Ayn Rand

[eric.bell]

I am nearly through with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I was wondering who all has read her works? and what your thoughts on her works were?

[ConstantReader]

I LOVED that book when I was in my early twenties. It was one of the life changers. It taught me a lot about relying on myself and respecting my own worth. I happily went around spouting Objectivism for about a year. I met the coolest old guy who talked to me about it.That book showed me how irritating people who don't TRY are. The story captivated me. What are some of your favorite quotes in the book?
Dagny Taggart is my ultimate heroine.
:iagree:

[dfloyd]

whose pesonal philosophy of laissez faire capitalism would result in chaos. She generally impresses the young, especially with her two novels, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

In her personal life, her self-serving philosophy led a follower into an affair with her which was disastrous for her husband and her adherent's wife since she insisted on carrying out the affair with the knowledge of all concerned.

I saw her on tv several times and the speciousness of her philosophy became readily apparent on live tv with no editing.

As far as her writing goes, it is mediocre at best. In the 1950s when I grew up, Ayn Rand found converts to her philosophy, usually with young peoiple with little experience in deeper reading and how to cope with life's turmoils. Today, the more callow reader will probably be influenced as readily as were those of my day. Fortunately, her self-centered philosophy has never gained much of a foothold in our society.

[Katy North]

I loved it when I was younger (20). Now that I'm older (26) I can see that she has great ideas, but these ideas are flawed. While it would be wonderful to believe that the great minds of the world could selfishly pursue their goals and in doing so spread the wealth and open up new avenues for trade, etc, it is more likely that chaos (or something resembling the video game Bioshock) would ensue.

[mal4mac]

Eric - you *really* need to get going with Dickens... You might like Bleak House, where some proto-Randians get their come-uppance...

[Michael T]

whose pesonal philosophy of laissez faire capitalism would result in chaos. She generally impresses the young, especially with her two novels, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

In her personal life, her self-serving philosophy led a follower into an affair with her which was disastrous for her husband and her adherent's wife since she insisted on carrying out the affair with the knowledge of all concerned.

I saw her on tv several times and the speciousness of her philosophy became readily apparent on live tv with no editing.

As far as her writing goes, it is mediocre at best. In the 1950s when I grew up, Ayn Rand found converts to her phiosophy, usually with young peoiple with little experience in deeper reading and how to cope with life's turmoils. Today, the more callow reader will probably be influenced as readily as were those of my day. Fortunately, her self-centered philosophy has never gained much of a foothold in our society.

Agreed! ...Well said. :iagree:

[Modest Proposal]

Why do Rand threads bring out SO MUCH animosity from her detractors. You'd think she wrote and perpetrated the crimes of the author of Mein Kampf or The Little Red Book.

There are a lot of divergent theories about how to live or how to govern, I have seen many less intelligent and more disgusting philosophies of life than hers.

What is the 'specific' gripe against Rand? Is it because she is not a good writer? Too polemical? She is surely not alone in this.

Is it because she is 'wrong'? Well if she is wrong, then something else must be right. And if something is 'right' than EVERYTHING else must be wrong. Considering this, she must again be in pretty good and full company.

Honestly, it seems people are mad because they don't like her and others do. It's not that she is SO untalented or SO incorrect. Some posters just can't get over the fact that someone like's something they do not.

[Modest Proposal]

whose pesonal philosophy of laissez faire capitalism would result in chaos. She generally impresses the young, especially with her two novels, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

In her personal life, her self-serving philosophy led a follower into an affair with her which was disastrous for her husband and her adherent's wife since she insisted on carrying out the affair with the knowledge of all concerned.

I saw her on tv several times and the speciousness of her philosophy became readily apparent on live tv with no editing.

As far as her writing goes, it is mediocre at best. In the 1950s when I grew up, Ayn Rand found converts to her philosophy, usually with young peoiple with little experience in deeper reading and how to cope with life's turmoils. Today, the more callow reader will probably be influenced as readily as were those of my day. Fortunately, her self-centered philosophy has never gained much of a foothold in our society.

Are you suggesting that free market capitalism doesn't have a foot hold in US society? Or that thankfully other people don't have affairs like she did?

I'm sort of joking, but measured against most fiction-writing figures of the last 100 years in the US, I cannot think of almost any with so much of an effect. She is considered one of the 2 most important figures to libertarianism which boasts millions of followers.

I'm not a libertarian. I don't read Rand. But I think your dislike is coloring your logic. She may be wrong but she is very influential as far as literary figures go.

Can you name many other fiction writers in 20th America who have a more clear political affect and following.

[Michael T]

Some posters just can't get over the fact that someone like's something they do not.

