is fine to help others. Like an earthquake or some terrible tragedy. However, if you are sure to die, like say, a child drowning in a hurricane in which there is no possible way to save someone, then you should risk your life or throw it away pointlessly. I personally see that as a motivation for working out. That way, if there ever is an emergency scenario, I would be physically capable of helping, depending on the situation.
Ayn Rand also argues that there's nothing wrong with helping others so long as it doesn't become a sacrifice, or that you are sacrificing a higher value for a lower one. For example, helping a friend financially because you value their company. That's perfectly fine because it's a one time thing and you like that person.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 11:57:29 2017 No.8926141
File: 12 KB, 350x262, fedoralord.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8924890
Not correct.
Dagny *willingly* threatened another human being with death.
In "Libertarian Moron Speak" she 'initiated the use of violence'.
When he hesitated Dagny killed him, stone dead, and Rand tried to justify it with
>"fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness"
meaning her moral justification for murder was the man she threatened, who had a duty to resist violence!, didn't immediately submit to a threat of violence.
So, if you take Rand *AT HER OWN WORDS* is you point a gun at an Objectivist or Libertarian and order him to give you access to in international terrorist if he does anything but immediately submit he *DESERVES DEATH*!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 11:59:05 2017 No.8926148 File: 90 KB, 487x487, loli striner.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8926141 Spook spook spook. She put a gun to his head and couldn't even decide if he should live.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:03:42 2017 No.8926172

>>8926037
>And how is it trash?
1) It is tautological
2) Its core premise begs the question
3) It fails to address the is/ought gap
There are more, but those are the ones go glaring, so egregious, so patent, that any trained philosopher laughs at the idea of Objectivism being a philosophy

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:03:55 2017 No.8926174 >>8926136 >then you should risk your life or throw it away pointlessly. shouldn't* risk your life.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:05:15 2017 No.8926180 >>8926148 So if I slap a gun to your head and you are so startled you pause a moment, you deserve death and the killer is morally clear? Do tell how much Stirner you read last year in 8th grade

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:06:19 2017 No.8926189

>>8926136
>If you work to the best of your abilities, even if you have limited abilities, then that's good enough.
Assume that people of limited ability will be unable to contribute anything in the economy of the near future (~100yrs from now).
Does Objectivism allow for the establishment of something like a basic income to keep those people alive? If their limited abilities accomplish <= 0 for the economy overall, does the economy help them or let them starve or kill them?

>Objectivism claims that not only do people have no ethical duty to help others, helping others is explicitly immoral and damages ones own moral fiber, since its enabling the feebleness and moral bankruptcy of another. I reject this.
>I don't see why anyone should reject this. There are countless people suffering in the world. Have you given all your money and house to help the poor? Or how about those poor starving children in Africa?

I reject this because in the near future there will be no jobs for 2/3rds of the earth and the choice becomes
>help them through charity
>let them all die or just kill them yourself

I agree that an economy operating at peak efficiency is the greatest tool for providing for everyone fairly, but large shifts require something more than what Objectivism is prepared to give.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:09:44 2017 No.8926214 >>8923053 You can use both

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:11:24 2017 No.8926221 >>8923176 He didn't fly so good.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:13:44 2017 No.8926237

>>8926172
>It is tautological
Yes, and?

>Its core premise begs the question
Which part of the core premise begs the question?

>It fails to address the is/ought gap
It is only an ultimate goal, and end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”

In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.

Please be more concise in your arguments.

>>8926180
The guard never startled. You're probably not remembering the scene correctly. Dagny put a gun to the security guard's head. She told him that he can either open the door, or she will kill him. Doing so will break the chain of command and his duty to his job. Rather than decide for himself, he tried to plead that he needed to ask his superiors to make the decision for him. The whole point is that when no one is able to make their own decisions and take responsibility, the decision would keep going up until finally someone took responsibility. That does not make a person in charge of their own life, and by that point, the guard is essentially an automatron.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:17:34 2017 No.8926266

>>8926237
Yeah, Rand wasn't expounding some deep and unassailable piece of philosophy, she was asking a question.

>If someone refuses to take responsibility for being a person, have they abdicated personhood?

Dagny says yes, this person willingly forfeited his humanity and thus it's not murder to kill this zomboid. It's open to interpretation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:17:35 2017 No.8926267 >>8922491 >you need to live in a third world shithole to understand this ""book""" lmao

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:20:56 2017 No.8926291 >>8923882 would make a fine trap desu

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:22:25 2017 No.8926301

>>8926189
>Assume that people of limited ability will be unable to contribute anything in the economy of the near future
We don't live in the future. There will always be menial tasks that get paid until robots start doing everything.

>Does Objectivism allow for the establishment of something like a basic income to keep those people alive?
If everyone stopped contributing to civilization and society, why should it keep those people alive? If everyone started living on welfare, how would any society live? Welfare should be used to help people get a better footing until they get a job, not as a means to keep them on life support. It's the problem in Sweden when being on welfare pays almost as much as the minimum wage, who why work? Personally, the way I see it is that the role of capitalism is to perpetuate itself and civilization until a John Galt is born that creates a machine that will make the world into a post-scarcity utopia. Civilization was created to help humans overcome nature and the only way to have a complete mastery over nature is to find a way that defeats the laws of conservation of energy. At that point, even the poor will benefit.

>I reject this because in the near future there will be no jobs for 2/3rds of the earth and the choice becomes
We'll see how it is in the future. It is better to have a philosophy that helps your life in the now, rather than how society will work when we are dead. On an individualistic front, rather than political, working for your own self interest will still be relevant 100 years from now regardless of there no longer being jobs. Depending on how it goes, perhaps the world will simply become even more modern and educational. I don't think that in 100 years, there will no longer be any jobs.

>>8926266
I asked which part is begging the question, and you can't even tell me.

