Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged (Movie)

King of Nothing said:
The Fountainhead is the worst book I've ever read, and the worst book ever written. Ayn Rand should be posthumously given two death sentences, one for being an evil monster, and another for being the worst writer in all of history. This is a survival of the fittest world, and we've decided to select her out.
Click to expand...

How can one pick between The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.<rhetorical question> They were both execrable.
 
Bfgrn said:
Rand claimed to have created herself with the help of no one, even though she was the lifelong beneficiary of social democratic largesse. She got a college education thanks to the Russian Revolution, which opened universities to women and Jews and, once the Bolsheviks had seized power, made tuition free.
Click to expand...


This review was on Salon. Says it all for me.

"I think Ayn Rand's "philosophy" appeals to young people, who generally have great egos, and who think that they are special and heroic in a mediocre world.

Living until middle age or beyond usually puts that to rest for good. Objectivism is a worldview that starts and ends with the self, which is why I think it's a dead end."
 
christiefan915 said:
This review was on Salon. Says it all for me.

"I think Ayn Rand's "philosophy" appeals to young people, who generally have great egos, and who think that they are special and heroic in a mediocre world.

Living until middle age or beyond usually puts that to rest for good. Objectivism is a worldview that starts and ends with the self, which is why I think it's a dead end."
Click to expand...

While we're on the youth train for a moment, let's examine my youth for a moment. I'll begin with 14, when I first started following politics.

14-18: My perspective was mediocre self in a giant, salvagable world. I was humble pie, and held to a more optimistic view of the world. I didn't really have my own view of politics yet, and just parroted what others said.

18-20: Sense of self crushed. I had always been mellow, laid-back, and minimalist in my personal outlook, but my sense of ultimate failure broke through the last straw, and I was disapointed. My political views began to alter and become more refined.

20-24: I began to lose my faith in humanity. While I cared a great deal about my limitations and direction in life, I see a world with people of varying degree of tallant, much of it surpassing mine, but they just aren't trying. They act stupid and over-emotional, are willfully manipulated, have no sense of propriety or restraint, and don't seem to value character. If they value anything at all, its ruthless ideology and fantasy.


Essentially, as I get older, I become more like the youth you characterize to trash Rand and her novels. 10 years ago I would have wanted nothing to do with them. I find your criticisms lacking in actual content and are merely insipid name-calling and mischaracterizations.
 
King of Reason said:
While we're on the youth train for a moment, let's examine my youth for a moment. I'll begin with 14, when I first started following politics.

14-18: My perspective was mediocre self in a giant, salvagable world. I was humble pie, and held to a more optimistic view of the world. I didn't really have my own view of politics yet, and just parroted what others said.

18-20: Sense of self crushed. I had always been mellow, laid-back, and minimalist in my personal outlook, but my sense of ultimate failure broke through the last straw, and I was disapointed. My political views began to alter and become more refined.

20-24: I began to lose my faith in humanity. While I cared a great deal about my limitations and direction in life, I see a world with people of varying degree of tallant, much of it surpassing mine, but they just aren't trying. They act stupid and over-emotional, are willfully manipulated, have no sense of propriety or restraint, and don't seem to value character. If they value anything at all, its ruthless ideology and fantasy.


Essentially, as I get older, I become more like the youth you characterize to trash Rand and her novels. 10 years ago I would have wanted nothing to do with them. I find your criticisms lacking in actual content and are merely insipid name-calling and mischaracterizations.
Click to expand...

I didn't show an interest in politics until I was in my 20s. I read Rand's books when I was in my early 20s. Honestly, although the writing itself was horrible I bought into her ideas for awhile because they fitted into my "question authority" mindset. But as time went on and I became more aware of the world at large and less fixated on myself, I began to see her theories as selfish and simplistic. I don't believe you can reduce any philosophy or political stance to a series of elementary bullet points because the world's a complex place and people can't be pigeonholed.