Er...that would be you then! :iagree:

It's you who is upset because some people don't like or agree with Ayn Rand and you do.

...Get over it! :rolleyes5:

[eric.bell]

It's you who is upset because some people don't like or agree with Ayn Rand and you do.

Michael T, did you even attempt to read Modest Proposal's post?

He explicitly said:


I don't read Rand.

It is quite fine to say that you dislike Rand's Objectivism or even her prose; but if you are going to, you might try making an argument of your own instead of posting little smilies and amening or shunning posters. Really now, I understand that there are flaws within her philosophy, but please do name one, which does not....


I think it quite interesting how idealisms do seem to appeal more to the youthful, than they do to the old.

Has anyone read We The Living or Anthem?

[Nietzsche]

I liked her at first... I respect her for her atheism, her staunch support of what she believed in, and the fact she single handedly came up with a complete system of thought, but at the end of the day my views are quite different from her. I like her Ethical theory , but don't agree with pure capitalism, I think Kant's epistemology is more realistic than hers, though. I'm more of a psychological egoist than an ethical egoist, more into Social Contract Theory that respects a man's right to act in his or her own interest, rather than just saying "act rationally in your own interest". Who's rationality? To a sociopath, they are rational. Ergo, external laws must be established for all of society to obey. but, you can just read my book.. If I EVER actually finish writing it, that is haha.

On another note I did find Anthem to be enjoyable, as well as the film based on The Fountainhead ( I never read the book). Philosophy: Who Needs It? and For the New Intellectual are interesting reads too. She's interesting to read even if you don't agree with her, for whatever reason.

[IceM]

whose pesonal philosophy of laissez faire capitalism would result in chaos. She generally impresses the young, especially with her two novels, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

In her personal life, her self-serving philosophy led a follower into an affair with her which was disastrous for her husband and her adherent's wife since she insisted on carrying out the affair with the knowledge of all concerned.

I saw her on tv several times and the speciousness of her philosophy became readily apparent on live tv with no editing.

As far as her writing goes, it is mediocre at best. In the 1950s when I grew up, Ayn Rand found converts to her philosophy, usually with young peoiple with little experience in deeper reading and how to cope with life's turmoils. Today, the more callow reader will probably be influenced as readily as were those of my day. Fortunately, her self-centered philosophy has never gained much of a foothold in our society.


Er...that would be you then! :iagree:

It's you who is upset because some people don't like or agree with Ayn Rand and you do.

...Get over it! :rolleyes5:

Dfloyd for someone who I'm assuming is aged and mature you take an immature stance on this issue. Alas, let us condemn Rand's philosophy because it takes an extremist view on politics. Let us chastise her for bluntly expressing her beliefs. And at the same time let us call her a Communist and a bloody Russian because she hailed from the Soviet Union. Hell, let's even resort to name calling. Just because you seemingly disagree with her philosophy by no means gives you the right to condemn her or literature. And before you condemn her philosophy please elaborate on what is an appropriate one. Is it something she does not follow, or something you do? Regardless, ideas are not weighed in what is right or wrong, but rather by the success of the actions that result from them. Your actions have demonstrated your willingness to defame someone you don't agree with. Jaundiced.

And Michael, let us not resort to the infantile "I know you are but what am I" playground tactics. In agreeing with Dfloyd you've resigned your right to have an opinion. Why you've even chosen to respond when you've demonstrated your submittal to another's opinion baffles me completely.

Eric, to answer your actual question and not condemn the author's thoughts, I thought Anthem was decent. The plot was predictable from about ten pages in but her voice was nevertheless powerful, and for that, I praise her. While it seems as many steps below that of 1984 or Huxley's Brave New World (novels that run along familiar lines), she boldly states her views, for which I admire her. If you read fast enough, you can finish it within an hour.

But alas, her opinions are "wrong", so I guess it's not worth reading. Heh. :p

[OrphanPip]

Dfloyd for someone who I'm assuming is aged and mature you take an immature stance on this issue. Alas, let us condemn Rand's philosophy because it takes an extremist view on politics. Let us chastise her for bluntly expressing her beliefs. And at the same time let us call her a Communist and a bloody Russian because she hailed from the Soviet Union. Hell, let's even resort to name calling. Just because you seemingly disagree with her philosophy by no means gives you the right to condemn her or literature. And before you condemn her philosophy please elaborate on what is an appropriate one. Is it something she does not follow, or something you do? Regardless, ideas are not weighed in what is right or wrong, but rather by the success of the actions that result from them. Your actions have demonstrated your willingness to defame someone you don't agree with. Jaundiced.