>Dagny says yes, this person willingly forfeited his humanity and thus it's not murder to kill this zomboid.
It is murder. It's not open to interpretation.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:26:56 2017 No.8926323
File: 81 KB, 400x300, funnystupid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8926237
>Yes, and?
Not a logical tautology, a rhetorical tautology.
>Which part of the core premise begs the question?
'Everyone should always do whatever promotes what is valuable for himself.'
Objectivism is claimed to be an argument FOR ethical egoism, yet its justification merely *is* ethical egoism.
...
None of the Objectivist boilerplate you spout has much meaning
>a series of unsupported premises and question begging
and you fail to address the is/ought gap.
>The guard didn't startle
Did I mention the guard? Read what I wrote.
>She told him that he can either open the door, or she will kill him.
She initiated violence against a man guilty of no crime.
>Doing so will break the chain of command and his duty to his job
This does not follow
>Rather than decide for himself, he tried to plead that he needed to ask his superiors to make the decision for him.
>the guard is essentially an automatron [sic]
See this bit you, yourself, wrote?
> life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself
You put that down because Rand taught you that.
Did she say 'consciousness'? Did she say 'decision making'?
Nope.
Life.
In the Objectivist Ethics you can read,
>"life and nothing else is valuable for its own sake."
That is a direct quote from Rand.
It mentions *nothing* about consciousness, decision making, etc.
But Rand loathed the actual *implications* if this and equivocated by adding
>"Everyone should always do whatever promotes what is valuable for himself"
which is *unsupported by Objectivism*. I tis just inserted to avoid the implications of her statements.
Back to the scene
Life, says Rand, is the ONLY THING with value in and of itself.
But killing the guard is morally justified because he equivocated?
Bullshit! She is tacitly admitting that Objectivism is too deeply flawed to address Real Life.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:29:01 2017 No.8926336

>>8926266
What she was *actually* saying (although she was too ignorant of actual philosophy to grasp it) was that she felt teleological and deontological ethics deserve death. It also shows that her own ethics were crippled beyond application to reality, as here
>>8926323

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:29:44 2017 No.8926341

>>8926301
I'm asking what happens in the future, when robots start doing everything. The profit of the robot owners will go to them, and everyone else who couldn't get in on robots will starve, unless some accomodation is made for them. Objectivism rejects this unethical, and I think that is incorrect.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:31:29 2017 No.8926352

>>8926237
FADE IN.

STOCK SHOT OF CAPITOL BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

TITLE: "The People's State of America, sometime in the relatively recent past or future."

INTERIOR, HEARING ROOM.

WESLEY MOUCH, ROBERT STADLER, MR. THOMPSON and other VILLAINS are interrogating HANK REARDEN. In the audience, DAGNY TAGGART (wearing a blousy smock to conceal pregnancy) looks on.

MOUCH: Mr. Rearden, why should you be the only one permitted to manufacture Rearden Software?

REARDEN: Bite me.

A stir among the SPECTATORS. Flashbulbs POP. Newsreel cameras WHIR. DAGNY, unmoved, shows only a cool, mocking smile.

MR. THOMPSON: I hereby declare Rearden MicroSystems and Steel Imports, Inc., to be the property of the state!

Over the heads of the committee, a big-screen TV flashes on. JOHN GALT faces the camera.

GALT: A is A.

Pandemonium erupts. All the VILLAINS fall down dead. FRANCISCO D'ANCONIA parachutes down from a skylight and tosses MAC-11 machine guns to REARDEN and DAGNY. Together the three heroes BLAST their way through the rioting crowd.

FRANCISCO: Hasta la vista, parasites!

They reach the main door, where a frightened SECURITY GUARD throws down his gun and puts his hands up.

SECURITY GUARD: You can't shoot an unarmed man!

DAGNY (in CLOSEUP to conceal pregnancy): Check your premises.

She UNLOADS fifty rounds into his chest.

EXT. CAPITOL BUILDING, DAY

DAGNY, FRANCISCO, and REARDEN race down the steps to a Taggart Transglobal spaceliner parked in the street. They board the ship and TAKE OFF in a ROAR of flame.

INT. SPACELINER

DAGNY at the controls, REARDEN and FRANCISCO seated behind her.

DAGNY: I'm taking us to Atlantis. And when I get there, I'm dumping you, Hank.

REARDEN: It's all good. Whenever I pour a heat of steel or write a new line of code, it'll be like you're going down on me. Anyway, these days I'm more in the mood for something Latin...

He ogles FRANCISCO.

FRANCISCO: Ai chihuahua!

EXT. GALT'S GULCH, SUNSET

The spaceliner touches down. DAGNY (carrying a beach chair to conceal pregnancy) runs from the ship and embraces JOHN GALT.

DAGNY: We never had to take any of it seriously, did we?

GALT: Shut up and kiss me.

They kiss passionately. Soundtrack SWELLS with the theme of Halley's Fifth Concerto (or ELO's "Hold on Tight to Your Dream," depending on availability).

On the screen appears "THE END," which morphs into a QUESTION MARK.

FADE OUT

ROLL 140 MINUTES OF CREDITS

A VADIM PERELMAN JOINT

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:32:31 2017 No.8926359 >>8926301 >I asked which part is begging the question, and you can't even tell me. Wrong anon, anon

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:54:23 2017 No.8926462

>>8926341
Of course she got it wrong; Like Marx she never set foot inside a factory before telling factory owners how to run them "properly".
Look at Rearden's metal works. She acts like the woner who spends so much time at social events and travelling is the linch-pin and that without him the place would collapse.
In the Real World that plant would have plant managers, shift supervisors, foremen, accounting managers, and personnel managers performing 99% of day to day and week to week work of the plant with nothing going to Hank but reports. There would be staff metallurgists to ensure quality, etc.While Hank did start the business and make an amazing new invention with Rearden Metal, the mass production of metal requires a huge staff of trained, competent people many of whom are proven leaders. While Rearden vanishing might mean no more innovation for a while, the orders would be met and the sales team would secure new orders just fine, thanks.
At heart she was still bitter that her family stopped being rich.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 12:55:24 2017 No.8926470 >>8922131 >What i good for the individual is good for everyone. >Lol just let me hoard all my shekels and warehouses of food that I will not even eat the entirety of, it's totally benefiting you goyim! :^)

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 13:59:26 2017 No.8926990

>>8926462
Well, I think that was pretty clearly expressed in the depiction of the factory. Rearden is one of the movers and shakers and one of the reasons his whole factory is good is because he only employs people who are good at moving and shaking like he is. The fact that his "Objectivist virtue" of being really good at what he does attracts other virtuous people is to be expected.

Rearden doesn't do all the work in the factory, but he's the reason the factory exists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 14:00:53 2017 No.8927006 File: 86 KB, 1000x414, 1475866802239.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8919327 >being a socialist jej

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 14:01:46 2017 No.8927014

>>8926470
Well, the Objectivist rebuttal to that is probably that he's acting like an idiot because the food is providing no nutritional benefit to him when he sits on it, and that he would really be benefiting if he opened the warehouses up and sold all the food. Real life doesn't work that way, though, mostly because value is subjective. Maybe the guy derives more utility from sitting on his huge pile of bread and letting it get stale and moldy while people starve. Maybe the power trip is worth it to him.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 14:16:01 2017 No.8927134

>>8926990
But one of the core premises of the book is...?
That when a few key industrialists move from a few key factories/positions society collapses.
But that's bullshit. You gonna' move every single decent worker from Rearden's plant to Galt's Gulch?
No?
Then it will continue along just fine, thank you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 15:11:24 2017 No.8927559 >>8924177 What's wrong with that sentence?

