Ayn Rand

I am waiting for book seven, but while I wait, I am reading and re-reading Atlas Shrugged. And I wonder: what would Dagny Taggart and Eddie Willars say about the transit system of today? the 'electric' motors of today's subways and tracks? what would Howard Roark say about today's New York skyline, or, for that matter, any city's sky-line? what would Francisco d'Anconia and Ken Danagger say about today's ecnomy? What would they all say to the building of the World Trade Center in New York? About it's disrtuction thirty years later? Would Eddie cry over the Twin Towers as he did over the Taggart Transcontinental?
Do you really beleive that the 'boys in Washington' really consist of nothing but mindless goons? can only people like Wesley Mouch, Dr Ferris, or Elsworth Toohay ever be a politician? do you beleive that people like Hank Rearden would never become political because they don't have 'time' for it? so they would hire 'washington boys' to do that kind of work?
When she wrote her books, do you think that she was really worried about the American economy, or was she just giving an example of the Russian Communist economy in a way that Americans would understand?
Lastly, what would Ayn Rand say to today's world? the great new technology, the veiws of how selfishness is not a crime (ask any psychologist), and the newest fad - Terrorism?

I didn't read your whole post because Atlas Shrugged is the very next book on my self made reading list. I see you had some interesting questions, but I didn't want to spoil it for myself, so I'll come back to discuss it as I go.

atlas shrugged is the most boring book and stupid book I have ever read.

edit - this post is pretty bad too, I must admit. But still.

atlas shrugged is the most boring book and stupid book I have ever read.

edit - this post is pretty bad too, I must admit. But still.

While I don't agree with you, I must say I preferred "Fountainhead." It seems to get to the same point in half the pages. But, as I haven't read either of them in ages, I'm not sure how much I can contribute to the discussion. Sorry, Marty!

My favorite book by Ms. Rand is Anthem

If you haven't read it, you definately should.

I read that, and practically wrote about it in every critical lens essay :D ;). It was interesting book really, I enjoyed reading about it. The ideas in that book were very strong and represented very strongly too!

Anyone here interested in philosophy? I never considered it an important subject. I wonder why Objectivism makes sense to me when I read the books, but doesn't when pple discuss it...

I love Ayn Rand! She's a genius! I'm reading the Fountainhead right now, and I swear, it's the most brilliant thing I've ever read.

At worst Ayn Rand was a truculent, domineering cult-leader, whose Objectivist pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents with heroic fiction about righteous capitalists.

In answer to Ayn Rand (http://www.barbarabranden.com/answer-nathaniel.html) Couple who were once two of Rand's closest associates give their side of the break between them and Rand. Written in response to the article "To Whom It May Concern" in The Objectivist.

Rand isn't someone to take seriously.
The strong should take from the weak, to drive evolution. Civilization is simply adding codes of conduct to savagery. As civilization itself was built only to facilitate conflict. Thus the civilized person goes to war...

But then...a "human being" who is not operating at the conceptual level is not, in the proper sense of the word, conscious, and indeed is not even properly human: by lapsing from the conceptual level, a human being "can turn himself into a subhuman creature."

This to me is crazy talk.

And morality being entirely based on rational self-interest, kinda makes me ill.

Midnightsfire - have you ever read Ayn Rand's books?

I have read three of Ayn Rand's fiction works (Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead, Anthem) and two nonfiction works (The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). My signature should tell you what I think of her works.

Ayn Rand's belief in rational self interest as the basis for morality echoes something written by the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith. In "The Wealth of Nations" (which I have also read) Smith says that when people act in their own self interest they end up benefitting society to a greater extent than if they were making a concerted effort to do so. One example of this is Henry Ford, who wanted to make money selling cars. He knew that the market for high-end cars was saturated, so he decided to make a niche where he could get greater market share by selling cars for the middle class. To do this he had to develop the assembly line system. Not only did Americans benefit by having a convenient new mode of transportation, but Ford's assembly line was applied to other industries, allowing even more products to be made affordable to the middle class.

I would say that the Henry Rearden types would not have any interest in doing the work of the government. If Henry Rearden were in education, he would not be superintendent of public schools. Instead he would develop a chain of low-tuition private schools. Incidentally, that is a business idea I have. It's still in the early conceptual stages.

The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged have been sitting on my to-read shelf since March. I'm dying to read them, but I just don't have the time yet. I got to page 40 in Fountainhead, but had to stop to read for school. It was really good.

Midnightsfire - have you ever read Ayn Rand's books?
I figured my quotes from her would answer that question.
Or did you mean to ask if I've read any of her fiction? Where by she takes her pseudo-philosophy and tries to glorify it by attempting to make it fit some mold only she can see? As I already wrote, she isn't someone that should be taken seriously. ('the most admirable person in the world is the industrialist...?" oy vey...

Ayn Rand's belief in rational self interest as the basis for morality echoes something written by the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith. In "The Wealth of Nations" (which I have also read)

On the contrary, Adam Smith would be horrified by what goes on in his name today.

Neither term, economics nor capitalism were in use during Smith's time.

The feudal corporations that Smith wrote of are very different from today's mega corporations. (Another thing that would horrify Smith, but would fully be cheered upon by Rand.)

Indeed, Smith and Rand have two very different ideas. If I have the time later I can type up the contradictions of the two. But Rand should be taken to task here (it is the topic after all). Not Smith.

Rand's belief in "rational self-interest" is at its core based upon greed and selfishness. (Despite her writing "The Virue of Selfishness" It isn't. But then Rand had always the gajones to attempt to redefine the English langauge so it would mean something nicer than the word truly meant.)

