Fuck Ayn Rand

[Godslayer Jillian]

I wanted to make a thread about her after I read The Fountainhead, but after reading this link
http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/...ndHazards.html
I said fuck it, I hate the cunt and wanna know if there's people that actually think she's good in this site. I'm gonna kick your ass!

It made me feel better that it seems most academia does not take Rand seriously. Neither philosophers nor English lits, as Ayn Rand is devoid of philosophic or literate value.
It seems that her fame only came through word-of-mouth and her approval mostly comes from angsty teenagers using an aggrandized vision of the ego v. the world as a defense mechanism for their perfectly natural sense of alienation. That and the egotistical capitalist that earns much more than he's worth every here and there.

I've read Atlas Shrugged, just in case anyone was wondering how I can speak against her when I said I haven't read Fountainhead. I didn't finish it. I read This Is John Galt Speaking, vomited a little, realized that the previous thousand pages were a loose plot that built up to the thirty page lecture on objectivism and realized the final 150 pages are worthless as she already expounded on her point.

I still want to meet a legitimate objectivist, though. I know several Rand fans, but like usual, despite my hatred towards her, I'm overall more knowledgeable about their idol than them, kinda like when I talk with Christians.
Which reminds me, if anyone here considers themselves a fan of Rand, but has only read The Fountainhead, you might consider not putting her on a pedestal until yuo read her other works. You will find out quickly that the gilded appeal of "you're special, you should never compromise yourself even if that means going against the world" is rendered bullshit by Rand herself when she declares herself the absolute prophet of the 'undeniable truths of the universe' (like laissez fair capitalism pwns all in virtue) and that only she is right and absolutely right.
I'm not fucking shitting you. She herself said her philosophy was fully self-consisting and that there's nothing missing or that can be added.
Just like the fucking religions she hates so much. Take her and be saved, or go to hell (only a metaphorical hell in her dogma)

Anyway, going back to meeting a real objectivist, I want to because I want to see when he explains to me the logic of her philosophy, how different it will sound from this:
Dude - "Ok, you agree that A=A, right?"
Me - "That sounds like a reasonable premise"
Dude - "So you can see that there's some things in life that just are"
Me - "Bold statement, but ok"
Dude - "Because the universe is as it is despite what we believe"
Me - "Well that makes sense, believing the sun revolved around the earth didn't make it true"
Dude - "Right!"
Me - "So what's next"
Dude - "Well, one of the objective truths is that we can only percieve the universe beginning with our own persona"
Me - "But if you begin with yourself, you can only be certain in relativistic terms"
Dude - "What? No. It's not. It's objective because it's undeniable"
Me - "Mhm"
Dude - "So we ought to be guided by reason because the world is not relative"
Me - "We should be reasonable alright"
Dude - "And our sole purpose in life as we only exist departing from our self is the betterment of this self"
Me - "I agree mostly with that"
Dude - "Our rational self-interest is our driving force"
Me - "Yeah"
Dude - "So we should never be chained down by others who would demand sacrifice"
Me - "Wait, what?"
Dude - "That's why absolute laissez faire capitalism is the only virtuous of all possible worlds"
Me - "Now hold on a minute..."
Dude - "Laissez faire capitalism protects the strong from the weak"
Me - "How the fuck does that work?"
Dude - "Capitalism gives an objective value to each person by weighing them on the concrete ruler of virtue that is money"
Me - "So the rich are thousands of times better than the poor?"
Dude - "Of course! If the poor cannot feed themselves it is because their lives are not productive and therefore wasteful"
Me - "How the fuck can you deem them wasteful for their circumstances rather than their ambitions?! That's even fucking contradicting your premises of human value!"
Dude - "Don't tell me you're a commie"

Of course, it's a situation I created to belittle the objectivist, but seriously, that argument was created out of the objectivist premises and paraphrased quotes from Ayn Rand (e.g. "Money is the barometer of a society's virtue.")



And on the flipside, we have the literate value of her novels, which were not accepted by many editorials, heavily critiqued by most legitimate voices, and only became famous through the word of mouth I previously mentioned.