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 15:48:34 2017 No.8927795

>>8927134
You're right, but in a longer timeframe, any situation where productive people are prevented from producing is worse than the reverse outcome. Rand starts to lose coherence when you go into specific details, because the book is a piece of thriller fiction, not a definitive philosophical treatise, but the overall thesis of "Civilization - People That Build Compulsively = Not-Civilization" typically holds true when you step back far enough.

I'm not an Objectivist, btw, I just think there are useful things to be gleaned from Atlas Shrugged and some of her other works.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 16:14:02 2017 No.8927940

>>8919129
it was a good enough mystery-thriller, a solid beach read but a definite step down from fountainhead

also ayn rand wants a guy to beat her up and rape her, that is pretty weird, and not like just choked and spanked, she wants to get punched in the face and like almost have her limbs broken

weird, perverted stuff if you ask me

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 16:21:20 2017 No.8927969 >>8927006 >being capitalist https://youtu.be/YO6aH4EiQ_Q

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 16:21:35 2017 No.8927971

>>8927940
rape fantasies are some of the most common fantasies among females, it's not as weird as you think.

This doesn't mean women want to be raped though, it just means some women like the idea of a talented, accomplished man being driven to criminal acts out of lust for them.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 16:25:14 2017 No.8927998

>>8927795
But that fails because Rand and her clan focus only on the material things.
The Greeks of antiquity built very little and were not huge traders, merchants, or engineers.
But they were quite civilized, weren't they?
OTOH, the Egypt of antiquity had a lot of engineering and trade, but was a cesspit of slavery, arbitrary laws, warfare, and such.
Which was better for "civilization"; the massive builders and engineers of slave-holding, aggressive, morally bankrupt Egypt of the mentally and ethically rigorous but agrarian Greece?

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 16:36:15 2017 No.8928058

>>8927998
I would agree in broad terms, that Objectivism fails because it equates the realm of physical wealth with Everything. Everything of value in Rand's writing is only valuable if you hold a few assumptions, things like
>Material wealth is a net positive in a society
>Infrastructure is crucial to industrial civilizations.

Does Objectivism have a useful moral framework? Not really, but some of its tenets are useful, like an understanding that talented people operate best if you stand back and let them do their thing. I use this kind of idea in my own leadership style, most people who report to me at work do so irregularly and informally and I don't ride them unless absolutely necessary. In return I expect them to be talented and motivated enough to accomplish their goals capably, much like the way Rearden runs his factory.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 16:37:20 2017 No.8928066 File: 300 KB, 3001x2146, income inequality decreasing.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8927969 >believing in the only system that has ever actually done something for the poor

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 16:44:27 2017 No.8928096

>>8928058
> an understanding that talented people operate best if you stand back and let them do their thing
That's a core concept of *Catholicism*, let alone a number of management concepts from the last 150 years. No need to subject yourself to 100 pages of "A is A" to get to good advice

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 16:46:34 2017 No.8928103

>>8928058
The Ayn Rand I know criticizes the desire for fool's gold, people who only want money to have money, and then don't really know what to do with it when they get it, and why they wanted it in the first place. I assume this extends to all wealth. Ayn Rand doesn't just promote selfishness, she promotes rational selfishness, you're supposed to have a reason for your goals.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 16:46:56 2017 No.8928107 >>8928096 Reasonable. Atlas Shrugged has a novel presentation of it, imo. I didn't mind the "A is A" stuff.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 16:50:30 2017 No.8928131
File: 1.37 MB, 207x207, laugh drink.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8928066
1) The greatest increase in human prosperity came in the aftermath of the Black Death. Now, I don't think the Black Death was a good thing, so 'increase in material wealth' might not be the best metric, eh?
2) The second greatest increase in overall wealth was the late Western Roman Manorial System which lifted vast swaths of Southern Europe from essentially hunter-gatherer to basic agrarian life
3) Next on the list are the various Medieval developments of Manorialism we generally call Feudalism, although that is a broad net. This lifted all of Europe from basic agrarian to late agrarian/artisanal economics.
4) Next is Mercantilism, the system that fueled the Industrial Revolution, the great British Empire, and the rise of American Industrialism. Hell, the core concepts of Mercantilism were central to American foreign policy and trade into the 20th Century!
%) That leaves poor laissez-faire Capitalism way down the list at 5th. The weak sister to Mercantilism and never really tried very much in actual practice, Capitalism by itself can't take much credit for anything, really.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 16:56:18 2017 No.8928169 I want to write a book called atlas hugged. During the summer there's a group of kids that wake up at 6 am just to stand outside the subway station and hold "Free Hugs" signs. That makes me feel nice, so I'm going to write a book called Atlas Hugged

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 18:00:46 2017 No.8928494

>>8927940
>also ayn rand wants a guy to beat her up and rape her, that is pretty weird, and not like just choked and spanked, she wants to get punched in the face and like almost have her limbs broken
The funny thing is that whenever Ayn Rand would start debating and arguing against people, she would always win, so she sought some intellectual partner that could match her wit and good enough to fuck her raw. Ayn Rand was very strong on sexual powerplay between couples. The problem is that this lead her to claim that your sexuality is a choice, and being gay is immoral, which her fanbase quickly disagreed with her once she died. This is probably a misconception on her part that she thought your sexuality and how much you want sex could be controlled to an extend, even though she was nice to her gay friends in her club. Her views on sex are very Apollonian but that's really surprising. Stoic in your work, emotional in the sack.

>While Hank did start the business and make an amazing new invention with Rearden Metal, the mass production of metal requires a huge staff of trained, competent people many of whom are proven leaders. While Rearden vanishing might mean no more innovation for a while, the orders would be met and the sales team would secure new orders just fine, thanks.
What makes you think that Rearden wasn't supervising the entire process while paying his staff handsomely as they are the best money can find?
Admittedly, that is a large problem when you focus too much on the elites and romanticize them doing all the work. A good head of company can sometimes be a very good thing, especially when such a person is concerned more about the quality of the goods they produce rather than making as much money as possible and helping share holders. A bad company leader has often ruined a company by not being intimate with its staff.