I'm confused, what do you think a philosophy should be judged by if not by its logic and consequences. Clearly, if dfloyd condemns radical libertarianism it's implicit in the statement that he supports a form of government that leans more towards some form of social contract. I don't see how we should be weighing philosophy by the success of its actions. Nazism was moderately successful in its stated goals, should we then judge it as right? What are the standards you're measuring success by?



And Michael, let us not resort to the infantile "I know you are but what am I" playground tactics. In agreeing with Dfloyd you've resigned your right to have an opinion. Why you've even chosen to respond when you've demonstrated your submittal to another's opinion baffles me completely.

This is certainly congruent with the first paragraph where you condemn dfloyd for defaming Rand. I don't know how you even reason these conclusions out. Perhaps he just happened to agree with dfloyd and simply wanted to show his agreement in an expedient manner. How this equates to a forfeiture of his right to post is beyond me.



Eric, to answer your actual question and not condemn the author's thoughts, I thought Anthem was decent. The plot was predictable from about ten pages in but her voice was nevertheless powerful, and for that, I praise her. While it seems as many steps below that of 1984 or Huxley's Brave New World (novels that run along familiar lines), she boldly states her views, for which I admire her. If you read fast enough, you can finish it within an hour.

But alas, her opinions are "wrong", so I guess it's not worth reading. Heh. :p

The question was, what were people's thoughts on the works. In my wacky worldview, thoughts on a work include opinions on the philosophy expounded in the work. Especially, in works as didactic as Rand's. Do you propose people should discuss 1984 without any mention of totalitarianism?

Anyway, I found Atlas Shrugged painful to read. At least, they're better than Goodkind, who is pretty much a fantasy genre Rand copycat. I find it hard to understand what people see in her.

[IceM]

I simply propose that we judge the literature by the execution of it's plan and not the basis of the author's philosophy.

[OrphanPip]

I simply propose that we judge the literature by the execution of it's plan and not the basis of the author's philosophy.

While I agree that Rand's adultery is not relevant to discussing her novels. Addressing her philosophy is near inseparable from discussing her writing. After all, even for most Rand supporters it is her philosophy that they hold up as her greatest achievement. I don't think many people look at Rand's writing and think she was all that great a writer.

I'll admit though that she probably wrote better in English than I could ever hope to write in Russian.

[IceM]

While I agree that Rand's adultery is not relevant to discussing her novels. Addressing her philosophy is near inseparable from discussing her writing. After all, even for most Rand supporters it is her philosophy that they hold up as her greatest achievement. I don't think many people look at Rand's writing and think she was all that great a writer.

I'll admit though that she probably wrote better in English than I could ever hope to write in Russian.

Which is the issue. I do my best to objectively grade an author's work as an execution of their work. IF, in Anthem's case, it discloses part of the author's philosophy, still, one must grade this objectively; how well did the author present the logic of her philosophy? Whether the philosophy is correct or agreeable is subjective and, as such, should be irrelevant. One should consider the author's execution of purpose; evaluating one's agreements and disagreement's with the philosophy *should* be saved for a different occasion. Not all of us judge literature this way. In defense of my prior post(s), I criticized two whom I felt let their opinions jaundice the author's body of work (and philosophy itself).

[mal4mac]

What is the 'specific' gripe against Rand?

"This odd little woman is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed and self interest, and to pull it off she must at times indulge in purest Orwellian newspeak of the “freedom is slavery” sort. What interests me most about her is not the absurdity of her “philosophy,” but the size of her audience... She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the “welfare” state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts. For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the root of all evil, self-interest is the only good, and if you’re dumb or incompetent that’s your lookout.

She is fighting two battles: the first, against the idea of the State being anything more than a police force and a judiciary to restrain people from stealing each other’s money openly. She is in legitimate company here. There is a reactionary position which has many valid attractions, among them lean, sinewy, regular-guy Barry Goldwater. But it is Miss Rand’s second battle that is the moral one. She has declared war not only on Marx but on Christ. Now, although my own enthusiasm for the various systems evolved in the names of those two figures is limited, I doubt if even the most anti-Christian free-thinker would want to deny the ethical value of Christ in the Gospels. To reject that Christ is to embark on dangerous waters indeed. For to justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil. For one thing, it is gratuitous to advise any human being to look out for himself. You can be sure that he will. It is far more difficult to persuade him to help his neighbor to build a dam or to defend a town or to give food he has accumulated to the victims of a famine. But since we must live together, dependent upon one another for many things and services, altruism is necessary to survival. To get people to do needed things is the perennial hard task of government, not to mention of religion and philosophy. That it is right to help someone less fortunate is an idea which has figured in most systems of conduct since the beginning of the race. We often fail. That predatory demon “I” is difficult to contain but until now we have all agreed that to help others is a right action. Now the dictionary definition of “moral” is: “concerned with the distinction between right and wrong” as in “moral law, the requirements to which right action must conform.” Though Miss Rand’s grasp of logic is uncertain, she does realize that to make even a modicum of sense she must change all the terms. Both Marx and Christ agree that in this life a right action is consideration for the welfare of others. In the one case, through a state which was to wither away, in the other through the private exercise of the moral sense. Miss Rand now tells us that what we have thought was right is really wrong. The lesson should have read: One for one and none for all.

Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society. Moral values are in flux. The muddy depths are being stirred by new monsters and witches from the deep. Trolls walk the American night."

http://www.esquire.com/features/gore-vidal-archive/comment-0761

[Emil Miller]

It is hardly surprising that Ayn Rand's thinking struck a chord in the US during 1950s. After all, America had emerged from WWII as top dog in a world where its former competitors had been reduced to supplicants. This was the beginning of a new kind of muscle flexing America that would start with Korea and appears to be nearing its end with Iraq and the rise of China. During this period, the USA dominated through its economic and technological superiority; Ayn Rand's philosophy is merely an extension of this even though it can be traced back to her early life in Soviet Russia. Whilst Rand's opponents are enraged by her ruthless individualism, her adherents are equally annoyed by what they see as dangerously misguided socialism or, to use Prof. Friedrich von Hayek's phrase, "The Road to Serfdom". It is inevitable that her writing will have to take on board her philosophy because it is the means by which she expounds her viewpoint but taking it as literature per se I don't think it is very good.

[applepie]

I am nearly through with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I was wondering who all has read her works? and what your thoughts on her works were?

I really enjoyed Atlas Shrugged. It was an eye opening book. I don't agree with much of her philosophy, but it did provoke me into forming my own thoughts and opinions. It was a very challenging book to read, but it is one that I've read many times since that first time.

[Quark]

I simply propose that we judge the literature by the execution of it's plan and not the basis of the author's philosophy.

I'd like to see more about the literary value of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, too, but most of the posts so far--both those defending Rand and those attacking Rand--have focused on the author's philosophy. Either that, or posters have commented on her prominence, as Modest Proposal did here:


I cannot think of almost any with so much of an effect. She is considered one of the 2 most important figures to libertarianism which boasts millions of followers.

Can you name many other fiction writers in 20th America who have a more clear political affect and following.

This isn't really a literary defense. Literature has more readers and critics than it does "followers." Cults have followers. Conga lines have followers. Novels have an audience--which is something different entirely. We probably can't say much about Rand as a literary figure from just her political effect.

[blazeofglory]

I have read the Fountain Head and I was really thrilled by her skills as a writer.

But i do not agree with her political philosophy and capitalism un-reined proves wrong in the long term.

We know the current crisis that was caused by uncontrolled spurts of capitalism wherein regulators stay in the background

[applepie]

Quark - In some ways I think it is a testament to her writing that people are so focused on her philosophy. Overall I think she was a good writer; not the best I've ever read, but she is certainly superior to much that I've read. Rand is too wordy in places where I think she could have been much more frugal, but then I think the same about Dickens *shrugs*. Her wordiness is of a different kind than Dickens. His is more descriptive of the people, settings, etc. Rand is more descriptive of thoughts, motivations, and situations. I think after reading Atlas Shrugged the same tale and point could have been made in half the length, but I think some of the philosophy that she is so known for would have been lost if that were the case.

Overall, I suppose my real point is that in the case of Rand her philosophy and actual writing are one and the same in my eyes. You can't look at one without the other because she has ensured that her philosophy and not her prose is what would be discussed. It is a bit like watching a movie that carries a strong social message. The acting may be only average or a bit above, but that isn't what people focus on when they are discussing it. To provoke that kind of a reaction is a talent in its own right :)

[ForKnowledge]

I like reading her though I don't agree with much of her philosophy, I liked watching her phil donahue interview on youtube. He asked her something about proving that there was no god and she said that you can never be asked to prove a negative, she had some interesting ideas though ironically her ideas left no room for compassion and also ironically has way to much faith in human nature and the ability of our failing species.

[MrRegular]

The high-nosed snobbery against Rand's writing is a ruse to hide the detractor's actual disagreements with her world-view. One reads a review of her work that accuses her of bad writing and then the detractor has something to point at, 'oh oh, that's why I hate her, not because her philosphy implies that I take responsibility for my own actions!'

The Anti-Randian has no faith in his own abilities unless supported by a higher authority.

