To preface, I've gone over the book several times; I agree that their anti-social tendencies serve the purpose of the novel, but I feel that the sole purpose of the novel, as a vehicle for objectivist political theory and epistemological/psychological machinations of humanity, was written in far too dull a form to be truly effective.I also disagree with you in that they are compelling characters; In fact, the one word I would use to describe her works as a whole would have to be
shallow (not to sound too rude, but I must be honest).
Essentially what this is going to come down to is personal taste in literature though - so there is no use really constructing an argument over it (even though I have gone a bit overboard and stated my opinion with a bit of depth).
To close the general Ayn Rand argument on my end though:
After several reading of her works and novels, I have found no appealing thought processes that stand out in a unique manner that I feel would be actually beneficial to most people. Certainly many could cherry pick what she says and off of that build a somewhat cohesive system of thought, but on its own it it quite unstable. She over-extends her reach and ultimately sinks her own ship by incorporating every negative experience she has ever had as antithetical to her philosophic principles - as can easily be shown from her blatant ascription of morality to systems where it is not inherent (her whole original reason for glorifying LF capitalism is both denounced the Russian revolution which destroyed her families wealth/prosperity & solidified what she lost as something that was not inherently negative). It's actually from these experiences you can directly see a correlation between her hatred of the lower classes when compared to those of the "titan's and creators of industry" as she so puts it. Unfortunately she had a large chip on her shoulder, and it affected everything she did. The evolution of her philosophy also seems deeply disturbing, especially when you realize what the changes she made to the vernacular actually entails (to clarify, most philosophers have redefined commonly accepted terms into new usages, or created entire lexicons to transmit their ideas; I find Rand's new definitions to be... well, wrong in many regards).
I'm still looking for essay's that she wrote to try to understand her thought processes when it came to philosophy, as it would be interesting to see if she actually "got" Plato or Aristotle (her original duo who opened her eyes). I'm curious because she has also cited Nietzsche as an early influence, and she certainly didn't understand Nietzsche (nor did she understand Kant, but he can at least be labelled as ridiculously difficult for most). I still wonder what would have happened if she decided to eschew her burden and get her act together - unfortunately we'll never know.
I honestly believe those libertarians who
idolize Rand would be much better off disassociating with her philosophy all together. Most come off as maladjusted and ignorant, and those that don't do not ever speak up - essentially the morons have drowned out the sane voices in their ranks. That too is very unfortunate. Take Ozzman for example, I don't recall him ever acting as a pompous, ignorant, self-inflated jackass in this thread when it has come to serious discussions. The same cannot be said of Prismatic Sphere. I highly suggest Ozzman reread Atlas Shrugged, and that he also read her personal philosophical writings to get a better understanding of where she is coming from and what she is thinking while she wrote those novels; if he likes it, even adores it, then fine - that is perfectly acceptable. I would however also suggest he read other works that are the complete opposite of Rand's writing. Hell, off the bat you could recommend anything by Kant or Kierkegaard (really though, Kant should be left for experienced philosophy readers - he is a bit much to handle), Dostoevsky is a great writer to recommend (as is Tolstoy). Hell, read some Camus! For modern philosophers, I highly recommend Rorty, as his focus on empathy is amazing. And of course, one can always recommend Thomas Paine, Locke, and Montaigne and a myriad of others. Hell, I would also recommend the stoics - specifically Epictetus and Aurelius. And for awesomeness, read about Diogenes!
------
This part goes way back:
@Dak: I was going to respond to the market/coercion thing right now, but honestly Cyth has done a fine job. Rather than continue jabbing at you I'll merely state that I disagree about your assessment of the market. You are right on one thing though, it is not an ethereal entity - it is merely a physical one.
As for the retort to my "actions" statement: You giving the man a dollar and then beating him up has absolutely nothing to do with the whole of the situation. Yes, I would say giving him the dollar was a good thing and beating him up was a shitty thing to do. It's not that actions exist in a vacuum, it's that it is entirely possible to judge an action based solely on its individual merits (if they are known). You keep trying to look at a larger picture, to see how everything plays out - that was not what I was talking about. You continuously focus on an entire system that is somehow "totally negative and bassackwards"; I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but that isn't entirely true. Even if I were to admit that the system we work in as a whole was completely fucking wrong and terrible, that still does not mean that such actions are worthless or wrong. For example: the Lakota nation right now is dealing with many terrible problems. These problems range from government coercion, drug abuse and dissemination, malnutrition, and homelessness. Yes, some people may need to go through paperwork trails and play the governments game and deal with taxation and butt-fuckery when licensing property, but in the end when you set up a sustainable section of farmland, or an adobe spherical house that can withstand an 8.0 earthquake, you have to look at the system as a whole and say "yes, the path here was arduous, and terrible in its design - but this result right here was worth it". yes, you treated a symptom and not the cause - but that in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. You can simultaneously work on both the symptoms and the causes you know.
----
@PS:
Would you like to cite those definitions there buddy?
Here, I'll cite an actual definition of altruism that can be looked up all over the world:
Dictionary.com; Merrium-Webster; various encyclopedia's said:
noun
1.
the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism).
2.
Animal Behavior . behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.
Go ahead and respond if you wish, I don't particularly care. It must be said though that you third definition is particularly awful. Good luck believing that drivel.
.