Rand rejected altrusim and said the ultimate morality was indeed selfishness. (If you're in a wheelchair, too bad. Had a serious accident? That's your problem. Plan on starving to death)

Since there are plenty of people gushing about how supposedly good her fiction is, here are some negative reviews:

Review (http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/books/techrev/bkatshrg.rvw)casts a quizzical eye on the absurdities of Atlas Shrugged. Many amusing comments on this bizarre ideological heroic fantasy.

This review (http://www.strangewords.com/archive/ayn.html) is rather harsh of "Atlas Shrugged" that points out the "weird, pathological agendas and bad writing."

What's really wrong with Objectivism (http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/old/people/chris.holt/home.informal/bar/philosophy/objectivism/problems.with.oism) but then any philosophy that claims perception of objective truth is probably in the same place as Scientology.

I'm reading her book The Fountainhead right now for a chance to win a scholarship. I'm enjoying it; I love to hear philosophies and ideas whether I agree with them or not.

I figured my quotes from her would answer that question.
Or did you mean to ask if I've read any of her fiction? Where by she takes her pseudo-philosophy and tries to glorify it by attempting to make it fit some mold only she can see? As I already wrote, she isn't someone that should be taken seriously. ('the most admirable person in the world is the industrialist...?" oy vey...



On the contrary, Adam Smith would be horrified by what goes on in his name today.

Neither term, economics nor capitalism were in use during Smith's time.

The feudal corporations that Smith wrote of are very different from today's mega corporations. (Another thing that would horrify Smith, but would fully be cheered upon by Rand.)

Indeed, Smith and Rand have two very different ideas. If I have the time later I can type up the contradictions of the two. But Rand should be taken to task here (it is the topic after all). Not Smith.

Rand's belief in "rational self-interest" is at its core based upon greed and selfishness. (Despite her writing "The Virue of Selfishness" It isn't. But then Rand had always the gajones to attempt to redefine the English langauge so it would mean something nicer than the word truly meant.)

Rand rejected altrusim and said the ultimate morality was indeed selfishness. (If you're in a wheelchair, too bad. Had a serious accident? That's your problem. Plan on starving to death)

Since there are plenty of people gushing about how supposedly good her fiction is, here are some negative reviews:

Review (http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/books/techrev/bkatshrg.rvw)casts a quizzical eye on the absurdities of Atlas Shrugged. Many amusing comments on this bizarre ideological heroic fantasy.

This review (http://www.strangewords.com/archive/ayn.html) is rather harsh of "Atlas Shrugged" that points out the "weird, pathological agendas and bad writing."

What's really wrong with Objectivism (http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/old/people/chris.holt/home.informal/bar/philosophy/objectivism/problems.with.oism) but then any philosophy that claims perception of objective truth is probably in the same place as Scientology.

I don't focus as much on her views of capitalism as her views of the power of the individual. "Selfishness" in her mind is much better than "selflessness" because selflessness means you don't have a self. If you read The Fountainhead, you see what altruism does to poor Catherine Hasley. It destroys her and she is incredibly unhappy. She also loses her finance Peter Keating, who was pretty much a loser anyway.

In reponse to your idea that only she can see this "mold," I disagree. Many people can see it. I can see it!

Also, about the strong taking from the weak. This is survival of the fittest. It is unfortunate that this is how society is, but it's a fact of life. If everyone and everything were equal, it'd be communist. Communism is exactly what Rand is denouncing. The purpose of life is not to satisfy the masses and live for one's brothers, but to achieve one's own happiness and make use of man's full potential.

I don't focus as much on her views of capitalism as her views of the power of the individual. "Selfishness" in her mind is much better than "selflessness" because selflessness means you don't have a self.
This only confirms her desire to warp the English language. (Calling an apple an orange doesn't make it so. Selflessness (http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=selflessness) is still defined as "The quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Among the highest ideals ever created in human history is that of self-sacrifice, another concept that Rand abhors.)
If you read The Fountainhead, you see what altruism does to poor Catherine Hasley. It destroys her and she is incredibly unhappy. She also loses her finance Peter Keating, who was pretty much a loser anyway.
And that is fiction.
Also, about the strong taking from the weak. This is survival of the fittest. It is unfortunate that this is how society is, but it's a fact of life.
It is the life of an animal. We are human. We should (and most of us are) better than that. (Some animals are even better that. Libertarianism, the political ideology espousing Rand's ideas, once had a membership of 30,000 members in the US. This has dropped in recent years simply because such ideas and Rand's ideology cannot in any way bear scrutiny.)

I truly wish she were still alive. She never got the thorough drubbing she so desperately needed to see where her "only the strong survive" truly belongs; in the Stone Age.

On the contrary, Adam Smith would be horrified by what goes on in his name today.

Neither term, economics nor capitalism were in use during Smith's time.

The feudal corporations that Smith wrote of are very different from today's mega corporations. (Another thing that would horrify Smith, but would fully be cheered upon by Rand.)

Indeed, Smith and Rand have two very different ideas. If I have the time later I can type up the contradictions of the two. But Rand should be taken to task here (it is the topic after all). Not Smith.

Rand's belief in "rational self-interest" is at its core based upon greed and selfishness. (Despite her writing "The Virue of Selfishness" It isn't. But then Rand had always the gajones to attempt to redefine the English langauge so it would mean something nicer than the word truly meant.)

