/lit/ - Literature

>>11793680
Agreed.
College marxists and other humanities pseuds here still can't concisley discuss and argue why here books/objectivism is bad other then "Muh sharing is caring, selfishness bad meaniehead ;_;"

>>11793692
Also to add to this, the crowds I mentioned haven't even completely read Atlas, the fountainhead or even Capitalism: the unknown ideal and the virtue of selfishness.

They just mouth off what their (((professor))) or mates proclaim.

I have only read Atlas Shrugged, but it was a decent book. The ending of Atlas Shrugged was dramatic and exciting, although I think her philosophy is Sam Harris tier.

She makes unsupported or insufficiently supported leaps of logic that cannot stand up to criticism. Rand, herself, when these flaws were pointed out to her, would react emotionally and irrationally, insisting that those who disagreed with her have evil, ulterior motives. Her followers tend to employ similar tactics. Nick Land roasted her once as well.

her books and philosophy are for absolute retards

>>11793763
Nice argument and reasoning.

>>11793680
it's not a crime, i like them too. she would have been a pretty memorable creative writing teacher to have.

true, you might have failed the course and been repeatedly shamed if you didn't write Obectively!!!! and so on but still. it would have been memorable.

>reading women
why NPCs do this?

>>11793704
>They just mouth off what their (((professor))) or mates proclaim.
She is Jewish you absolute retard. You're doing the exact thing you're criticising. Go back to where ever your from.

>>11793692
>College marxists and other humanities pseuds here still can't concisley discuss and argue why here books/objectivism is bad
That's exactly what happens on these threads. People will critique the lumpen prose and 2 dimensional characters, the the Randroids just reply 'well it's meant to be badly written so you need a better reason for not liking it on a literary level'

>>11793968
>2 dimensional characters
Most high artificial high concept novels have non entity characters. Wanting realistic characters is NPC programming. I bet you watch Meryl Streep movies.

>>11793680
I just found them boring. In terms of the philosophy behind her books, I can only say her view of capitalism seems far too idealistic for my tastes.

>>11793736
Such as?

>>11793796
When the woman in question is a once in a century honorary man.

>>11793796
Women is fine. It’s like the people who say keynes is contradictory without saying Hayek was as well: they were both contradictory but it takes a well trained economist/political theorist to see this, as opposed to some bastardized political party leaning retard

>>11796030
Anyway, would love to read a woman who wrote something better than this shitty fiction. Was talking to someone the other day and he mentioned Agatha Christie was good.

>>11796034
Sorry it was Mary Shelly

She's a flash in the pan intellect to be sure. Even she wishes a man had formulated her philosophy before her. She honestly should have been born just after the industrial revolution. But communism probably had to sweep the world first for her genius system to fully strike true.

Sure, except the love parts, she should have kept her feminine mind out of it.

gas yourself degenerate lolberg pseud

>>11793736
This desu. She's also tends to unfairly represent other philosophers. However, The Fountainhead is good and ethical egoism is the correct position.

>>11796125
Die hard Objectivist here. I rolled my eyes over how much of a sexy mary sue she wrote young D'anconia as.

>>11793680
i ironically fuck her books

>>11795269

>>11793791
I was pleasantly surprised by how much the book on how to write nonfiction was helpful. If anything, it does show that she knew the struggles of writing and how to have the right mindset.

Heil Rand! Heil Objectivism!

>>11793680
>>11796020
Ayn is a very handsome woman.

>>11793704
Go live in your own self-made country

>>11793680
I don't like them much. Making leftists butthurt, is the only thing they have going for them.
Ayn Rand was wrong about everything except egoism.
In particular her aesthetics and her bizarre defense of romanticism. In terms of novels, the "dialogue" (often borders on rhetorical declamation) is melodramatic. She doesn't have the talent for metaphor either.

>>11793680
her prosaic posturing is ultimately artificial scarcity

>>11793680
Capital is sentient

>atheism

women's role is to get fucked and raise children not write words, chief shaman must be a male since they are more intelligent

>>11799628
>Ayn Rand was wrong about everything except egoism
Someone, redpill on egoism

>>11799865
read stirner

>>11798207
Heil!

Atlas Sharted

>>11799628
>her bizarre defense of romanticism
I don't care about Rand, but don't be dissing my romanticism now, anon!

>>11799865
read land

>>11793680
I do too desu

>>11793680
she was merely a warped egoist writing to get her personal revenge on the soviets

>>11793680
Read Georges Sorel.

She's considered an absolute joke in academic circles, and not for her politics, but for her utter ineptitude at constructing a philosophically valid argument. The few articles that exist on her work are basically professionals take the piss on her for being an amateur who gets totally basic stuff wrong. Oh, and her prose is shit as well.

>>11793680
Did she ever read a philosophy book?

>>11799865
Read J. S. Mill but realize that a person's good is only their own utility, not utility in general.

I've got to admit, Gult's Gulch was pretty good when I first read that part of Atlas Shrugged. A lot of good imagery.

>>11801673
When it comes to making a cogent argument, is she any worse than Nietzsche or Sartre or any number of other "great" philosophers?

>>11793680
It's like if Stirner was a smoothbrained woman who couldn't understand Hegel.

>>11801673
> her utter ineptitude at constructing a philosophically valid argument
I find it extremely funny how often marxists repeat this to slander the woman when I can guarantee they've never actually examined Objectivism from first principles and so on, how she interpretted the Greeks (as most philosophers seem to have done).

I would like to see, in their own words, her critics on /lit/ actually "make an argument", so to speak.

>>11801818
>onions face

>>11801831
Which philosopher spanked you?