>>8927134
>You gonna' move every single decent worker from Rearden's plant to Galt's Gulch?
They don't show it, but every worker that is willing to work for their own self interest is invited, not just industrialists.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 18:03:30 2017 No.8928513

>>8928131
>Next is Mercantilism, the system that fueled the Industrial Revolution, the great British Empire, and the rise of American Industrialism. Hell, the core concepts of Mercantilism
Mercantilism was worthless as it is an incomplete view of capitalism. If the world suddenly started keeping all their wealth and stopped all material trade, society would colapse. The Greater British Empire and American became larger because of imperialism.

Mercantilism is fucking shit and so are your opinions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 18:06:33 2017 No.8928521 >>8928131 I have an Economics degree and everything you said is completely misguided.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 18:20:30 2017 No.8928586 File: 53 KB, 680x680, 1461259744435.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8919129 Even avoiding Galt's speech it still goes on and on and on and fucking on

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 18:36:34 2017 No.8928669

>>8928586
You know, as much as people hate the length of Galt's speech, conceptually, it's pretty cool. A speech that marks the end of the world. The length is appropriate for such an ending.
>''Hi. I'm John Galt. Fuck all you slave morality leecher collectivists
>Have fun without people working

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 18:42:08 2017 No.8928700 File: 29 KB, 500x285, (You).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8925793 >I have a Bachelor's degree in Ethics

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 18:53:47 2017 No.8928775

>>8923685
HAHAHAHA! Wow, you're showing your age, kid.

She's not depicting a socialist nation you goon, she's depicting the corruption of American capitalism, and she's DEAD FUCKING ON.

She's also criticizing specific American public figures, scientists, industrialists, and the archetypes she makes them a representation of. It is an allegorical critique of the United States. Yes, there is a serious element of critique directed at other socioeconomic systems, but, ultimately, this is a gun pointed at the United States, and she hopes that by pulling the trigger she can kill the attitudes which are TO THIS DAY destroying American capitalism, and every nation it spreads to.

Also, you're talking about reading 1100 pages spaced out over a period of years, with FAR MORE SHALLOW subject matter, lower level diction, and requiring no serious thought or contemplation.

Harry-Fucking-Potter is not in the same league. It is a fucking bedtime story for children.

Most people will not pick up an 1100 page serious novel - even if they are readers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 19:05:41 2017 No.8928841 >>8926352 >Soundtrack SWELLS with the theme of Halley's Fifth Concerto Ayn was actually really particular about music, and constantly insisted that her taste was objectively superior. Dagny is such a self-insert.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 19:09:20 2017 No.8928858

>>8919129

It's good, but you'll never get an intelligent answer from lit. Partially because 90% of the posters are college kids/baristas with 5-6 figure debt who think everything should be handed to them, and partially because the board is relentlessly contrarian.

If you as /mu/ if they like Bach/Beethoven/etc. you will get 150 replies saying its shit with people recommending Kero Kero Bonito (their version of infinite jest).

Ask /v/ if they like literally anything, and they will tell you it's shit and then argue about female video game characters.

Brace yourself for the contrarian LARPing:

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 19:14:08 2017 No.8928888

>>8928841
Yes, that's true. It is one of her greatest flaws.

Especially considering she had no expertise or talent in several of the artistic fields in which she considered herself an expert.

She considered Vermeer to be the objectively best painter, and denounced all impressionism as a degradation of reality when, in truth, impressionism is a commentary on reality, perception, memory, and very nearly everything else.

Celebrity Types, a Jungian Typology website types her as INTJ. INTJ's dominant function is introverted intuition, and the repressed function is extroverted sensing.

One of Rand's problems is that she let the powerful impressions made by her repressed function, extroverted sensing, have too great an influence on the conclusions drawn by her dominant functions.

This is why she clung to the idea of reality as something concrete. Concrete perception of reality is actually the strength of a dominant sensor type, and concretization of ideas the strength of an INTP, not an INTJ.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 19:15:09 2017 No.8928895 >>8928858 >you'll never get an intelligent answer from them. We didn't get one from you either.

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 19:29:36 2017 No.8928969

>>8928775
HAHAHAHA! Hey, guess what, CHUMP. Using a bunch of CAPITAL LETTERS, patronizing terms, and the word FUCK a lot doesn't necessarily mean you've made a good fucking argument.

And guess what, the content of Atlas Shrugged DEFINITELY is not of a higher diction than Harry Potter. I could've read it in a few days as a YOUNG AND EDGY TWEEN, a bit more than the amount of time it took me to read a Harry Potter book.

>James Taggart sat at his desk. He looked like a man approaching fifty, who had crossed into age from adolescence, without the intermediate stage of youth. He had a small, petulant mouth, and thin hair clinging to a bald forehead. His posture had a limp, decentralized sloppiness, as if in defiance of his tall, slender body, a body with an elegance of line intended for the confident poise of an aristocrat, but transformed into the gawkiness of a lout. The flesh of his face was pale and soft. His eyes were pale and veiled, with a glance that moved slowly, never quite stopping, gliding off and past things in eternal resentment of their existence. He looked obstinate and drained. He was thirty-nine years old.

>It was nearing midnight and the Prime Minister was sitting alone in his office, reading a long memo that was slipping through his brain without leaving the slightest trace of meaning behind. He was waiting for a call from the President of a far distant country, and between wondering when the wretched man would telephone, and trying to suppress unpleasant memories of what had been a very long, tiring, and difficult week, there was not much space in his head for anything else. The more he attempted to focus on the print on the page before him, the more clearly the Prime Minister could see the gloating face of one of his political opponents. This particular opponent had appeared on the news that very day, not only to enumerate all the terrible things that had happened in the last week (as though anyone needed reminding) but also to explain why each and every one of them was the government’s fault.

That's OBJECTIVELY at about the same level of writing.

t. Stefan Molyneux

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 19:31:12 2017 No.8928980 >>8921633 >She didn't believe that exceptionally talented people had an obligation to help the greater good. And they don't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 19:32:50 2017 No.8928993 >>8928969 He's not talking about prose but thematic content. How did you miss that?

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 19:41:34 2017 No.8929053

>>8928969
No, but making a good fucking argument means I've made a good argument you dumb shit.

It is ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY higher level than Harry Potter, and if Atlas Shrugged used the same font size and words per page as Harry Potter, child, it would be 3300 pages.

You also only addressed 1/4 of the points I made, retard. Congratulations.

Now go play with your toys, but not for too long, it's almost your bedtime.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 22:01:36 2017 No.8929571 >>8929053 >if Atlas Shrugged used the same font size and words per page as Harry Potter, child, it would be 3300 pages. didn't someone say above that AS is meant to be in part about how verbosity is overrated? long way round to a shortcut, haha

Anonymous Wed Jan 4 22:20:35 2017 No.8929645

>>8929571
It isn't about that, per se, but Rand definitely mocks the wordy journalism of her day.