Rand rejected altrusim and said the ultimate morality was indeed selfishness. (If you're in a wheelchair, too bad. Had a serious accident? That's your problem. Plan on starving to death)




Ayn Rand would not be as enthralled with megacorporations as you might think. She would be particularly troubled by real estate developers who use the government's power of eminent domain to get land that they can develop on. In her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" railroad companies are criticized for taking land grants and monopoly rights from the federal government as payment for building a transcontinental railroad. This monopolies are seen as leading to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1889, which affected all monopolies, not just those the government created.

Being in a wheelchair does not prevent a person from being productive; it certain;y did not stop Stephen Hawking.

Ayn Rand did not oppose voluntary charity. In Atlas Shrugged a man talks of a town where the main factory changed how it worked and paid its employees. They said that employees would be worked according to their abilities and paid according to their needs. The man spoke of how before everyone in the town would welcome a new baby and make donations to help the parents out. After the change in policy, they would intentionally break up couples to prevent them from getting married and having children. This is because the parent employed at the factory would get a raise regardless of how productive he was.

Ayn Rand did oppose welfare, which is essentially involuntary charity. The question is should people have the right to refuse to give to charity if they so desire? Ayn Rand would answer yes. An altruist would answer no.

Being in a wheelchair does not prevent a person from being productive; it certain;y did not stop Stephen Hawking.
An exception to the rule does not dismiss the many who are unable to be productive.

Ayn Rand did not oppose voluntary charity.
Ayn Rand did oppose welfare, which is essentially involuntary charity. The question is should people have the right to refuse to give to charity if they so desire? Ayn Rand would answer yes. An altruist would answer no.

Considering how drastic the results would be if Welfare (among other supposed "involuntary charity") were suddenly discontinued and "voluntary charity" made the mandate, reveals just how little Rand understood humanity in general or how greedy it could be and uncaring.

Oh wait, strike that. She encouraged greed and indifference in her philosophy and didn't think anyone should give a damn about the next person.

Bear in mind that only a cursory glance at history should clue anyone in that her ideas would not work, but if they were ever put into place (somehow...implementation would be quite a stretch in the imagination), it would fall into an anarchy that would resemble the old US West.

Hmm...and then there is her idea of the income tax.

This only confirms her desire to warp the English language. (Calling an apple an orange doesn't make it so. Selflessness (http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=selflessness) is still defined as "The quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Among the highest ideals ever created in human history is that of self-sacrifice, another concept that Rand abhors.)

And that is fiction.

It is the life of an animal. We are human. We should (and most of us are) better than that. (Some animals are even better that. Libertarianism, the political ideology espousing Rand's ideas, once had a membership of 30,000 members in the US. This has dropped in recent years simply because such ideas and Rand's ideology cannot in any way bear scrutiny.)

I truly wish she were still alive. She never got the thorough drubbing she so desperately needed to see where her "only the strong survive" truly belongs; in the Stone Age.

That is what philosophy does - it interprets things in new and interesting ways. You can't be so confined to what the dictionary says a word means.
Self-sacrifice? So we should sacrifice ourselves? I think I understand what you are saying, but I don't think Ayn Rand abhors it. She means to say that a human being is an end, not a means to an end, and that we should strive to our highest potential, not not sacrifice our happiness or well-being.

Yes, it is fiction. But I'm not saying that just because that happened in the book, it's automatically true. But I am saying that it makes sense. Catherine Hasley worshipped her uncle Ellsworth Toohey and Toohey told her she must not want anything, ever, in her life. Don't you think that might make someone unhappy, not to want anything or achieve anything or feel anything?

Humans are animals. We are a product of nature. I don't think that is what Ayn Rand is saying anyway - Howard Roark, the ideal man according to Rand, is not out to get anyone. He's simply living life for himself and trying to get by. In fact, he's the one desperately clinging on to what he believes in, in a world that refuses to let him exist. He's not causing anyone to suffer because of his apparent lack of altruism. In fact, it's the opposite.

I hope that made sense. I had a hard time putting it into words.


Ayn Rand did not oppose voluntary charity. In Atlas Shrugged a man talks of a town where the main factory changed how it worked and paid its employees. They said that employees would be worked according to their abilities and paid according to their needs. The man spoke of how before everyone in the town would welcome a new baby and make donations to help the parents out. After the change in policy, they would intentionally break up couples to prevent them from getting married and having children. This is because the parent employed at the factory would get a raise regardless of how productive he was.

Ayn Rand did oppose welfare, which is essentially involuntary charity. The question is should people have the right to refuse to give to charity if they so desire? Ayn Rand would answer yes. An altruist would answer no.

Agreed.

An exception to the rule does not dismiss the many who are unable to be productive.



Considering how drastic the results would be if Welfare (among other supposed "involuntary charity") were suddenly discontinued and "voluntary charity" made the mandate, reveals just how little Rand understood humanity in general or how greedy it could be and uncaring.

Oh wait, strike that. She encouraged greed and indifference in her philosophy and didn't think anyone should give a damn about the next person.

Bear in mind that only a cursory glance at history should clue anyone in that her ideas would not work, but if they were ever put into place (somehow...implementation would be quite a stretch in the imagination), it would fall into an anarchy that would resemble the old US West.

Hmm...and then there is her idea of the income tax.

Ayn Rand would say that a person should not have to give a darn about the next person. If that person wants to care, she wouldn't have a problem with that. She believed that people have the right of refusal. Altruists would say that refusal is not an option.