Ayn Rand did make one mistake and that was in choosing her medium, for the majority of bookish types have always suffered from self-esteem problems and thus retreat behind the legs of philosphers and other name-droppings.

Also on BIOSHOCK, most teenies didn't know what objectivism was until this game came around. The story, by the way, makes only the point that 'objectism doesn't work now blow stuff up'. What can they say, they know their demographic. Did you see how effective that was at dissuading the younger populace? Don't get your philosophy from video games.

[mal4mac]

Rand is too wordy in places where I think she could have been much more frugal, but then I think the same about Dickens *shrugs*.

Dickens too wordy?! That ranks with the "too many notes" comment made against Mozart. Mozart and Dickens were both extremely prolific, but I just wish they had both lived longer to give us all more...

[mal4mac]

The high-nosed snobbery against Rand's writing is a ruse to hide the detractor's actual disagreements with her world-view. One reads a review of her work that accuses her of bad writing and then the detractor has something to point at, 'oh oh, that's why I hate her, not because her philosphy implies that I take responsibility for my own actions!'

The Anti-Randian has no faith in his own abilities unless supported by a higher authority.

Ayn Rand did make one mistake and that was in choosing her medium, for the majority of bookish types have always suffered from self-esteem problems and thus retreat behind the legs of philosphers and other name-droppings.

Also on BIOSHOCK, most teenies didn't know what objectivism was until this game came around. The story, by the way, makes only the point that 'objectism doesn't work now blow stuff up'. What can they say, they know their demographic. Did you see how effective that was at dissuading the younger populace? Don't get your philosophy from video games.

Randians declare all the great critics to be snobs and hold up failed bankers to be the greatest critics. They should all read Bleak House to see what failed bankers really are. They suggest that those who dislike Rand to be somehow 'possessed' by these critics, when really they are just agreeing with them. Could it be, rather, that through lack of education and wide reading, the Randians have actually bought into the cult of Rand? A cult that allows them to maintain their rampant selfishness and narrow, comfortable views. Randians usually, as here, can only descend into insults. They lack the ability to actually engage with the arguments produce by good thinkers like Gore Vidal. Notice the total lack of engagement with his *arguments* here, and the descent into pitiful insults.

[IceM]

Randians declare all the great critics to be snobs and hold up failed bankers to be the greatest critics. They should all read Bleak House to see what failed bankers really are. They suggest that those who dislike Rand to be somehow 'possessed' by these critics, when really they are just agreeing with them. Could it be, rather, that through lack of education and wide reading, the Randians have actually bought into the cult of Rand? A cult that allows them to maintain their rampant selfishness and narrow, comfortable views. Randians usually, as here, can only descend into insults. They lack the ability to actually engage with the arguments produce by good thinkers like Gore Vidal. Notice the total lack of engagement with his *arguments* here, and the descent into pitiful insults.

Accepting any philosophy in any form inherently narrows one's views. Don't limit this to the Randians only.

And I kinda agree with the poster who said Dickens was too wordy, but to a rare extent. Mozart, in a few pieces, had too many notes; the song would be of better impact to the audience had some parts that detracted from the piece been removed. Similarly, in some instances, Dickens is too wordy (A Tale of Two Cities has a few of these instances). These moments are seldom though.

[MrRegular]

Randians declare all the great critics to be snobs and hold up failed bankers to be the greatest critics. They should all read Bleak House to see what failed bankers really are. They suggest that those who dislike Rand to be somehow 'possessed' by these critics, when really they are just agreeing with them. Could it be, rather, that through lack of education and wide reading, the Randians have actually bought into the cult of Rand? A cult that allows them to maintain their rampant selfishness and narrow, comfortable views. Randians usually, as here, can only descend into insults. They lack the ability to actually engage with the arguments produce by good thinkers like Gore Vidal. Notice the total lack of engagement with his *arguments* here, and the descent into pitiful insults.

So many words and so little said. I, however, chose to convey meaning with my sentences. It's just a difference in style, I suppose.

It's precisily your kind of non-sensical finger pointing that the utilitarian Randian despises. There is no such thing as a 'great critic', for one, only failed writers. You see everyone wants to contribute to the bee-hive and those who cannot contribute with innovation do so with destruction. These are you and yours of the 'critique elite'. I listen to the opinions of no man whose sole medium is the flesh of another.

And if you are truly in for a pragmatic analysis of the ever-so-safe warm-and-cuddly altruistic way, perhaps you would be well informed to examine what method has caused nature herself to be so successful in the refinement of a superior being on this planet? It was certainly not due to her throwing laurels to the runts and whiners.

Capitalism, in its purist form, is survival of the fittest, a method that keeps all parties on their toes (if they have properly functioning toes [fortunately for you, you don't need properly function toes to type, right?]). It can work if the system isn't constantly bombarded by the maternal teat-draggers whimpering and handicapping the system.