This was less to point out how wordy they are, and more to point out how American journalists say lots while saying little. The type of wording she uses to mock them suggest the style she's criticizing were a carry-over from popular 19th century methods of American writing.

It is ironic, though. One of my major criticisms of her work is how she repeats metaphors and imagery using the same, or very similar, adjectives throughout the work.

I'm guessing she was attempting to hammer her message in via repetition, since she said her other works were about the same message, yet no one understood them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 4 22:21:55 2017 No.8929650 >>8929645 Actually, I shouldn't have said journalists. This was a criticism of American politicians just as much as American journalists. The are typically hand-in-hand, however.

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 08:34:15 2017 No.8931345

>>8928521
Really?
So, pray tell, when Thomas Jefferson complained about how Britain's mercantilist policies were impacting trade in the Declaration of Independence, what was so worrisome?
And when Adam Smith pointed out in Wealth of Nations that the massive economic expansion then ongoing was part of Mercantilism, how was he wrong?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 08:35:43 2017 No.8931347 >>8928775 >she's depicting the corruption of American capitalism ...into Socialism. As she explicitly states in lectures and interviews.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 08:37:10 2017 No.8931351 >>8928888 >INTJ's dominant function is... And she was a Libra with Scorpio rising, which means...

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 08:38:01 2017 No.8931353 >>8919581 john green tier writing

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 08:38:39 2017 No.8931356 >>8928700 I work in corporate oversight, actually.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 08:45:32 2017 No.8931371 File: 17 KB, 542x439, 1479083815454.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8919581 >There isn't a Coliseum any more, but the city is a bigger bowl, and it seats more people Deep.

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 08:56:35 2017 No.8931410

>>8929053
According to the Lexile rank, Atlas Shrugged is about on-par with Pride & Prejudice & Zombies, Jamaica Inn, and Dean R. Koontz's Watchers.
It is ranked slightly below Forsyth's The Day of the Jackal and Koontz's Lightning.
It is ranked slightly above It by Stephen King and the Talismans of Shannara.
OR - Atlas Shrugged is 9th grade reading level.
Harry Potter is about 6th grade, some are 5th.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 10:30:29 2017 No.8931652 >>8931356 I see. Do you oversee the soft-serve machine or the deep-fryer?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 10:37:42 2017 No.8931669 >>8931652 HIPAA, PCI, and Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, plus anti-corruption laws. What'll really make you laugh is that it wasn't the BA that got me this job, it was the Master's in Catholic Theology. What's your degree in?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 11:00:31 2017 No.8931735 File: 166 KB, 493x709, pepe-studies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8931669 A doctorate in STEM Science.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 11:03:05 2017 No.8931746 File: 52 KB, 650x453, STEM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8931735 You poor bastard. How is the search for a tenure-track teaching position going?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 11:04:18 2017 No.8931752 File: 105 KB, 960x711, Stem no magic cure.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8931735 I mean, my friends with PhDs in STEM are all looking for that or work with NGOs or something.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 11:17:20 2017 No.8931800 >>8931752 >friends >STEM Ha! Nice try.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 11:20:09 2017 No.8931806 >>8931800 >fellow students >friends you say to-mah-toe

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 11:40:47 2017 No.8931882 >>8919129 The amount of butt-blasting this book causes almost makes me want to read it. But then again I feel like these threads give offer reasonable tl;drs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 11:45:00 2017 No.8931901 >>8931752 truly the greatest meme there is unironically

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 11:57:08 2017 No.8931956

>>8931901
I was working for a computer company doing legal compliance and they told me I had to get a 4 year degree to get a promotion. I had already done 5 semesters, so I went to a local uni and started their weekend/online program and took Ethics because I thought it would help my work.
I was told 'oh, you gotta' go STEM!' so I started paying attention to the STEM students. They were all scrambling for jobs and struggling.
I decided to go stright to a master's and the only one that had more ethics and such was Catholic Theology (catholic uni) so why not?
The guys that I would meet between classes, etc. were both mocking me and petrified - they couldn't find jobs! Of the 9 guys getting MEs when I was in my program, only 2 found work in STEM - in in northern Canada and one on an oil derrick. 3 more went into things like sales.
2 of them decided 'fuck it - PhD!'
They got them (PhD in biochemistry, PhD in materials engineering) and can't find work in their field. The biochemist eventually found a job with an NGO....

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 11:59:42 2017 No.8931966 >>8926352 Made me kek heartily. I don't get the pregnancy jokes though.

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 12:14:44 2017 No.8932012

>>8919129
I like Ayn Rand's nonfiction (Virtue of Selfishness is a must read), and like her philosophy overall, though differ slightly in areas. But her fiction is not very good to read, and isn't really necessary, for some reason she does the opposite of what you would expect, in her fiction when she uses a character as a mouthpiece to explain her philosophy, she becomes more redundant, and takes longer to spell everything out. If you stripped her fiction of all that it might be good, but it's not even just the Galt speech, it's like this the whole book.

Given just the basic outlines of the plots, they sound like very good modern legends. It's the details that ruins them.

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 12:18:55 2017 No.8932034

>>8932012
I dunno, the Fountainhead was pretty good plotwise. Toohey especially, as the personification of collectivism, is really great. His final ''this is my plan and I've already broken you'' speech was spectacular. He also works as such a great opposite intent to Ayn Rand mouthpiece as everything he says is the literal opposite she believes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 12:19:30 2017 No.8932035 >>8931353 You realize the inspiration for John Green was none other than /lit/'s darling, wait for it, Hal Incandenza, right? Maybe you want to take that comment back now? Yeah, that's what I thought.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 12:48:55 2017 No.8932144 >>8932034 in a sense they are exactly what she believes. Like if she gave her definition of evil, that would be it, and he basically just admits he is evil. No evil person is ever that forward and explicit about it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 12:59:25 2017 No.8932171 >>8931966 Might be some humanities-tier observation about how Rand always seemed like she was trying very hard to conceal her feminine attributes.

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 13:18:02 2017 No.8932232

>>8932144
Well, I didn't mean that they aren't mouthpieces to her worldview, just that everything he says is such obvious bullshit that you're supposed to see it as such.
>No evil person is ever that forward and explicit about it.
He's an archetype, obviously, everyone is, but I'm not entirely sure he is evil, just that he is what she considers to be evil to humanity made flesh. He uses a lot of slave morality arguments. He even ironically calls himself a humanitarian.