When you say that from ages 20-24 you began to lose faith in humanity, that's exactly how I was. So I'm not trying to insult you but I don't think I mischaracterized Rand's ideas. She herself was a bitter, unlikeable woman and her moral standards weren't exactly stellar. I find her theories repressive and unfeeling, and she doesn't present as somebody who's empathetic and in tune with human nature. I don't see Objectivism as uplifting and life-sustaining.
 
Rand held herself to no expectation of exemplary personal morals, as she viewed that as seconadary in her system. I could never be an Objectivist, but I obviously share some of her sentiments. Rand was on record as being hostile to many libertarian thinkers of her time, which shows how out there she could really get. As for the writing, I've only read a few chapters of her so far, and found it all-right.

If you want attrocious political writing, try reading through Upton Sinclair's The Jungle: Monumental in influence, yet attrocious in experience.
 
christiefan915 said:
I didn't show an interest in politics until I was in my 20s. I read Rand's books when I was in my early 20s. Honestly, although the writing itself was horrible I bought into her ideas for awhile because they fitted into my "question authority" mindset. But as time went on and I became more aware of the world at large and less fixated on myself, I began to see her theories as selfish and simplistic. I don't believe you can reduce any philosophy or political stance to a series of elementary bullet points because the world's a complex place and people can't be pigeonholed.

When you say that from ages 20-24 you began to lose faith in humanity, that's exactly how I was. So I'm not trying to insult you but I don't think I mischaracterized Rand's ideas. She herself was a bitter, unlikeable woman and her moral standards weren't exactly stellar. I find her theories repressive and unfeeling, and she doesn't present as somebody who's empathetic and in tune with human nature. I don't see Objectivism as uplifting and life-sustaining.
Click to expand...

I also found the writing to be horrible and I almost fell asleep reading the darn thing.

What a great critique! I would love to see some of your professional writings! You go girl!
 
King of Reason said:
Rand held herself to no expectation of exemplary personal morals, as she viewed that as seconadary in her system. I could never be an Objectivist, but I obviously share some of her sentiments. Rand was on record as being hostile to many libertarian thinkers of her time, which shows how out there she could really get. As for the writing, I've only read a few chapters of her so far, and found it all-right.

If you want attrocious political writing, try reading through Upton Sinclair's The Jungle: Monumental in influence, yet attrocious in experience.
Click to expand...

I never finished it, that is what I thought of it and told my teacher that I wanted to write a paper on another book. She let me!
 
I see nothing wrong with "unfeelingness" in ideology, as support for liberty is what really counts, but there is certainly nothing "repressive" about such an ideology.
 
King of Reason said:
While we're on the youth train for a moment, let's examine my youth for a moment. I'll begin with 14, when I first started following politics.

14-18: My perspective was mediocre self in a giant, salvagable world. I was humble pie, and held to a more optimistic view of the world. I didn't really have my own view of politics yet, and just parroted what others said.

18-20: Sense of self crushed. I had always been mellow, laid-back, and minimalist in my personal outlook, but my sense of ultimate failure broke through the last straw, and I was disapointed. My political views began to alter and become more refined.

20-24: I began to lose my faith in humanity. While I cared a great deal about my limitations and direction in life, I see a world with people of varying degree of tallant, much of it surpassing mine, but they just aren't trying. They act stupid and over-emotional, are willfully manipulated, have no sense of propriety or restraint, and don't seem to value character. If they value anything at all, its ruthless ideology and fantasy.


Essentially, as I get older, I become more like the youth you characterize to trash Rand and her novels. 10 years ago I would have wanted nothing to do with them. I find your criticisms lacking in actual content and are merely insipid name-calling and mischaracterizations.
Click to expand...

I was in Junior High, I started early, too, I went door to door and handed out political information on Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon crushed me when the news of Watergate broke. It is when I decided I wasn't going to be a member of any party!
 
King of Reason said:
I see nothing wrong with "unfeelingness" in ideology, as support for liberty is what really counts, but there is certainly nothing "repressive" about such an ideology.
Click to expand...