[OrphanPip]

Gah, please don't bring social darwinism and a great misunderstanding of evolutionary theory into this to justify Rand's philosophy.

I don't agree with Mal4mac's use of ad hominems against Rand to discredit her. However, you have shown yourself to be even worse in painting anyone who disagrees with her as having self-esteem problems and apparently incapable of rational thought.

I think Rand is a bad writer, and this isn't because I disagree with her philosophies. For one, I support many aspects of social libertarianism and I'm in no way a believer in God. However, I find that her justifications of deliberate selfish egotism are nonsense. Feel free to google "tragedy of the commons" for just a simple example of why.

I also think Huxley is a terrible writer, and I happen to agree with the ideas he advocates in Brave New World. You can add Orwell and his flat characters from 1984 to the group as well. Works are often read for the strength of the ideas in them, but strong ideas alone don't make for good writing.

[JacobF]

I have only read Anthem, The Virtue of Selfishness, and bits of The Voice of Reason. Rand's commentary on politics and economics is compelling and I agree with most of it, but I find her ethical philosophy to be paper-thin. She never makes a logical link between altruism and lack of self-esteem, yet insists that those who live altruistically are immoral, terrified people. I still don't understand why she disassociated herself so strongly from libertarians when 99% of libertarian and Objectivist political ideas and policies are mutually agreed upon (the 1% difference being foreign policy). Her solution to the is-ought problem is also laughably bad.

But just as bad are the stock criticisms made against her philosophy that are apparent in this thread, such as mal4mac's dated quotation. For some reason it is difficult to have a level discussion about Rand's actual philosophy because of the knee-jerk hostility it invokes. Critics often choose to blindly disparage her statements without proper context or meaning, refer to "Randians" as a "cult" as if that reinforces their arguments, or worse use facts of her personal life in an attempt to invalidate her philosophy.

I will admit her style is alluring, and I will continue to periodically read her works. But I do not subscribe to Objectivism.

[mal4mac]

But just as bad are the stock criticisms made against her philosophy that are apparent in this thread, such as mal4mac's dated quotation.

Dated? You are in a forum which (quite rightly) quotes the criticism of Aristotle as if he were a contemporary, my friend. It's laughable to try and dismiss Gore Vidal because he is 'dated'. Again, another example of Randians using shrill insults rather than engaging with the arguments. To engage with the arguments, of course, would involve them trying to dismiss the non-dogmatic elements of Christ's beatitudes, which have been accepted as central to our humanity by all the truly great writers. To argue against that, and to face it squarely, would be to reveal to themselves how truly monstrous their views are. Because, deep down, they are probably not monsters, they don't want to do that...

[JacobF]

Dated? You are in a forum which (quite rightly) quotes the criticism of Aristotle as if he were a contemporary, my friend. It's laughable to try and dismiss Gore Vidal because he is 'dated'. Again, another example of Randians using shrill insults rather than engaging with the arguments. To engage with the arguments, of course, would involve them trying to dismiss the non-dogmatic elements of Christ's beatitudes, which have been accepted as central to our humanity by all the truly great writers. To argue against that, and to face it squarely, would be to reveal to themselves how truly monstrous their views are. Because, deep down, they are probably not monsters, they don't want to do that...

Um, I merely mentioned it was 'dated' because it basically rests on the argument that Rand's ethics is contrary to Christ's, as if this automatically makes it immoral. But the main reason I dismissed it was for the same reason I dismiss the Objectivists are a cult! nonsense. It's superficial criticism reinforced with everyday platitudes, and pays little attention to what Rand actually wrote. "To reject that Christ [the 'ethical' one] is to embark on dangerous waters indeed. For to justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil."

And if you even read my whole post (it wasn't very long, so I'm not sure why you wouldn't) you would know I'm not a "Randian."

[blazeofglory]

Ayn Rand is a storm in American thought and few writers preceding and following her have been so seminal in the degrees and manners she has been forging and shaping American thought. The gravest blunder she has made is she propped capitalism and all its flaws. Today we know through experiences that unregulated capitalism is shakier than state controlled capitalism. Allen Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve was a a blind follower of Ayn Rand's die-hard capitalism. Today he is proved wrong and so is her long cherished and well commended ideology.

Fictionally she was a good writer and her style greatly bore resemblance to the great Russian tradition that birthed some of the greats in world literature like Gogol, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and the like, Definitely Russian literature is richer in every aspect than that of American and her arrival in America as a representative of all that is Russian is.