The only evil person that doesn't entire fit the archetype is Gail Wynand. He's supposed to be a Nietzsche's Ubermensch but it's clear that Ayn Rand didn't have a complete grasp on him. Gail is essentially ''what doesn't kill you makes you stronger'' until he became a master morality overlord that gained his power by feeding the common denominator with shit news, similar to Gawker in our day. The problem is that while Rand makes a good introspection of why master morality only works if you ignore the slave morality like Toohey and work on your own power and achievements, she mistakenly argues that Nietzsche viewed it that way, when he didn't. He argued that people should not be binded to anything and obtain their own strength and make their own morality. In another book, Rand argued that by not being binded to the confines of civilization, that only leads to nihilism but that's up to personal interpretation if she's right on that. If Gail was Nietzsche Ubermensch, he would have not given a single fuck if the entire public went to make him submit, as he would be above it, but by being gaining power from the masses, he became powerless once they turned on him.
It's a good critique of the master-slave morality but shows that Ayn Rand had a very bad misunderstanding of Nietzsche.

I like Ayn Rand but she really missed the ball with Gail, even though he's a very interesting character and has a tragic upbringing.

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 13:32:38 2017 No.8932271
File: 346 KB, 451x451, Ayn-Rand-.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8932171
Funny enough, the one time Ayn Rand went full feminine is when she broke her own philosophy just to be with a man. I honestly wish she were still alive so that I could ask her directly why she did that. I just want to ask her why couldn't she disregard her own emotions and be rational like her philosophy says. We'll never know.

>be Ayn Rand
>escape communist russia after seen the horrors of collectivism
>love the individualism of America
>vow to make everyone understand that collectivism sucks
>argue that the ultimate goal in life is to obtain happiness
>marry some 10/10 actor who gets drunk due to neglect
>write the Fountainhead
>no one wants to publish it and it becomes an encapsulation of your entire philosophy that greatness can't be accepted by the masses
>book doesn't become a critical hit but through word of mouth, it gets popular, just like Roark
>some 18 yo university student hottie from Canada comes by your house to talk about why your book deeply influenced him
>he creates an institution and does lectures for you which become very popular
>form a group called 'The Collective' which is tragically ironic as it was meant to be ironic in name only but actually became a collective under your tyrannical control
>start having an open affair with that 18yo kid who's now an adult
>the guy's wife and your husband are somewhat alright okay with the whole ordeal??
>there's basically a 20 year gap between the two of you and he feels awkward because you're kinda old
>he starts to have another affair with some blond bimbo whom he loves
>the guy's wife can't stand it anymore and tells you about that second affair
>lose your shit
>call him to see you
>he says nothing as you call him a moral degenerate
>you remind him that he changed his name to have the word RAND in it and that everything he has was because of you
>ask why would he do such a thing
>he simply says ''because I love her and she makes me happy''
>slap him and tell him to never come back
>destroy the institute and unsuccessfully try to ruin him
>the guy lives a happy life but his blonde bimbo whom he sacrificed everything dies seven years later by drowning in the house pool
>go into financial troubles as you no longer want anything you've worked for
>your husband dies due to neglect and alcoholism
>develop lung cancer from smoking because saying you can observe the universe objectively doesn't mean you know everything about the universe objectively
>die a miserable death
>at least some of your old colleagues care for you enough to pay for your funeral and place a large $ sign near your casket
>people still quote and loot your ideas about capitalism being great while not understanding what you were arguing for individualism
>people only point that you took social benefits as any rebuttal towards your philosophy you worked decades to built
Being Ayn Rand is suffering. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened had the NBI not collapsed due to Ayn Rand betrayal of her philosophy.

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 13:33:13 2017 No.8932274

>>8931966
Rand had a few obsessions
-see how often see mentions her protagonists as 'slender', 'slim', ;thin', etc.
-No matter how often the Strong, Bold Industrialists rape the mary sues they never suffer any ill effects and never, ever get pregnant
-She was very, very pro-abortion and anti-child

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 13:34:01 2017 No.8932279 >>8928969 not him but who gives a shit about diction?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 13:35:30 2017 No.8932283 >>8919129 Book was shit imo.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 13:36:21 2017 No.8932287 >>8932274 They always pull out before they cum, just like in my animes :^)

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 13:43:01 2017 No.8932309

>>8932012
>Virtue of Selfishness is a must read), and like her philosophy overall
The Virtue of Selfishness puts more nails in the coffin of the idea that Objectivism is a philosophy.
>fails to cross the is/ought bridge
>uses the naturalistic fallacy as an opening
>Provides no support for her basic arguments and statements
I thought the Virtue of Selfishness was a laugh riot for the first third, then it turned to pure cringe.

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 13:54:45 2017 No.8932366

>>8932274
>She was very, very pro-abortion and anti-child
She was more pro choice, arguing that people should accept responsibility for their actions and that babies do not have rights until they are born and develop consciousness and awareness of the world. Until that point, they are under the absolute control of the mother that care of them. She hated the mysticism that babies have souls and must be protected at all cost.

Personally, the anti-child tone is more an outcome of developed countries and capitalism. The greater the health and financial status of a country, fewer children are born. People only had many children because a lot of them died at a young age. So with better healthcare and the need for putting your career over everything else due to capitalism, there is less of a desire to have children. This is true of all western civilizations.

Here's some of her quotes on the matter.

>The capacity to procreate is merely a potential which man is not obligated to actualize. The choice to have children or not is morally optional. Nature endows man with a variety of potentials and it is his mind that must decide which capacities he chooses to exercise, according to his own hierarchy of rational goals and values.

>The mere fact that man has the capacity to kill, does not mean that it is his duty to become a murderer; in the same way, the mere fact that man has the capacity to procreate, does not mean that it is his duty to commit spiritual suicide by making procreation his primary goal and turning himself into a stud-farm animal.

>To an animal, the rearing of its young is a matter of temporary cycles. To man, it is a lifelong responsibility—a grave responsibility that must not be undertaken causelessly, carelessly, thoughtlessly or accidentally.

>In regard to the moral aspects of birth control, the primary right involved is not the “right” of an unborn child, nor of the family, nor of society, nor of God. The primary right is one which—in today’s public clamor on the subject—few, if any, voices have had the courage to uphold: the right of man and woman to their own life and happiness—the right not to be regarded as the means to any end.

If you want to have a child, make sure you're ready for the responsibility and do so as a celebration of the union of your love rather than as a duty to society.
You have no idea how many times I've heard that people should have more children to help society from collapse and that it is a duty that should be enforced for the preservation of western civilization. It's pure collectivism.

