• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Ayn Rand

W

words

New Member
okay. I have been learning about objectivism for quite a while. The thing is... I find it contradicts itself even more than it is redundant. that is one of my views and another is: I find ayn rand has okay storyplots and it is very easy to relate to her and become a fan of her works. that is my other point of view

and also:
All I see on internet forums are "I love ayn rand and will attack anyone who doesn't agree" people and "I'll attack ayn rand personally because of her views."people. so try to stay open minded :)
 
I've only read Atlas Shrugged, so I'm no expert. I agree with her on some things, but the book has not inspired me to want to read more. I liked it when she was telling the story, but at other times I felt she was going on and on. I also found myself wondering if Dagny Taggart is such a genius, why hasn't she figured this out yet?
 
i'm into my second listen of _the fountainhead_ that i bought during audible.com's "10 bucks for everything" sale. second listen because:
1. it's better than the other audiobook i bought - Time Traveller's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger
2. i need something to listen to in the car, and don't have the money to buy more. :)

my opinion is she paints her characters on either extremes with little or even no shades of gray in between - this seems intentional so that she can get her message
across. however, it seems to make the characters a little - i dunno - flat? cardboard cut out? i don't believe anyone in real life's gonna behave like Keating - living his whole life without a clue to what's happening, or share Dominique's motivation for doing what she did (twice!). Most incredibly, that Roark even allows it to happen!

i don't know about _atlas shrugged_, but in _the fountainhead_ she attacks collectivism and how it stifles our creative capacity, but looking at the world around us it doesn't seem to me to be so relevant anymore.

or does it?

ds
 
words said:
okay. I have been learning about objectivism for quite a while. The thing is... I find it contradicts itself even more than it is redundant.
Click to expand...

This is true of most people's theories using objective thoughts. Yet, subjectivism is in itself self-contradictary. There will be problems with almost any current way of thinking, otherwise we'd all have everything already figured out.
 
yes I agree, practically every religion, belief, etc contradicts itself at a point. but I find it amazingly annoying when Ayn Rand says that no man should force their beliefs on another, yet in every single book there is an advertisement for objectivism. I know she's dead and the ads probably started after she died but still, she spent all of her life spreading "objectivism" with books so filled with her philosophy the characters are paper thin. isn't that a little odd? Ayn Rand got rich off of her books and became famous. so she had to of had been spreading her books or belief. otherwise no one would know who she is.

Also, i find Ayn Rand talks above the reader. her characters are always these gods who are blonde and has a goal and are so determined to acheive it. her characters and philosophy are overrated in my opinion.
 
Objectivism states that there is a right and wrong, not that we necessarily know it or should force it upon others. These two ideas can easily coexist without contradicting one another.

Her argument on ethical egoism is quite intriguing even though I believe it fails in the end.
 
True@1stLight said:
Objectivism states that there is a right and wrong,....
Click to expand...


question: if there is a right and wrong, then in a sense, it invovles a certain standarization which i am wondering, how could be objectiv-ism?

I think I should remain quiet in front of those things that i do not know at all.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by standardization. Perhaps the vocabulary of being objective, and the philosophical term objectivism are being mixed up.

Objectivism is the belief that external of the human mind and will are pre-existing facts/knowledge.

Being objective is to see something without influence or prejudice.

The latter seems to be what you are speaking of, when the word objectivism was used.
 
Read Tobias Wolff's novel Old School, which has a fine demolition of Rand (she appears as a character in the novel).
 
I enjoyed Ayn Rand when I was 16 or so. I guess I then put it in the same mental place as Zen and Art of MM or Siddhartha or On the Road--stimulating and different.

As an adult, I don't like her books at all and I think her so-called philosophy is not very well thought out in terms of the world's harsh realities, which is most ironic, as one of her mainstays is that there is an objective reality.

Her books don't hold up because her characters are all in the service of her message, which is pretty tiresome. They are emblematic, not fully realized.

Also, I think the morality she espouses, one based on self-interest, is the most twisted notion of morality I"ve ever heard. One of the most obvious facts out there in "objective reality" is that some people have more stuff than others, some are healthier, and some are naturallly gifted, all through no actions of their own but through sheer luck, being born in a place and time and circumstances that allowed for their good fortune.

Where do the naturally disadvantaged fit into her limited scheme? Or is Objectivism only for the Western folks who can afford higher education and medical care and decent food? She is completely oblivious to history, in which the most successful societies have been those that provided for the citizenry at large, including the less fortunate, not those who based their laws on unrelenting capitalist principles.

And that's just one problem with her thinking.
 
yes i agree, my class (9th grade) is reading rand and a lot of the students are in love with this woman. I believe that they agree and find her philosophy possible because they are mainly middle class to rich kids. They believe that it is okay to fend for themselves while others are suffering. objectivism is the exact opposite of collectivism but seems just as bleak and has the same "you help me I screw you" mentality.
 
Anyone a big fan of hers? I first read her works in college and I really enjoyed them. The Ayn Rand Institute does have an impressive website and I had a student who last year entered their writing contest. I absolutely loved reading The Fountainhead and I believe it to be her best work. I also have her Philosophy, who needs it? book and have slogged through Atlas Shrugged, though it hasn't held my attention as much as The Fountainhead does. In teaching, I do try to balance her with the likes of Upton Sinclair or even Emile Zola. :D


Thoughts? :cool:
 
I wouldn't call myself a fan. My mother was and that's how I came by a couple of her books and read them when I was 13 or 14. One, obviously, was the Fountainhead and at the time Howard became a role model for me. I had read We the Living beforehand. I haven't seen it mentioned by anyone.
 
I'm somewhat ambivalent towards Ayn Rand. I disagree with a lot of what she puts forth with her Objectivism Philosophy but I respect what she did with her life and her ongoing struggle to get people to open their minds and think more for themselves.

I've only read one lengthy essay she wrote which makes up her first non-fiction novel titled For the New Intellectual. Eventually I will get into reading her praised stuff but it's a ways down on my pile. If you're interested in reading some of my opinions on her essay, I wrote a brief article on it on my website at http://www.darvell.ca/Reading/Nonfiction/RandIntellectual.htm.
 
I have read only one book of hers - 'The Fountainhead'. I liked the book a lot.

I am not particuarly impressed by her writing style, but I love the way she gets into her characters' skin. The way I picturise it is -- she dissects all her characters for us to see.

The characters are so strong in that book - be it the arrogant Howard Roark, woman who knows what she wants Dominique, street smart (yet stupid) Kevin (is that the name) and of course Ellsworth Toohey! I don't remember the name of one more important character (business tycoon)!

Romantic Manifesto is sitting on my shelf, waiting for me to pick it up :)
 
i have only read Anthem by her and cant say that i totally enjoy her.

i mean i agree with her to a certain point but then it just seems her philosophy goes awry.

not bad.
 
I read Atlas Shrugged and disliked it. I think that she basically used the thin guise of writing fiction to get up on her soapbox and write 700+ pages about her socio-economic and political ideas. I didn't like the story or characters very much, and I thought she could have said the same stuff in less than half the time, and probably should have.

In other words, I started reading it wanting a good story, but instead got a superconcentrated dose of politics and economics, with lots of rephrasing and rehashing of the same ideas over and over and over again.
 
I agree with KristoCat. I came to the same conclusion after less than 100 pages and bailed out because I thought the book was pretty poor.
 
capitalism is not the salvation of humanity, you know

the only thing she ever wrote of any value was "anthem' and that is because it is allegorical story about individuality and written at a sort of "young adult" level, so flaws can be overlooked, and it remains vague enough in the definition of self and group..whenever she dips into specificity she becomes not just wrong, but horridly blaringly wrong..her attacks on volunteerism and altruism are just ridiculous, really, her hatred of nietsche is absurd, her politics are just this edge of fascist most of the time, and particularly creepy in practice ( for example, her gleeful help with the mccarthy blacklist) she is naiive, foolish propaganda for children, and her misreading of philosphy is laughable.

Ayn Rand is for teenagers. All romantic notions of capitalism creating a natural meritocracy through lassiez faire markets vanishes when one is working in the real world, or sees some suffering or a bit of the world living in servitude to a corporation or an international marketing agreement,nafta shanty towns are the real fruits of unrestricted business, not utopian collectives
 
I read Atlas Shrugged and disliked it. I think that she basically used the thin guise of writing fiction to get up on her soapbox and write 700+ pages about her socio-economic and political ideas.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, at the same time, there are so many writers who are of the opposite side of the political spectrum, that it gets very tiring. Emile Zola, Upton Sinclair.......blah..blah...blah...blah. It's worthwhile, but totally overdone on the pro-socialism side. It's even more humorous since that viewpoint has for the most part, been discredited.

I didn't like the story or characters very much,
Click to expand...

I agree to an extent, they do appear to be somewhat mechanistic, cold, and distant to any kind of warmth-hence their great position in capitalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top