[IceM]

Dated? You are in a forum which (quite rightly) quotes the criticism of Aristotle as if he were a contemporary, my friend. It's laughable to try and dismiss Gore Vidal because he is 'dated'. Again, another example of Randians using shrill insults rather than engaging with the arguments. To engage with the arguments, of course, would involve them trying to dismiss the non-dogmatic elements of Christ's beatitudes, which have been accepted as central to our humanity by all the truly great writers. To argue against that, and to face it squarely, would be to reveal to themselves how truly monstrous their views are. Because, deep down, they are probably not monsters, they don't want to do that...

A few thoughts:

I think the poster you quoted meant dated as the perspective it embodies is dated and not the time it was recorded.

On frequent occasions I see you regurgitate a critic's opinion while offering little of your own original thought. Regardless of the intelligence of the critic, a critic's opinion is merely his own; it gains renown solely through the amount of emphasis you place on it. I'm beginning to wonder if you have an opinion. After all, you present a critic's ad hominem attack on Rand and use the same tactics to defend Vidal's quote. Where's your original opinion? I can regurgitate the quotes of other's too; I just prefer to speak for myself.

To the bold: don't you think you're using the same "shrill insult" tactics that you accuse us Randians of? (I must inherently be included because I defended the author, correct). In posting ad hominem attacks you're using the "shrill insults" of people more intelligent than us to say what seems you can't; or to assert what you apparently can't articulate. I fault you not; I'd quote any critic saying the same thing I intended to in attempt to save face and save my respectability. Too bad you commit the same faults YOU accuse US of. 'Tis a shame you fail to see the similarities.

[OrphanPip]

Vidal isn't actually saying Rand's philosophy is bad because it goes against Christ. He's just using Christ as a model of a moral system of selflessness and attacking Rand's ideas of selfishness. Vidal was gay and an agnostic last I checked, not exactly the devout Christian people seem to be taking him for.

[John Lark]

On frequent occasions I see you regurgitate a critic's opinion while offering little of your own original thought. Regardless of the intelligence of the critic, a critic's opinion is merely his own; it gains renown solely through the amount of emphasis you place on it. I'm beginning to wonder if you have an opinion. After all, you present a critic's ad hominem attack on Rand and use the same tactics to defend Vidal's quote. Where's your original opinion? I can regurgitate the quotes of other's too; I just prefer to speak for myself.

To the bold: don't you think you're using the same "shrill insult" tactics that you accuse us Randians of? (I must inherently be included because I defended the author, correct). In posting ad hominem attacks you're using the "shrill insults" of people more intelligent than us to say what seems you can't; or to assert what you apparently can't articulate. I fault you not; I'd quote any critic saying the same thing I intended to in attempt to save face and save my respectability. Too bad you commit the same faults YOU accuse US of. 'Tis a shame you fail to see the similarities.

The problem is simply that: none of your thoughts are original either--or do you honestly believe that you are the first person to ever criticise someone for incessantly quoting authoritative figures?

Montaigne, who I know mal4mac is very fond of, is famous for such an opinion; 'insipid' was his description of such folks.

mal4mac is clearly well read, and is therefore probably aware of numerous thoughts on any given subject, but this doesn't at all necessarily take away from the autonomy that lies in choosing what one agrees with. You seem to regard your opinion as more meritorious simply because you believe you have arrived at it on your own--mal4mac's opinion is also their own, the only difference is: mal4mac is aware of their influence.

Besides, all I know is, I had completely forgotten about Gore Vidal in the past few months, and mal4mac has just reminded me of him, thank you mal4mac (keep doing what you do).


On Ayn Rand:

I find her intriguing, but it's always difficult to revere a person's work when it espouses such a limited (/parochial) perspective (without whimsy).

[Modest Proposal]

I'd like to see more about the literary value of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, too, but most of the posts so far--both those defending Rand and those attacking Rand--have focused on the author's philosophy. Either that, or posters have commented on her prominence, as Modest Proposal did here:




This isn't really a literary defense. Literature has more readers and critics than it does "followers." Cults have followers. Conga lines have followers. Novels have an audience--which is something different entirely. We probably can't say much about Rand as a literary figure from just her political effect.

Quark, if you read my post, I'm directly talking about dFloyd's claim that she has no influence. I wasn't using influence to bolster her literary standing, I was refuting a very specific claim.

[Quark]

I wasn't using influence to bolster her literary standing

No one is claiming that you did. I just pointed out that posters were discussing Rand's political views and influence, rather than talking about her "literary standing." I never said anyone was equating "literary standing" with "influence"--least of all you. I introduced a quotation from one of your posts as an example of someone talking about "influence," rather than "literary standing." Isn't that what you were doing? There's nothing wrong with that, of course. I just wanted to hear more about Rand's novels as literature--seeing as this is the Literature Network and all.


Quark, if you read my post

Funny.

[Modest Proposal]

No one is claiming that you did. I just pointed out that posters were discussing Rand's political views and influence, rather than talking about her "literary standing." I never said anyone was equating "literary standing" with "influence"--least of all you. I introduced a quotation from one of your posts as an example of someone talking about "influence," rather than "literary standing." Isn't that what you were doing? There's nothing wrong with that, of course. I just wanted to hear more about Rand's novels as literature--seeing as this is the Literature Network and all.



Funny.

Sorry if you thought I was being rude but it does seem that you misrepresented my post, as I was merely questioning another persons claim about her influence. My post was primarily concerned with people's violent dislike of Rand coloring their logic. I addressed the poster's point about her having no influence because I thought it was a good example of someone's subjective opinion coloring their perception about something that is more objective (such as a person's popularity/influence in a particular community). Just because I dislike Rush Limbaugh doesn't mean he has no influence.

Again, I'm not equating influence and literary standing, but speaking about a common failure among our literature network community.

[Quark]

Sorry if you thought I was being rude

I honestly have no idea when anyone is being rude on LitNet. We're all writing these posts in between doing so many other things that there's no time to think about tone--hence all the smilies :). Were you being rude?


but it does seem that you misrepresented my post

Oh, c'mon, this has nothing to do with representation. It has to do with the jokey last lines of my first post:


Literature has more readers and critics than it does "followers." Cults have followers. Conga lines have followers. Novels have an audience--which is something different entirely.

You thought I was implying that you didn't understand the difference between these things--that I was taking a jab at you. And, in all fairness, I did leave it far too unclear. Really, though, I'm not saying that. All I was trying to do is highlight the difference between "influence" and "literary standing." I was also trying to nudge the conversation toward a discussion of "literary standing," too, as I'm curious to know what people think of Rand as a novelist. None of this has to do with you or your post. I was just using your post as an example of how the discussion (up to that point) had focused on questions of philosophy and influence.


I was merely questioning another persons claim about her influence.

Yes, you were questioning or refuting someone else. I didn't quote you for your argument, though, I quoted you for your topic (Rand's influence). If you want to know what I thought of your argument, I thought it was good. Yeah, you're right, Rand is an influential author--although she's more of a mascot for the Libertarian movement than its leader now. I thought your post was mostly good--as are a lot your other ones. Hopefully, you'll stick around for a while.


I addressed the poster's point about her having no influence because I thought it was a good example of someone's subjective opinion coloring their perception about something that is more objective

a common failure among our literature network community.

Ouch. Keeping with the theme of fairness, though, LitNetters probably aren't alone in mistaking "subjective opinion" for fact. After all, isn't that the flaw for almost 90% of tragic heroes? Since Oedipus, people have had their perception colored by subjective opinion. At some point, you just have to make do.

[Modest Proposal]

I honestly have no idea when anyone is being rude on LitNet. We're all writing these posts in between doing so many other things that there's no time to think about tone--hence all the smilies :). Were you being rude?



Oh, c'mon, this has nothing to do with representation. It has to do with the jokey last lines of my first post:



You thought I was implying that you didn't understand the difference between these things--that I was taking a jab at you. And, in all fairness, I did leave it far too unclear. Really, though, I'm not saying that. All I was trying to do is highlight the difference between "influence" and "literary standing." I was also trying to nudge the conversation toward a discussion of "literary standing," too, as I'm curious to know what people think of Rand as a novelist. None of this has to do with you or your post. I was just using your post as an example of how the discussion (up to that point) had focused on questions of philosophy and influence.



Yes, you were questioning or refuting someone else. I didn't quote you for your argument, though, I quoted you for your topic (Rand's influence). If you want to know what I thought of your argument, I thought it was good. Yeah, you're right, Rand is an influential author--although she's more of a mascot for the Libertarian movement than its leader now. I thought your post was mostly good--as are a lot your other ones. Hopefully, you'll stick around for a while.




Ouch. Keeping with the theme of fairness, though, LitNetters probably aren't alone in mistaking "subjective opinion" for fact. After all, isn't that the flaw for almost 90% of tragic heroes? Since Oedipus, people have had their perception colored by subjective opinion. At some point, you just have to make do.

Well, I'm glad to have cleared that up... or not completely, as it now seems pretty trivial...

Anyways, I see what you were trying to do and why, and agree that that sort of discussion is probably more suited to the thread and website.

As for my last line, I didn't mean to be insulting as it is certainly an understandable mistake, and I meant to include myself within the scope.