Ayn Rand is not alone in being against the income tax. Albert Einstein once say, "The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax." Karl Marx listed 10 conditions that were necessary to bring about communism, one of which was a graduated income tax. I support a national retail sales tax, which would actually put me at odds with Ayn Rand. I never said I agreed with her on everything.

just morbid curiosity, ,Midnightsfire, did you read Ayn Rand's fiction works?

Ahh! I just got to the part in The Foutainhead where Peter asks Dominique where her soul is, and Dominique says....
"Where's yours, Peter?"
SOOO good!!!

Ooooo I love that part.. they were such a sad couple! and she was almost able to talk him into redemption... stupid Toohey!

Hmm...I can't say I can empathize with anything Midnightsfire has said thus far.

I was only turned on to Ayn Rand a year or so ago when my boyfriend at the time was reading The Fountainhead for a scholarship. Every discussion we had, political, social, just for fun, usually included some aspects of Ayn Rand and The Fountainhead until I finally got the time over the summer to read the novel. Amazing from start to finish. I started Atlas Shrugged, but only got about 50 pages in when I had to stop for lack of time. I picked up The Fountainhead again so that I can write the essay for the scholarship now. One of the prompts has to do with the courtroom speech about the creator and the second-hander at the end. I think I'll write that one.

I was an editor for our high school yearbook this year and I couldn't help but put an Ayn Rand quote on one of the pages.
"Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone." -Ayn Rand.
I figured it was an appropriate "inspirational" quote to ship the seniors off with.

"Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone." -Ayn Rand.
I figured it was an appropriate "inspirational" quote to ship the seniors off with.

That's a great quote for a yearbook! I'm on the yearbook staff too - I should do that. :p

"Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone." -Ayn Rand.
I figured it was an appropriate "inspirational" quote to ship the seniors off with.

Perhaps you should have used the full quote:

"Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone. Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal virtue. But the creator is the egoist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge, or act. These are functions of the self."
-Ayn Rand-

Rather vile when some thought is given to it. That being the sentiment that "selfishness and greed" are the "ideal virtues."

Perhaps you should have used the full quote:

"Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone. Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal virtue. But the creator is the egoist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge, or act. These are functions of the self."
-Ayn Rand-

Rather vile when some thought is given to it. That being the sentiment that "selfishness and greed" are the "ideal virtues."

But she doesn't mean that selfishness equals greed! She emphasizes that selfishness is having a self, and having a self is thinking, feeling, judging, and acting. I don't find this quote at all vile.
Why would she have used this whole quote when the first few sentences sum it up perfectly and are in essence very similar to the rest?

But she doesn't mean that selfishness equals greed! She emphasizes that selfishness is having a self, and having a self is thinking, feeling, judging, and acting. I don't find this quote at all vile.

Having a self? The the word your reaching for is having consciousness. (Which Rand has refused to use)
Why would she have used this whole quote when the first few sentences sum it up perfectly and are in essence very similar to the rest?
Using only part of a quote is dishonest. (Anyone could quote Hitler and make him sound as if he were a really nice guy). Using the full quote reveals Rand's contempt for the selfless man (i.e. the compassionate man) who in her opinion "does not think, feel, judge, or act.".

For the most part, Rand just tries to use word games to make her "stuff" palatable, when in truth not one society can truly stomach her tripe long enough to even think her dubious ideals would work. (Libertarianism is dropping in the US.)

Rather vile when some thought is given to it. That being the sentiment that "selfishness and greed" are the "ideal virtues."

Perhaps you are confused about what it means to be selfish or altruistic. If you donate to a charity whom you like and you believe does good work, you are actually being selfish because it makes you feel good to help them out.

If you like to eat meat and make a donation to PETA, that would be altruistic.

Perhaps you are confused about what it means to be selfish or altruistic. If you donate to a charity whom you like and you believe does good work, you are actually being selfish because it makes you feel good to help them out. If you like to eat meat and make a donation to PETA, that would be altruistic.

Mere word games

Altuistic (http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=altruistic)
Showing unselfish concern for others. Selfless.

Selfish (http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=selfish)
Concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others.

Mere word games

Altuistic (http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=altruistic)
Showing unselfish concern for others. Selfless.

Selfish (http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=selfish)
Concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others.

But does it really matter what the dictionary says? What matters is what she believes those words to mean. What matters is her philosophy - so what if she changed the meaning of 2 words? It's her philosophy behind those words that's important.

But does it really matter what the dictionary says? What matters is what she believes those words to mean. What matters is her philosophy - so what if she changed the meaning of 2 words? It's her philosophy behind those words that's important.
It will always matter how words are defined. (That's one reason for the English thread)

It's called effective communicattion.

I'm sure there's a topic somewhere...

*nods*

Ayn Rand had the habit of redefining the English language. The above words were an example.

Rather vile when some thought is given to it. That being the sentiment that "selfishness and greed" are the "ideal virtues."

That just makes the quote better, if you ask me.

Midnightsfire: You say it is essential what the dictionary says; its the absolute truth. Well, that's perfectly fine. I'm not about to doubt the hundreds of years put into old Oxford and Webster, and I'm certainly not about to doubt the omniscient dictionary.com. However, the literal meaning of a word is not always the way the word was meant to be read. Having gone through enough English lit classes, I can say that's a fact. Herman Melville, for example, wrote many stories, all of which are insanely boring upon first glance. But after a bit of analytical thought, his true meaning is revealed. Authors have written that way for centuries and will continue to write that way. Ayn Rand broke no rules of English to get her point across. She simply used words commonly known as either a good thing (altruism) or a bad thing (selfishness) and turned them around to mean something else. That's the beauty of her writing! It takes thought and analysis to understand her philosophy.
For the most part, Rand just tries to use word games to make her "stuff" palatable, when in truth not one society can truly stomach her tripe long enough to even think her dubious ideals would work. (Libertarianism is dropping in the US.)
First of all, when you argue, try to leave out insulting words. It makes your argument nothing but propaganda and, thus, null and void. To further prove your point by saying that libertarianism is hitting a steady decline is neither here nor there; another fallacy. You might want to check out the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer") and read some direct quotes by Rand about libertarianism. You'll find she actually abhors the political party.