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 15:48:20 2017 No.8932821
File: 38 KB, 430x322, retarded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8932366
>She was more pro choice, arguing that people should accept responsibility for their actions and that babies do not have rights until they are born and develop consciousness and awareness of the world.
Violating her own argument that life is valuable in and of itself, showing the incoherence of her position.
>People only had many children because a lot of them died at a young age
Objectively false, and laughably so.

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 16:02:32 2017 No.8932893

>>8932821
>Violating her own argument that life is valuable in and of itself, showing the incoherence of her position.
A cell is not a life with consciousness. To her, a life is only living until it is aware of existence and reality. A mother has complete control over her body and it is only when a child is born and has aware of its existence that it is alive and be considered a life. You're nitpicking rather than seeing her views on the matter. My point was to show that she was pro choice, rather than pro life, as pro life involves the government or some other entity deciding for you how you should live your life. A worse alternative.

>Objectively false, and laughably so.
What? Look at all of history. After the industrial revolution, medical advancements and the cheapening of goods, more people got better health, comfort and a greater standard of living. This is why the current birth rate is less than 2.1, the needed number for a sustainable growth of society, compared to countries that are not entirely modern where the birth rate is substantially higher.
I have no idea how you can say that it is objectively false that with the advent of modern technologies and capitalism, it lowered the overall birthrate in modern western countries.
There's a chart somewhere that shows that the more a country becomes modern, the quicker the rate of child birth decreases.

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 16:25:21 2017 No.8933008

>>8932893
>A cell is not a life with consciousness
No one said otherwise.
>a life is only living until it is aware of existence and reality.
Which violates her "axiom" that life is valuable in and of itself. By saying that she demolishes her own ""philosophy".
>A mother has complete control over her body
But we are talking about the body of the child, aren't we?
>You're nitpicking rather than seeing her views on the matter
I am pointing out the errors and logical inconsistencies of er stance.
>pro life involves the government or some other entity deciding for you how you should live your life.
Objectively false. Murder being against the law is no more 'the government telling you how to live' than a law against theft is 'the government telling you how to live'.
>What?
Your statement was
>People only had many children because a lot of them died at a young age
This is obviously false, and cringe-worthy.
You are confusing "general trends among the entire population as a whole" for "motivation of all people everywhere"
As infant mortality declined in the Victorian Age the average family size *increased* for two generations in correlation to increased wealth, etc., showing that this is simply false. The First Demographic Transition caused a trend towards smaller families *worldwide* but not in every subculture. For example, in opposition to your 'it is about wealth and people only have lots of kids when infant mortality is high' the region of North Africa has had below replacement fertility for 45+ years even as their infant mortality and poverty levels were (and remain!) high, This is also the case in Southeast Asia and all of South America - poverty and mortality remain higher than in OECD nations and fertility is below replacement.
Contrariwise as the Second Demographic Transition continues you see wealthy, well-educated OECD families showing *increased* fertility.
And, off to the side, you have Orthodox Jews, Devout Mormons, Traditional Catholics, and the various Quiverfull Protestant groups all showing extremely high levels of fecundity in the West with more education, lower infant mortality, and more wealth linked to *higher* fertility.
So - no; even a casual perusal of actual demographic data can support the ludicrous statement that
>People only had many children because a lot of them died at a young age
Saying that just demonstrates your profound ignorance of the topic.

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 16:45:06 2017 No.8933094

>>8933008
>Which violates her "axiom" that life is valuable in and of itself.
Not if a cell is not a life until it is able to exude its consciousness with existence. Again, you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

>But we are talking about the body of the child, aren't we?
A cell is not a child. An embryo is not a child. A child out of a mother's womb is a child as it experiences existence with its sense. At that point, it is, and should be, protected by law, as it is no longer attached and connected to the mother.

>I am pointing out the errors and logical inconsistencies of er stance.
No, you're arguing semantics. Imagining inconsistencies is very easy to do.

>Murder being against the law is no more 'the government telling you how to live' than a law against theft is 'the government telling you how to live'.
Incorrect. Having the government protect you from others harming you does not dictate how others should live. All it does is punish you if you commit such an act and are proven with intent to have done so. Having a punishment disincentivizes you from doing so but it does not stop me from committing murder. A mother being forced to give birth to a child because the government removes all possible way to have an abortion is

>This is also the case in Southeast Asia and all of South America - poverty and mortality remain higher than in OECD nations and fertility is below replacement.
That is due to different sociopolitical and financial reasons more so than anything else. A history of South America will show you that they are a collection of modern nations that succumbed to poverty due to incorrect management of socialism and other unfortunate factors such as US meddling with some of their affairs and an incomplete separation of power. You think that poverty causes a low fertility, which is not what I said nor argued. I said that modernization of societies caused a lowering of fertility, not poverty. Don't equate modernization with wealth. This is equally a problem with Asian countries as many places are modernized and create a greater standard of living but a large amount of the population are still poor.

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 17:14:50 2017 No.8933225

And, once more, all you and Rand want is to be able to commit the cold-blooded, premeditated murder of another human for your own convenience without penalty.
>You think that poverty causes a low fertility
Not the case. As i pointed out, clearly, in my last post, fertility is often not correlated with wealth or poverty.
>I said that modernization of societies caused a lowering of fertility
And this is demonstrably false, as I pointed out.
You are moving the goalposts and obfuscating.
Let me repeat, again, that your statement
>People only had many children because a lot of them died at a young age
I not just wrong, it is ridiculous.
.
I'm used to Objectivists trying to change the topic and move the goalposts, so you can stop anytime.

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 17:24:24 2017 No.8933259

I've just finished reading it.
First book ever that I didn't read completely (and I've read Brothers Karamazov and In Search Of Lost Time). Skipped through the last 100 pages, especially Galt's speech because she just repeated what she had been showing for the past 1000 pages. The whole thing was such an arrogant, narrow-minded bore with characters three-dimensional as a sheet of paper and unbearably laughable romance.
The prose had it's moments, although scarcely, and objectivism has some interesting points. I also liked the parallel with nowadays SJWs.... Didn't save the dreadful rest of the book though. Awful, just awful. The whole thing could have been cut to 400 pages max.

Anonymous Thu Jan 5 18:07:10 2017 No.8933484

>>8933225
>And, once more, all you and Rand want is to be able to commit the cold-blooded, premeditated murder of another human for your own convenience without penalty.
Maybe if you would stop giving cells mysticism when it is not applicable. It is not murder when something does not have consciousness nor can experience existence.