>>11801831
Feel free to start making a counter-argument anytime.

>>11801818
I've read Atlas Shrugged in its entirety. It's retarded. Bitch can't even get Aristotle righ, and to make prescriptive arguments from logical principles is a no-starter.

>>11801868
> Atlas Shrugged is Objectivism
You what mate? You're judging a philosophy off of a fictional work based on it? What kind of literary denizen of this filipino finger painting forum are you?

>>11793680
Fountainhead discussions always confuse me. It is my understanding that the protagonist of the book refuses to conform to sloppy standards for wealth and fame and the antagonist is a Laissez-faire capitalist that gets people killed. Several people have told me thats what happens in the book. How does this translate to objectivism being in support of being selfishness?

>>11801901
sorry I'm tried, to rephrase, how does a book where the antagonist is a shamless capitalist support a philosophy that is supposedly anti maxrist?

>>11801895
That's the best defence you can come up with?

It's well known that objectivism was first fleshed out in AS, and that all the later efforts towards a more cogent argument are just ex post fact rationalizations of that which was blatantly and hilariously irrational. If anything, the book serves as historical evidence if how much of a non-genius Rand actually was, despite all the later maneuverings to cover up her shortcomings.

>>11801929
Stupid auto-correct. "Ex post facto" and "...evidence of".

>>11801929
> It's well known
No it's not. You're just making shit up for thinking you can attack a fiction novel and call it an argument against a philosophy. Try making an argument next time and address the actual philosophy if you actually know anything about it.

I don't need to defend objectivism because you all fall flat on your face trying to slander it by making it clear everytime that you've all never engaged with the ideas, even something simple like first principles and epistemology.

Lazy, low energy. What's more pathetic is that you're being vague, lazy and low energy on an anonymous image board of all places. Are you that insecure? You spanked you bro, did you defoo them?

>>11801975

Bla bla bla.

Did the theoretical works come before or after the fiction? Right.

Why would Rand start out by writing something stupid and incoherent, if she was secretly smarter all along? What kind of ideal character is it who can not even string together the most basic logical reasoning? Pathetic.

>>11793680
>I unironically love her books.

I unironically am so sorry.

>>11793680
She’s an absolute garbage writer and a complete dogmatist. Her novels are basically dogmatic allegories against socialism.

No interesting theoretical insights. No genuine humanity in her characters. C-tier mystery novel plots. C-tier style.

The only reasons she hasn’t been completely swept into obscurity are:

1) she is an effective propagandist for capitalism, especially for contrarian high school students who like dying on the hill of non-biodegradable trash that is contemporary capitalism while “owning” their underpaid English teachers. The capitalists will never let one of their most passionate bootlickers die.

2) she ensured her enduring relevance by setting up a system whereby all the profits from her books go into what is essentially a perpetual advertising campaign for her books. There are tons of scholarships available to young adults willing to write essays effusively praising and justifying her works, and if I’m not mistaken, these profits also fund a journal and a university department predicated on “studying” (that is, regurgitating and dogmatically defending) her “philosophy”.

>>11802011
> stupid and incoherent
It's a fictional story, with characters, doing shit, portraying the human experience as fictional stories do. It's not a philosophy paper that outlines first principles and leads through the steps of the philosophy and train of logic and so on. To try and treat it like it is, is just lazy.

Are you going to bring an argument against Objectivism at any point in this thread or are you just another one of "those guys"? Those spanked children with a correspondingly lower IQ because of the spanking?

I'm being honest here, you guys need to start making some arguments against her philosophy because all this looks like is whingeing. Kids whinge, not scholars

>>11793704
Read Atlas, Fountainhead, Anthem, and Capitalism, used to be a member of the Rand society. I'm over that shit. Anyone that unironically likes Rand either doesn't associate themselves with other objectivists (and therefore doesn't realize how demoralizing the belief actually is, even on the personal level) or is mentally ill to the point of accepting the sort of social nihilism Rand seems to emit. Foh

>>11802107
You not getting the point/pretending not to get point does not change facts. I would think that someone with your sympathies would realize that. But no matter. I've said my piece. I'll gladly restate it: You cannot make prescriptive statements from logical principles. That's not how shit works. But that is exactly the core of Rands argument, the misuse of Aristotle's law of identity. And she did that whole routine a million times outside of AS; on tv, in print, wherever. She was simply a mediocre mind making grandiose statements about stuff she knew little about. That is all.

>>11801805

Of course she is. Nietzsche and Sartre were philosophically literate. They chose to write their stuff in an unstructured way because they weren't aiming at building systems, whereas Rand tried and failed.

>>11793680
BUT YOU ARE, GLADYS, YOU ARE IN THAT CHAIR!!

>>11793680
You're a simpleton. Hang yourself.

>>11802987
You're right, she failed at not building an unstructured system :^)

>>11801904
>>11801901
Did you even read the book?
The antagonist isn't a shameless capitalist.
There are three main antagonist: a selfless egotist that ruins other people to obtain success without thinking or achieving anything, a collectivist that desires power by destroying people's standards and praising people for being self-sacrificing, and a Nietzschean character that wants power to rule.
The book has nothing to do with capitalism itself. If anything, the main character spends a large portion penniless, has to work menial jobs to support himself all in service for his art and passion.
You're randomly mixing Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

>>11802182
>You cannot make prescriptive statements from logical principles.
Sure you can, so long as they are logically consistent and have no contradiction.

>>11802146
Could you expand on the problems omitted regarding social nihilism? While I have sympathizes for Ayn Rand, I would never consider myself an objectivist nor follow or know any objectivist.