Using only part of a quote is dishonest. (Anyone could quote Hitler and make him sound as if he were a really nice guy). Using the full quote reveals Rand's contempt for the selfless man (i.e. the compassionate man) who in her opinion "does not think, feel, judge, or act.". There is no point in living if you refuse to think, feel, judge, or act for yourself. In the end, it is truly the individual who is left to decide whether life was worth it, not everyone else the individual lived for...they don't care and certainly don't matter. Rand is not suggesting that man shuts out the rest of the world for selfish intentions. Rand is merely suggesting that man should exist! If you are always living for others, who is living for you? Nobody. If you are always thinking what other people think, who is thinking for you? Nobody. The individual is the only person who can think, feel, judge, and act for the individual. It is those, the altruists, who insist upon living for others, who are no longer thinking. They, as Rand puts it so eloquently in The Fountainhead, (forgive me for the lack of direct quote) have sold their souls, the easiest thing a person can do.

Midnightsfire, I appreciate your opinions. You at least appear to be making an effort to think about the issue for yourself. However, your arguments mean little when you have not actually read her novels. I encourage you to read at least The Fountainhead before you make any concrete decisions about Rand and Objectivism. If you don't, you are no better than those who feel Harry Potter is evil witchcraft simply because Harry does magic. Considering the website you are on, I am going to assume you are not of that opinion.

I found this quote just today. Maybe you like it better?

"Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values." -Ayn Rand

I'm writing an essay on The Fountainhead for the ARI scholarship...I read it 3 years ago, but I've re-read it recently to refresh my memory. While I definitely don't agree with all of Ayn Rand's views, I still find the book very enjoyable. I also have Atlas Shrugged, but I haven't got around to reading it yet.

Midnightsfire, I appreciate your opinions. You at least appear to be making an effort to think about the issue for yourself. However, your arguments mean little when you have not actually read her novels. I encourage you to read at least The Fountainhead before you make any concrete decisions about Rand and Objectivism. If you don't, you are no better than those who feel Harry Potter is evil witchcraft simply because Harry does magic. Considering the website you are on, I am going to assume you are not of that opinion.

Yay!!:tu:

However, the literal meaning of a word is not always the way the word was meant to be read. Having gone through enough English lit classes, I can say that's a fact. Herman Melville, for example, wrote many stories, all of which are insanely boring upon first glance. But after a bit of analytical thought, his true meaning is revealed.
Oh please. Don't try to mix words. It doesn't work when attempting to convey an idea or ideal. It only confuses the issue.
Ayn Rand broke no rules of English to get her point across.
Your opinion that sefishness and greed are virtues is just that, an opinion. Meager attempts to change the definitions doesn't change the facts that she is indeed attempting to rewrite the dictionary.
She simply used words commonly known as either a good thing (altruism) or a bad thing (selfishness) and turned them around to mean something else.
My point precisely.
It takes thought and analysis to understand her philosophy.
It sure does!
First of all, when you argue, try to leave out insulting words.
Insulting? Please it is the truth. There isn't one nation that follows her thinking. (Thank whatever gods for that!)
Rand is not suggesting that man shuts out the rest of the world for selfish intentions.
Apparently you missed out on some of Rand's other sad beliefs.

To repost:

The strong should take from the weak, to drive evolution. Civilization is simply adding codes of conduct to savagery. As civilization itself was built only to facilitate conflict. Thus the civilized person goes to war...

But then...a "human being" who is not operating at the conceptual level is not, in the proper sense of the word, conscious, and indeed is not even properly human: by lapsing from the conceptual level, a human being "can turn himself into a subhuman creature."

This to me is crazy talk.

And morality being entirely based on rational self-interest, kinda makes me ill.

I encourage you to read at least The Fountainhead before you make any concrete decisions about Rand and Objectivism. If you don't, you are no better than those who feel Harry Potter is evil witchcraft simply because Harry does magic. Considering the website you are on, I am going to assume you are not of that opinion.
Your analogy doesn't apply at all. (I speak of her dubious philosophy which I personally find it worthy of contempt. Not some piece of fiction. http://www.kurts-smilies.de/gruebel.gif

My belief that Rand is still a truculent, domineering cult-leader, whose Objectivist pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents with heroic fiction about righteous capitalists will not change.

HmmThe troubled economics of Ayn Rand (http://www.mskousen.com/Books/Articles/0101aynrand.html)

Your analogy doesn't apply at all. (I speak of her dubious philosophy which I personally find it worthy of contempt. Not some piece of fiction. http://www.kurts-smilies.de/gruebel.gif


Of course it applies! Your not reading Ayn Rand's fiction, yet still criticizing it is the same thing as those who believe Harry Potter is evil but haven't read it.

Of course it applies! Your not reading Ayn Rand's fiction, yet still criticizing it is the same thing as those who believe Harry Potter is evil but haven't read it.

No.

JKR isn't attempting in any way to glorify the philosophy behind witchcraft by creating characters that heroically eptomize such in her fictional works. Whereas Rand is attempting to glorify her philosophy by creating characters that do just that in her fiction.