>it's wrong
No point arguing anymore then.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 19:18:57 2017 No.8933789 Philosophical excellence with shit tier prose.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 19:24:49 2017 No.8933812 >>8919129 good for reinforcing the myth of capitalism-as-meritocracy and nothing else.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 5 19:25:51 2017 No.8933817 >>8933812 well it wasn't actually even good at that but it definitely pandered somehow to people inclined to believe it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 6 00:27:05 2017 No.8934996 >>8933817 >implying meritocracy doesn't matter

Anonymous Fri Jan 6 03:29:33 2017 No.8935541

>>8931351
I don't blame you for equating Jungian Typology with horoscopes. At one point in time I thought the same.

However, unlike a horoscope, which is based on a mystic, psuedoscientific interpretation of the movement of stellar bodies and other natural phenomenon, Jung type was developed by a genius of brilliance far surpassing anyone on this entire image board, and is based on observable data which shows itself in literally everything any person does.

This is why it has been studied by phd psychologists ever since the system's creation, and continues to be studied to this day.

If you don't understand how deep and shockingly accurate it is, you either haven't spent enough time studying it, or it is beyond your ability to comprehend.

I don't mean that as an insult; it is merely factual.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 6 03:35:53 2017 No.8935550 >>8933789 lol Rand "solves" the is-ought dichotomy: "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”'

Anonymous Fri Jan 6 03:52:13 2017 No.8935581

>>8931410
Again, your point is only relative to linguistic difficulty.

There are concepts in Atlas Shrugged which will only be understood by someone who either has experience or knowledge in American industrial processes, as well as American financial regulations and investments.

Mind you, she attempted to make it as accessible as possible while still pointing out the practices she considered archetypal of American business, finance, and politics in general, but there are far more adults who don't have the requisite knowledge to comprehend her points than you might like to believe.

Likewise, as I've pointed out, she references specific figures of her day in a wide range of fields - from science and philosophy, to business and politics. There are many readers who will not get her references.

As I also mentioned, she mockingly mimics a specific kind of American journalistic practice. If a person is unfamiliar with this language, they will likely miss the critique.

Even if a 9th grade student can read and understand the words - they have zero real world experience working in industry or finance and, therefore, the attitudes and practices she is critiquing are completely outside of their ability to relate to experientially - an important part of deep comprehension.

We should also remember, Ayn Rand did not intend this to be a work of literature merely to be read and enjoyed. She wished to shine a light on the practices and attitudes which were/are destroying the United States, so that the ADULT populace, having woken to a realization of the true state of their lives and their nation, could do something about it.

Your point isn't unimportant, but it only speaks to one of the many things which separates Atlas Shrugged from a YA fiction novel.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 6 04:56:34 2017 No.8935683 I refuse to consider reading it because of its reputation

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 6 05:09:11 2017 No.8935707 >>8919139 Neked

Anonymous Fri Jan 6 05:10:32 2017 No.8935711

>>8921790
I've read more books than most people will ever read in their lives.

Admittedly, I don't read many books by women. Austen, however, was the worst 400 pages of literature I've ever read.

Pride and Predjudice was nothing but an 18th century soap opera.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 6 05:12:09 2017 No.8935714 >>8926267 >US >third world LMAO, good God! I know people say that everyone loves to hate the guy who is on top, but this is too much. You're hilarious, kid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 6 05:14:13 2017 No.8935717 >>8931347 Into a United States specific form of socialism. The process and the form will be, and are, specific to the U.S. This is obvious, child-tier, intuitive logic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 6 05:25:32 2017 No.8935743 >>8919139 für dich

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 6 05:53:50 2017 No.8935787 >>8919129 Didn't we have a rule for this kind of threads?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 6 07:19:25 2017 No.8935959 >>8919139 для тeбя

Anonymous Fri Jan 6 09:05:47 2017 No.8936188

>>8933484
You keep speaking of "cells"
No one but you is discussing cells, I am talkling about living human beings.
>It is not murder when something does not have consciousness nor can experience existence
1) Unsupported assertion you have yet to try to prove
2) once more, this *denies* Rand's statement that life has inherent value.
>No point in arguing
the Objectivist dodge to avoid admitting error

Anonymous Fri Jan 6 09:10:49 2017 No.8936202
File: 215 KB, 500x500, wweak fu.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8935541
Will your anima attempt to influence me via the collective unconscious via synchronistic events to conclude that if I were to grasp the sacred marriage between sun and moon I could grasp his in-depth knowledge of alchemy?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 6 09:12:01 2017 No.8936206 >>8935550 That isn't a 'solution' to the is/ought, that is acknowledging that the gap exists and she can't bridge it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 6 09:13:42 2017 No.8936209 >>8936202 I have a copy of that movie. It's whack af.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 6 09:13:47 2017 No.8936210 >>8935787 They removed the rule and the Ayndroids appeared within hours

Anonymous Fri Jan 6 10:21:28 2017 No.8936365

I don't support Objectivism, but I don't see why disagreeing with the philosophy makes it a bad book, which seemed to be the mindset of critics.

I found it all interesting. The third act is quite weak in places, particularly when Dagny is on that island, the unnecessarily long speech, and the last chapter (except the Eddie part), and the sex parts were pretty terrible - but the rest of it was very good in my opinion. It really does have an 'epic' feel to it - you're following a group from the very beginning to end bringing down a dystopian society, and to make it interesting it's almost like the roles have been reversed compared to other dystopian stories.

It has it's flaws and is insanely long - 1,300+pages with some of the smallest text I've ever seen - but I really don't get the hate for it. I've even seen people complain that it glorifies the white male (as a negative), when Francisco is said to be Spanish. I don't know, it sort of seems like people just look for reasons to hate it, rather than appreciate it for what it is.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 6 10:32:46 2017 No.8936404 >>8936202 Don't be stupid.

Anonymous Fri Jan 6 10:48:17 2017 No.8936474

>>8936365
What typically goes on in an AS thread can be seen very clearly ITT
1) Someone asks about the book
2) Multiple anons point out the poor writing, poor characterization, plot based upon coincidence, strawmen antagonists, and mary sue
3) Randroids shift the discussion from the quality of writing (which is mediocre/potboiler level) to the "ideas" and argue along the lines of 'sure, it is a shitty novel, but it is really about philosophy'
4) Others point out that the "philosophy" of Objectivism isn't
5) Randroids stamp their feet until the thread is old
That's why all Rand was banned for years - same pattern, every time. Randroids won't allow you to discuss the book qua the book (see what I did there?) and will never, ever admit that St. Ayn was wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 6 10:49:19 2017 No.8936479 >>8936404 I'm sorry, are you not familiar with Jung's work?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature