There's no catch. She's just a nutter.
There's no catch. She's just a nutter.
I have only read Atlas Shrugged, and that took me months to read both because of its length and its exhausting tendentiousness. As a work of art, Atlas Shrugged is horrible, terrible, but as a statement of a philosophy it does a good job, but that is not really a compliment when that philosophy is totally absurd, and embarrassing if you adhere to it. In my opinion, the philosophy put forward is the unapologetic worship of money and the shunning of any sort of altruism or charity towards others, rationalized by some sort of extremist self-reliance. I am obviously no expert on Rand, but her philosophy seems to me to be one of those philosophies that people like to argue for but find it hard and foreign to actually live.
Originally Posted by Rick Hendricks
Being a theist is hardly an implicit part of becoming pro-capitalist.
As for the works in question, I find her to be hopelessly dull and completely lacking in any form of good narration. I despise her political ideas the most though: being opposed to homosexuality seems at odds with regards to her reasons for being anti-racist.
Last edited by Morrisonhotel; 05-04-2007 at 04:04 PM.
Rand died alone, because her husband died earlier. 5 yr marriage, im doing a report on her.
Since I dont know how to start a new thread Ill just post here. Does anyone think that Howard Roarks could really exist? I mean the guy has absolutely perfect morals that he sticks to. How could society allow someone like him to exist. Thats just disgusting. Could society allow Howard Roark or John Galt whichever you prefer to exist?
And not completely unrelated is this world coming into a new age of cynicism?
I don't completely disagree with Rand's philosophy, but I think that it is rather shallow. For some people her philosophy is excellent, but I wish that she had written novels in which she showed, rather than told, her ideas.
I recommend you read "The Protestant Ethic & The Spirit of Capitalism (Weber)." But that wasn't my point. I was speaking to the inconsistency.
What you are really saying is you despise her political ideas, and thus will not give her credit for being a good writer. Most of her readers find her work replete with good narration, even those who disagree with her politics. "The Fountainhead" became a "bestseller," and a movie, not too shabby for a woman in those times.
I fail to see her considering homosexuality immoral having any relevance to the discussion of whether or not she is a good writer.
All the best,
Rick
Point taken.
My comment referred to the inconsistency she displayed about the USSR. She revolted against all it stood for, and became pro-Capitalist. The USSR was an Atheist state, why didn’t she stand against that?
She also may ignore evidence not suitable to her beliefs.
All the best,
Rick
I have read said work. It doesn't make a difference to my point - being pro-capitalist does not automatically make you religious (regardless of any ethics arguments).
Did you miss the bit about me saying that I thought her narration was awful and that her works were dull? Having read a bit on the academic response to her, it seems apparent that my comments were perfectly justified.
Let me put 'bestseller' in context: Elton John's Candle in the wind is the biggest selling single of all time. Just because something is a bestseller, does not mean that it has artistic integrity - or any points from which a critic can consider it 'good'. Justifying this as a point by saying she is a woman is neither here nor there (Austen, Eliot (she still sold well after it became apparent that she was, in fact, a female), Bronte sisters, Chopin, Shelley, and so forth)
I am, in no way, an advocate for reading literature as a purely mechanical thing - i.e. reading a piece of literature solely as an artistic endeavour. Disavowing her views in relation to her literature seems, well, stupid - would you have such a high opinion of her if she had praised, and practised, Nazi-ism?
What??? Atheism is one shared belief, Just because I dont believe in a God does not mean I should agree on any other subject. There is no necessity for an atheist (or theist) for that matter to subscribe to any particular political belief system just because of their opinions on the existence of a "god" figure.
It is like saying every protestant should support the UVF, and every catholic the IRA.
**Apologies if this infringes on the politics rule, but I have tried to keep it as seperate as possible**
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
she didn't praise and practice Nazism, did she?
As for your other opinions... they are of no interest to me.
So have a jolly day.
I was speaking to her vehement opposition to the USSR. As someone opposed in totality to the USSR, it would seem she would also reject everything that state represented, since it was "all" so horrible. It's not like saying "every Protestant should agree on any other subject." It being a necessity is not mentioned either. She had inconsistencies in her personal life also. Ask Nathanial Brandon.
The point remains valid nonetheless - regardless of whether she was or wasn't. Look at the battering de Man's reputation has taken since it became known that he was a Nazi sympathiser and propagandist.
Of course you have no interest in my opinions because they may well indeed be right.
Last edited by Morrisonhotel; 05-07-2007 at 11:05 AM.
He??? Who is he?
Ayn Rand
"Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent "rights" of gang rulers."
[The Virtue of Selfishness]
No my analogy is relevant.
You are suggesting if you disagree with the USSR, you must also reject atheism.
I am arguing that, if you follow this logic, it is neccessary for protestants to either support the UVF or reject their entire philosophies - including their belief in protestantism.
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
I am not arguing, just stating a flaw in her “human nature,” which had inconsistencies. I am suggesting that since she claimed to reject everything USSR, it's inconsistent to retain the state mandated atheism, which in a free society she has the right to reject. Yet, she had this stance and IMHO was inconsistent regarding theism.
On Rand
"Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him."
My eventual reaction to Ayn Rand is to steer clear of her and her advocates. I find that charasmatic theorists do more damage than good. The Rand quote above is an illustration, possessing a half truth. Capitalism also brings out the worst in man: GREED.
When I read THE FOUNTAINHEAD, I was a young college student, not yet prepared with the wisdom to consider the full range of logic. I was a sucker for Rand's declarations. To continue uncritical belief in her philosophy requires closing your mind. Beware!
So you think demanding the best of every man is wrong?
Did you find Marx any less charismatic? His ten proposed principles:
1-Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2-A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3-Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4-Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5-Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital an exclusive monopoly.
6-Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7-Extension of factories and means of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8-Equal liberty of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9-Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10-Free education for all the children in public schools. Abolition of the children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production,
Communism brings out the worst in man: Stalin slaughtered 20 million people.
Since Rand thought man was a rational being, wouldn't that mean everyone should question everything? Not every Capitalist is driven by greed, and it has led to more innovation than its opposite.
Imagine no possessions (Lennon). Imagine not owning that computer you are using today, or the car you drive. That’s not so perfect either. That’s why I’m glad we have mixed economies. As you say, I find that charismatic theorists do more damage than good.”
All the best,
Rick
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