Clearly this argument is lost to those who do not wish to open their minds and continue to prove points with obvious logical fallacies (should I post the dictionary definition of the word and also a broken down analysis on every fallacy you've used thus far? Propaganda will never win when using it with people who understand propaganda when they see it.). Call it a win if that will make you feel better. I see no point in wasting any more of my time.

The only advice I have for you now is GO READ THE BOOKS! Then argue! No one ever said you had to agree! And no one ever said you WILL agree simply by reading the books. We just said that if you want to be considered as a valuable member of the discussion, and you want your opinion heard, you need to know a good understanding of both sides of the argument.

Clearly this argument is lost to those who do not wish to open their minds and continue to prove points with obvious logical fallacies (should I post the dictionary definition of the word and also a broken down analysis on every fallacy you've used thus far?

Spare yourself the effort.

I've read her material on Objectivism. but you seem committed to the idea that anyone who has even read her other books on Objectivism (Not her fiction. Anyone could make heinous ideals sound heroic if written well enough) is close-minded. :err: So I guess it doesn't really matter. Anyone who hasn't read her fiction and not agreed with you is somehow wrong?

I'm far too well-versed with Randian Apologists to fall for the fallacial red herrings and bait and switch tactics that such use.

An intriguing (dare I say "objective") article; The Heirs of Ayn Rand (http://web.archive.org/web/20020124040704/http://www.linguafranca.com/9909/rand.html) :relax:

I've read Rand. I enjoyed the ideology, and the stories were engaging. However, her characters were more caricatures, especially the women- atrocious.

Going through this thread, I must say that I'm itching all over to start reading The Fountainhead which I bought a couple of days ago :D

I've read Rand. I enjoyed the ideology, and the stories were engaging. However, her characters were more caricatures, especially the women- atrocious.

I have to say I agree that the characters were all caricatures. I found it a little hard to believe some of the characters, especially Roark from The Fountainhead.

As much as I'm not one for symbolism, but did anyone find it curious that most of her protagonists had gray eyes? I've looked it up, but never really found anything. Any thoughts?

I've only read Anthem and The Fountainhead as works of Ayn Rand, and I must say the one thing that Rand is excellent at doing is forcing you to think. Her philosophy is a very interesting one that I've been fascinated by since I read Anthem last year.

As I've scanned this thread, I see that Midnightsfire has been crusading fairly consistently that Rand misuses the English language. If she does, then we are all guilty of doing it. Word meanings change over time as we as humans change our ways over time. Rand uses words in her works as she sees them. Her vision of what makes a true altruist is a key part of the philosophy she writes. It's a simple matter of the connotation we consider when using a word, in my opinion.

I think Rand brings up many excellent points in her works. Her glorification of the ego was originally quite confusing to me throughout Anthem, but considering the connotation she associates with the word, it fits. And it fits so well that it is true. We do not do things for the greater good, we do them because they are advantageous to us in some way or another. Either because we think it makes us a better person in society's eyes, or it may return to us through other means.

Rand is certainly a capitalist through and through, but she isn't the type of greedy capitalist we are familiar with today when we use the word negatively. Roark is a particularly perfect example of her portrayal of the ego and how it ties in with a capitalistic society.

I'm not saying that I agree with Rand's philosophy entirely or even in part, but what she writes of the ego isn't false.

The Fountainhead changed my life

The Fountainhead changed my life

In a good way, or bad way?

In a good way, or bad way?

In a very good way. Very gripping tale

I have to say I agree that the characters were all caricatures. I found it a little hard to believe some of the characters, especially Roark from The Fountainhead.

As much as I'm not one for symbolism, but did anyone find it curious that most of her protagonists had gray eyes? I've looked it up, but never really found anything. Any thoughts?

That's interesting. I never really noticed it. I'll have to think about that.

I've read Rand. I enjoyed the ideology, and the stories were engaging. However, her characters were more caricatures, especially the women- atrocious.

I'm more than halfway done with The Fountainhead, and I do agree that some of the characters are just too unreal. I simply loved Roark's character but despite the intricate description of his ideologies, he still seems like a flat character to me. I can't explain why. And Dominique Francon and Catherine Halsey - let's not even go there, especially the former.

oh shucks! I'm sorry I missed this argument!!! goodness, where was I? . (BTW, all of you who stil didn't figure it out, Midnightsfire is a big fan of communism, so go easy on him/her) to Midnightsfire: you might change your mind if you read Atlas Shrugged. besides for just enjoying the story, it might actually teach you something about the author = a woman who has been through the bulshavic Revolution and knows communism first-hand

I'm curious - Midnightsfire, what do you think of the second half of Chapter 11 of part 4 of The Fountainhead? I was just reading it and I'd be interested to hear what you have to say. Ignore the use of the words "selfishness" and "selflessness" and focus on the principles behind what Roark and Wynand are discussing.

Oh good lord. I tried reading Atlas Shrugged, just out of pure curiosity after having read Tobias Wolff's Old School, in which she is depicted as quite absurd though her work easily captivates adolescents. I just wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Honestly, I could barley get through a third of that enormous piece of **** before I wanted to kill myself or at least never read anything again. I don't even care about her philisophy or whatnot-- the book was just BAD and badly written. I just wanted to read a decent novel, not ridiculous preaching. Maybe you have to be a "true follower" of her views to be able to get through it.

Why did you think it was badly written?

I just wanted to read a decent novel, not ridiculous preaching.
Hmm, well, I would have to say all of her books are indeed preaching. And they always preach the same thing.

Maybe it's just my personal preference, but I don't mind books with some kind of message and I don't care if I agree with it or not. But there is something called subtlety that I value in novels with commentary. I would like to be able to read the book and also find some form of enjoyment in it for its plot, characters, creativity, etc. instead of just having an ideology shoved down my throat. And better yet, it'd be nice if the author's personal ideology wasn't so transparent. If the novel's trying to say something, it seems to me that at least part of it should be left up to the reader to decide. I have no problem with a writer trying to lead the reader but I hate to be dragged the whole way.

Maybe it's just my personal preference, but I don't mind books with some kind of message and I don't care if I agree with it or not. But there is something called subtlety that I value in novels with commentary. I would like to be able to read the book and also find some form of enjoyment in it for its plot, characters, creativity, etc. instead of just having an ideology shoved down my throat. And better yet, it'd be nice if the author's personal ideology wasn't so transparent. If the novel's trying to say something, it seems to me that at least part of it should be left up to the reader to decide. I have no problem with a writer trying to lead the reader but I hate to be dragged the whole way.

I guess I see your point here, but I personally enjoyed the way she conveyed the ideology through her plot, characters, etc. I have to admit that the speeches do tend to get "preachy," but still, by that time I feel that it's worth it.

Usually I don't like people that make fun of Ayn Rand, but this video is hilarious: http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=82099&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2Findex.jhtml%3Fml_vid eo%3D82099&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

:cool::pMaybe it's just my personal preference, but I don't mind books with some kind of message and I don't care if I agree with it or not. But there is something called subtlety that I value in novels with commentary. I would like to be able to read the book and also find some form of enjoyment in it for its plot, characters, creativity, etc. instead of just having an ideology shoved down my throat. And better yet, it'd be nice if the author's personal ideology wasn't so transparent. If the novel's trying to say something, it seems to me that at least part of it should be left up to the reader to decide. I have no problem with a writer trying to lead the reader but I hate to be dragged the whole way.

Funny.
long before I even knew about her philosophy, I found the books very entertaining and engaging. the plot was complex and fast-moving. the characters were real and lovable, and the story was very interesting and emotionally satisfying. later, I found out that she meant these books to be phylosophical.

sometimes, her characters would preach, but only after you get to know that particular person, you don't mind "hearing" what they has to say, because it explains where they is coming from, and why they act the way they do.

I think her books, especially fountainhead, are much more entertaining than are 'phylosophical'. reading it didn't feel like being 'dragged' anywhere. on the contrary, I happily sailed through the plot,:drool: eagerly anticipating every chapter

Oh good lord. I tried reading Atlas Shrugged, just out of pure curiosity after having read Tobias Wolff's Old School, in which she is depicted as quite absurd though her work easily captivates adolescents. I just wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Honestly, I could barley get through a third of that enormous piece of **** before I wanted to kill myself or at least never read anything again. I don't even care about her philisophy or whatnot-- the book was just BAD and badly written. I just wanted to read a decent novel, not ridiculous preaching. Maybe you have to be a "true follower" of her views to be able to get through it.

a third of it? what chapter did you stop at? and I don't remember much preaching gin the first few chapters at all. I'm really curious which chhapter you were up to when you stopped.

I'm a little confused as to why this thread is in the nonfiction section, I thought that Ayn Rand writes fiction?

Getting to the point of the thread, I've only ever read one book by Ayn Rand (the Fountainhead), and I don't intend on ever reading another one. When I first read the book, I thought for sure that this must be some sort of parody, because what author would ever try to spread the message that helping other people is wrong and being selfish is moral?

After taking a look at her website, I realized that I was not reading a parody, and that Ayn Rand really does beleive these things. Ayn Rand had better hope that she is never in a position to ever need help from anyone, because she has preached so much against giving.

I'm a little confused as to why this thread is in the nonfiction section, I thought that Ayn Rand writes fiction?
I don't know, but there is a biography called Ayn Rand. :shrug:

Getting to the point of the thread, I've only ever read one book by Ayn Rand (the Fountainhead), and I don't intend on ever reading another one. When I first read the book, I thought for sure that this must be some sort of parody, because what author would ever try to spread the message that helping other people is wrong and being selfish is moral?

After taking a look at her website, I realized that I was not reading a parody, and that Ayn Rand really does beleive these things. Ayn Rand had better hope that she is never in a position to ever need help from anyone, because she has preached so much against giving.
Well, she died in the 80s, but yeah I agree somewhat. On one hand, I like her message that you should never give yourself away, that you shouldn't live to please other people, but on the other hand, I think that she takes it to the extreme. I don't think you should live to just please people and be completely selfless without an identity of your own, but I see nothing wrong with giving to charity either.

Ayn Rand wrote both fiction and non-fiction. The non-fiction counterpart to The Fountainhead is titled The Virtue of Selfishness. The non-fiction counterpart to Atlas Shrugged is Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Ayn Rand actually did not oppose voluntary charity, as is mentioned in Atlas Shrugged. What she opposed was forced charity, also known as welfare.

Donating to a charity that you like and that does things you believe to be worthwhile is completely consistent with acting in your self interest. A person is acting altruistically only if they donate or volunteer for a charity he or she does not like, such as if a person who eats meat makes a donation to PETA.

we had to read anthem from ayn rand and let me say, though it had a good plot, it was so confusing. i actually did like the idea, but it got boring and it put me to sleep. i couldnt get past the whole 2nd person thing

Anthem is not one of her best books, but what she was trying to paint with anthem is the Communist manifesto. this is what the utopia of communism is all about ;)

I've only read one of her books, Anthem. It was extraordinary! I read it my sophmore year of high school, I finished it the day we started. I would really love to read her other works, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. She's awesome though, I actually pick it up every now and then just to read it. It's great! :tu:

Mere word games

Altuistic (http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=altruistic)
Showing unselfish concern for others. Selfless.

Selfish (http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=selfish)
Concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others.

Lets see if we can start this thread again.

I think that different words mean different things to different people. Words have different connotations for people, for example, a 'chair' could mean many different things. Since words have different meaning for people it is acceptable that Rand would use 'selfless' and 'selfish' to mean the things that she wants them to mean.

I first picked up "Atlas Shrugged" about a year ago and was compleatly blown away. Since then I have read "The Fountainhead", "Anthem" and "We the Living" all of which are superb books.

What I find interesting is that today the people in government, and in certain businesses (the big 3 car companies, banks, etc.) seem to be doing things that are very similar to what the looters did in "Atlas Shrugged".

i first read The Fountainhead, great book. then iread Anthem, not as good, but not bad. then iread Atlas Shrugged, automatically making it to the top of my all time favorite books.
i love the characters in Atlas Shrugged that are selfish, basically i love the people who think for themselves. i honestly couldnt stop laughing when Ellis Wyatt destoyed his oil fields:lol:, and especially when Fransisco blew up everything he had:rotfl:. i think thats the first time i have ever felt happy to the point where i thought i might explode. i was running around, i was just to happy to stay still.
i really dont like that some people are trying to denounce her works, she was a brilliant author and i dont think if she ever hit rock bottom she would ask anyone for help, she seems too rooted in her philosophy to fully understand the word "help" and i love her for it. i understand the whole thing about giving to charity isnt all bad, but like she said, if everyone gives a little then they're eventually going to ask for more to the point where they suck everything from you. i think what her main point was that if you could succeed and contribute something because you have a passion for it, then your indirectly contributing to everyone else who can learn from you and apply it in ways unimaginable.

i really dont like that some people are trying to denounce her works, she was a brilliant author and i dont think if she ever hit rock bottom she would ask anyone for help, she seems too rooted in her philosophy to fully understand the word "help" and i love her for it. i understand the whole thing about giving to charity isnt all bad, but like she said, if everyone gives a little then they're eventually going to ask for more to the point where they suck everything from you. i think what her main point was that if you could succeed and contribute something because you have a passion for it, then your indirectly contributing to everyone else who can learn from you and apply it in ways unimaginable.
Some thoughts:
Her works are easy to denounce when there are so many who seem to think such works can actually apply to reality.

It seems the premise of Altas Shrugged relied on the false assumption that the major corporations were all lead by an ultra smart group of people who were irreplacable. In actuality, for every one "captain of industry" there are a whole lot of equally qualified people who would love a chance to move up and take their place.
Rand's fictional world was one of capitalist Supermen. Every company was run by a Henry Ford, and once those people decided to drop out, society completely fell apart. Reality ain't that way.
:relax:

Lets see if we can start this thread again.

I think that different words mean different things to different people. Words have different connotations for people, for example, a 'chair' could mean many different things.

As any linguist would tell you: wrong. Language is dependent on words having an agreed meaning, otherwise they are just meaningless constructions. There may be some variance between connotation and denotation, but there is always an agreed base meaning.

Every company was run by a Henry Ford, and once those people decided to drop out, society completely fell apart. Reality ain't that way.

And one Henry Ford is more than enough.

As any linguist would tell you: wrong. Language is dependent on words having an agreed meaning, otherwise they are just meaningless constructions. There may be some variance between connotation and denotation, but there is always an agreed base meaning.
I think this is a bit of an oversimplification. Different meanings often coexist, and this is evident by the fact that meanings can change over time. Either way, if you look at the language of a given area at a given time, or if you examine the whole of a language over generations, the idea of a "base meaning" doesn't really fit.

I say that only because it implies some sort of prescriptive authority telling people what words mean, while in reality what we call the meaning of a word, as listed in a dictionary, is just a set of descriptions of how people have used it lately. Not only that, but it seems to assume that everyone knows and agrees upon meanings, which clearly isn't the case either.

The real meaning of a word is I think far more abstract than what's in a dictionary, and depends as much on the context (and in speech the phonological properties and environment) as it does on whatever bald definition might be furnished. As such, I would rather say that there is always an agreed set of possible meanings for a word, and one will emerge from the individual judgment of the listener--sometimes unpredictably and incorrectly. But that's how language works.

I think this is a bit of an oversimplification. Different meanings often coexist, and this is evident by the fact that meanings can change over time. Either way, if you look at the language of a given area at a given time, or if you examine the whole of a language over generations, the idea of a "base meaning" doesn't really fit.

I say that only because it implies some sort of prescriptive authority telling people what words mean, while in reality what we call the meaning of a word, as listed in a dictionary, is just a set of descriptions of how people have used it lately.

By agreed or base meaning I meant an understanding between the people involved in a conversation. If a person calls a flying feathered animal a "plate" and those listening know them only as "birds" then the conversation is pointless.

But that is beside the point as the thread is about an author who had a vile toxic philosophy and wasn't much chop as a writer either.

Stop bickering about semantics/linguistic theory - it's off-topic and very tiresome.

Also, please do not bash the author/books - reasoned criticisms are admissible, blanket dismissals are not (especially when couched in inflammatory language)