Hon, to be a good leader you have to have "feelings", otherwise you will repress people. It is a fact in life, look at the people who do not feel, they are monsters.
 
King of Reason said:
Rand held herself to no expectation of exemplary personal morals, as she viewed that as seconadary in her system. I could never be an Objectivist, but I obviously share some of her sentiments. Rand was on record as being hostile to many libertarian thinkers of her time, which shows how out there she could really get. As for the writing, I've only read a few chapters of her so far, and found it all-right.

If you want attrocious political writing, try reading through Upton Sinclair's The Jungle: Monumental in influence, yet attrocious in experience.
Click to expand...

Or George Snuffalupagus... God that was one dry tome full of boring.
 
Rana said:
Hon, to be a good leader you have to have "feelings", otherwise you will repress people. It is a fact in life, look at the people who do not feel, they are monsters.
Click to expand...

Take a look at our first three presidents. In their day, they were classically educated, and saw virtue in the Roman man's statuesque appearance. Washington did his best to always hide his true feelings, and to appear rational and polite. He was the superior leader and President. My hero, John Adams, was rare, in that he had no problem displaying emotions, yet this often led to embarrassing situations, and he ultimately destroyed his presidency by acting emotionally to the harsh, polarizing rhetoric going on around him. His feelings were less pronounced when he was in an academic environment, developing his ideas about how America and the colonies/states should be governed. Finally, Jefferson was an excellent 1st term president, who was much like Washington in how he disguised himself in writing and in politics. He could not hold out as well in public, where he was uncomfortable and affraid, and so he was only able to remain practical and in-command during his first term, before tanking like Adams during his second.
 
King of Reason said:
Rand held herself to no expectation of exemplary personal morals, as she viewed that as seconadary in her system. I could never be an Objectivist, but I obviously share some of her sentiments. Rand was on record as being hostile to many libertarian thinkers of her time, which shows how out there she could really get. As for the writing, I've only read a few chapters of her so far, and found it all-right.

If you want attrocious political writing, try reading through Upton Sinclair's The Jungle: Monumental in influence, yet attrocious in experience.
Click to expand...

I read The Jungle but it was long ago and I hardly remember it.
 
King of Reason said:
I see nothing wrong with "unfeelingness" in ideology, as support for liberty is what really counts, but there is certainly nothing "repressive" about such an ideology.
Click to expand...

I believe as a nation we have to work for the common good, note, that doesn't mean socialism or communism!

We're a nation, not a collection of city-states.
 
Last edited:
King of Reason said:
Take a look at our first three presidents. In their day, they were classically educated, and saw virtue in the Roman man's statuesque appearance. Washington did his best to always hide his true feelings, and to appear rational and polite. He was the superior leader and President. My hero, John Adams, was rare, in that he had no problem displaying emotions, yet this often led to embarrassing situations, and he ultimately destroyed his presidency by acting emotionally to the harsh, polarizing rhetoric going on around him. His feelings were less pronounced when he was in an academic environment, developing his ideas about how America and the colonies/states should be governed. Finally, Jefferson was an excellent 1st term president, who was much like Washington in how he disguised himself in writing and in politics. He could not hold out as well in public, where he was uncomfortable and affraid, and so he was only able to remain practical and in-command during his first term, before tanking like Adams during his second.
Click to expand...

LOL! 3D I know we disagree on politics but I love when you go off on these tangents about the founders, as if you were personally acquainted with them!
 
christiefan915 said:
I believe as a nation we have to work for the common good, note, that doesn't mean socialism or communism!

We're a nation, not a collection of city-states.
Click to expand...

We simply disagree on what the common good is. I do not believe that the "common good" is measured by how much money we have to give to people in "need".
 
Rana said:
Hon, to be a good leader you have to have "feelings", otherwise you will repress people. It is a fact in life, look at the people who do not feel, they are monsters.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Emotion in ruling makes you more likely to oppress people. It is only through the lens of apathy that true impartiality and liberty is possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top