Of course this is an exaggerated remark, but notice that there is some merit if I were to say Ayn Rand is the Stephanie Meyer of the literate.
Not only are the books awful and only becoming bestsellers because someone tells you "dude you have to read it", but both also make one of the biggest faux pas in literature: their characters are Mary Sues.
Ayn Rand wrote two huge ass books of fiction (referring to Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead) to depict her philosophy of Objectivism in a real life scenario. Or so she says.
Real life my ass!
Look at the protagonists of Atlas Shrugged! All come from wealthy families, all were already in a position of obscene opulence which does not give much credibility to their constant claiming that their money is hard earned. All are beautiful even though they're fucking forty or fifty years old. Francisco fucking discovered algebra on his own when he was eleven and successfully made a pulley system from branches, for fuck's sake.
Meanwhile the antagonists are all idiots. They come up with precisely the worst possible bureaucratic fuck-up and pat themselves on the back. The surreality of such governmental stupidity is so big not even I would slander the government by saying they might be capable of being that idiotic someday. All of the countries in the world except good ol' patriotic united states, have their economies ruined after they nationalized all their industries.
How did they manage to ruin the world's economy without ruining the States' by becoming socialist or some shit? Beats me. Let's ignore the fact that the nationalization of such commodities as oil (case in point my own country) and land reforms tend to benefit both the common workers and the country's GDP. And let's not forget that however the hell all countries went to financial hell, their situation is perpetuated by a handsome blond new age pirate called Ragnar Danneskjöld who destroys and/or hijacks ships with relief aid and throws away the supplies because they were gifts rather than negotiations. This is Ayn Rand's god damned hero.
And though I haven't read the Fountainhead, I know its premise. A petty kid that was expelled from school for being too fucking special. No wonder all teenagers that read this book have wet dreams about Howard Roark. It's almost sickening that she would make a character so unrealistically designed to appeal to confused younglings in such an unrealistically cruel setting that her philosophy seems like the only way out.

So basically, you really can relate with Objectivism, if your life is marked by a perpetual friction with the rest of the world, a privileged position in society that most people that aren't as smart as you would think you have it made but they can't see just how oppressed you are because their mere existence limits you, and a superhuman ability of being perfect in anything you do.

Ayn Rand has created an atheist dogma based around arbitrary assumptions, egotistic false ideals, an obvious ignorance of psychology (which you can see if you read the link on the beginning), biology, and basic human interaction and interdependence; she tells people to fight their felt alienation with further alienation; her false assumptions have led her to believe exploitation is virtue; and you can't even fucking question her or you're not really a fan.

Objectivism's main belief is that there are undeniable truths in the universe. And I mean moral and epistemological truths; not physical laws like nuclear force. And Rand is the prophet of this revelation of metaphysical absolutes.
Just like any other religion. Except this one is right!

She's a disgrace of a 'philosopher'
Bitch never even read Kant.

[Cen0bite]

What about Anthem?

[Drake Dun]

It's funny you would say that. I've been dying to have a conversation with one myself. I've read a little of Rand's non-fiction, and parts are quite good. I loved the term "militant uncertainty". And her adumbration with "Atilla" and the "witch doctor" is apt, if artless. Force and fraud, Shelley would have said. Your two basic formulas for enslaving people.

Her fiction is purile, from what I've seen.

Anyway, I just can't see how one can go from unobjectionable premises like the law of identity, the law of non-exculsion, etc., to objective morality, politics, and even aesthetics. I've tried to read some breakdowns of the argument, but every time I do it looks like they're completely skipping over all the most important steps. Still, there's something pretty special about an atheist NRM. With a female demagogue, no less. And not the fluffy kind you see heading up newage groups, but a proper megalomaniac, right down to the sexuality. Very high marks for originality. Definitely one of my favorite cults.

That reminds me of some hysterical shit on YouTube about Kant. Here's an Objectivist defending Rand's claim that Kant was the most evil human being ever to live and explaining why every death in the 20th century was directly his fault:

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=3G-6IrN7pEs

That guy is your perfect Objectivist. Notice the uncanny tenseness, the painfully deliberate intellectualism, and most importantly, the way he never, ever smiles. If you see a genuine, warm smile on a guy's face you know he isn't an Objectivist. :P

Someone taking the piss on Rand's pathological hatred for Kant (I time stamped it to skip the boring parts):

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=XGtf7qQBSXE#t=2m30s

...and a Kant attack ad:

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=7M-cmNdiFuI

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Her fiction is purile, from what I've seen.

Small wonder young people rave about Rand. Puerile writers lay "snares to trap the innocent" as Dr. Samuel Johnson wrote:

"These books are written chiefly to the young, the ignorant, and the idle, to whom they serve as lectures of conduct, and introduction into life. They are the entertainment of minds unfurnished with ideas, and therefore easily susceptible of impressions; not fixed by principles, and therefore easily following the current of fancy; not informed by experience, and consequently open to every false suggestion and partial account."

(Dr. Samuel Johnson, from The Rambler issue published Saturday, March 31, 1750)

[mindless1]

Whatever man, I haven't read Ane Rynd.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by mindless1

Whatever man, I haven't read Ane Rynd.

Nor the posts either obviously.

[exacerbatedpoet]

Ok, I ready for the flames I'm going to receive. I am one of the those young teenagers you talk about (actually I'm an old teenager, but a teenger nonetheless). Anyway, I like Ayn Rand. I don't claim to be an expert because I've only read Anthem, We the Living, and most of The Fountainhead. Although I love Ayn Rand, I am in no way an Objectivist. I feel its too extreme. That being said I still enjoy her novels. Maybe its because I do feel a lot of what we do as individuals is to better ourselves either spiritually, mentally or physically. Also, I enjoy this idea of having a vision or a purpose and struggling to obtain it.

[Godslayer Jillian]

But that struggle does not, and should never, pit you against the world, dismissing your relationships as demanding sacrifice, and alienating the rest of the world as an obstacle rather than an opportunity.

[exacerbatedpoet]

For the most part I agree with you, which is why I'm not an Objectivist but I disagree that it should never pit you against the world. If a person believes that the only way to obtain their goal is to pit themselves against the world then who are we to say that their fight is one that doesn't deserve to be fought. We all have the right to obtain happiness. Now I personally believe that there is no goal that is worth alienating the world for or that their is even a goal in which it is necessary to alienate the world but as scary as it seems, most things are subjective. If they believe it is necessary then it is necessary and they will act on that principal. Now even though I don't agree with this idea of alienation of society as the means to whatever goal you have, I think there is something to be said about someone whose focus is to better themselves.

[Godslayer Jillian]

The "what if" is not a very strong argument.
Ayn Rand said "it is the only way"
If it is only a sporadic occasion where Ayn Rand's suggestions/teachings work, then she was wrong all along.

In any case, any person that believes their only way of self improvement comes through antagonizing the world, is deluded.

[exacerbatedpoet]

Once I agree with what you say. If any takes the works of Ayn Rand and thinks that they can directly apply the concept to their lives then I personally don't think they will be happy. I mean from what I read, I don't her characters were all that happy. Fulfilled maybe, but I don't know if they were radiating happiness. But if someone read Ayn Rand's works and took from them the idea that one can have a vision and struggle to better themselves, then I think her works are worth reading. You don't have to fight the world or agree with everything she writes in order to get this concept.

[Godslayer Jillian]

That's the reason I'm still going to read The Fountainhead at some point.
However the concept of ego is not even remotely her monopolized field. Reading her becomes only slightly above reading a sophomoric story created by someone trying to major in philosophy as her final project.

There's better philosopher-politicians that deal with the nature of the ego and its social and philosophical implications like Max Stirner.

[Despanan]

I don't have time to read all of this atm, but I'm going to hazard a guess that Jillian has a bug up his ass because so many radical libertarians/anarchists attribute their political ideals to Rand, and she said that she dispises them and they corrupted her ideology.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Guess again. That was downright sad.

[Despanan]

I don't think it was so far out of the realm of possibility.

Anarchists frequently cite Rand as their inspiration.

Rand doesn't like anarchists, and has said so publicly.

You are an anarchist.

I put two and two together.

[Godslayer Jillian]

What anarchists have cited Rand as an inspiration?

And how does that justify it? You seem to have no actual political identity save for whatever I say at the moment which you have to antagonize.
The few petty things you have said that aren't made as a retaliation to something I said, it turns out those opinions seem to agree with mine (case in point, the bullshit you said first about Obama were dully contradicted later by your further claims about Obama which were a mere repetition of my opinion)
So rather than thinking there's a reason for this thread, you believe I have unbasedly complained against the next thing that annoyed me.
You, my friend, are a bigoted idiot. You're just waiting to see if you can beat me in something, and you will seize any opportunity before even knowing what the fuck you're talking about, kinda like Pinstripes.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

(Lotza angry words)

Umm...Excuse me?

I just jumped into the thread, didn't have time to read it (as I said) and made a guess based upon my experience, and you flew off the handle. I just happened to type what I thought the second I saw the title because I had just realized I had to run off to work.

You clearly had pages and pages of rand criticism, I just made my suspicions known as to the initial cause of the outburst. I never said anything about your criticism being baseless.

(For the record, I've known two or three people (one IRL, and two on the web) that claim to be anarchists and base their worldview on Rand, but this is immaterial.)

As for my own political identity, it should be pretty obvious: I'm a moderate liberal. You are a radical liberal. Sometimes when I see you say something looney, I will tell you why I think it's looney. I have no overarching agenda against you, if anything I think I've gone out of my way to avoid antagonizing you on certain subjects from time to time because, I kinda like you and I can see you're passionate about them.

So now you think I'm somehow trying to "beat" you? How, pray tell, am I supposed to even DO that? (not to mention why would I want to?)

Shall we duel at dawn with pistols or swords? Shall our words clash like titans across the realms of cyberspace till the very internet quakes with our battle? Shall the prize be JCC's adoration or Underwear's underwear?

It's ridiculous. This is a gothic forum. The opinions expressed here have no effect on the outside world. No one in the real world will care if I "totally pwnt this guy in the politics forum!" and frankly I doubt too many people here would bat an eye either.

Quit acting so goddamn paranoid.

P.S.
To clarify: You claim that I contradicted myself on the Obama issue. I never did (nor would that make any difference with regard to this discussion). I was merely responding to two separate liberal extremes. One claimed that the election of Obama had virtually no effect, and the other claimed that now that Obama was president the world was saved. Both views were and are wrong.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I just jumped into the thread, didn't have time to read it (as I said) and made a guess based upon my experience

Your experience is one of mere antagonism even if you one day would expose the same ideas. Hardly a reliable guess.

(For the record, I've known two or three people (one IRL, and two on the web) that claim to be anarchists and base their worldview on Rand, but this is immaterial.)

Anarchism and capitalism are irreconcilable - anarchocapitalism is a lie. So who should I blame? Your 'anarchists' for being too stupid to call themselves anarchist, or you for the same?

You are a radical liberal.

I am not a liberal. I understand now why you think they're anarchist. Words have no concrete definition to you, only the applied common use. That is in itself not wrong, so just remember this, I'm no liberal and your friends are no anarchists.

Sometimes when I see you say something looney, I will tell you why I think it's looney.

Such as the perfectly reasonable, if not entirely based opinions of:
Obama is honestly not going to do anything at all.
Freeganism is a lifestyle by definition.
The military strategy of Israel is targeting specifically civilians.

You claim that I contradicted myself on the Obama issue. I never did (nor would that make any difference with regard to this discussion).

Let's go back to that:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I voted for Obama; I prefer him to McCain for practical reasons.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

All the hopes that have been attributed to his victory are making us complacent. Rather than trying to actively solve problems that directly affect us, most of us will passively wait with a big smile on our faces for the new Democrat office to co-opts the grassroots spirit while the world stays the same.

Originally Posted by Despanan

You know Jillian, you can be a real wet blanket sometimes.

Originally Posted by Despanan

We're liberals, we're compassionate, we're young, we're angry, we're ready, so why do I see so many passionate young people smoking weed and being "lifestylists"? I see so much talk about taking down corporations and no action. Mainly they just say: "YAY! we got OBAMA IN! WE WON!" and go back to toking.

Have you even read the post of the thread, or do you still have no time to read, only to respond?

[Drake Dun]

Jillian is an anarcho-syndicalist, if I remember correctly. Definitely a classical anarchist or an anarchist with strong roots in classical anarchism, anyway. Anarchism is a grab bag, as you might guess, but the type of anarchist who cites Ayn Rand as an inspiration is distinctly atypical. Those guys have their own little camp, where they fly the flag of "anarcho-capitalism". Their historical roots are totally independant from the roots of what's normally called anarchism, and it shows. The two groups spend a lot of time accusing each other of not being "real" anarchists.

The mainstream of anarchist thought is overtly hostile to Rand's philosophy. Meanwhile, Objectivists look down on mainstream anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, Libertarians, your second cousin in Alabama, and kittens.

Anyway, the long and the short on the personal level is that Jillian's animus toward Rand is without doubt genuine. Not some weird jilted lover kind of thing.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

I did not read this thread so I am going to assume you talk about not letting zebra's on your lawn.

Whats with that dude? Zebra's are just minding their own business eating grass.

What a intolerant person you are.

[HumanePain]

Jillian doesn't have a problem with zebras eating grass, he has a problem with a sign Rand put up on the lawn saying "African water buffalo" in front of the zebras.

[Drake Dun]

That's only because he's a reality evader (Objectivese for "suppressive person").

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Despanan

so many radical libertarians/anarchists attribute their political ideals to Rand

Originally Posted by Despanan

(For the record, I've known two or three people (one IRL, and two on the web) that claim to be anarchists and base their worldview on Rand,

Hahahahaha!

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I am not a liberal. I understand now why you think they're anarchist. Words have no concrete definition to you, only the applied common use. That is in itself not wrong, so just remember this, I'm no liberal and your friends are no anarchists.

This is somewhat true. Language is arbitrary but I won't completely rule out that certain words have certain accepted meanings. However, from the way I understand it Anarcho-capitalism and Anarcho-communism are both under the blanket term of Anarchy (ie: no compulsory government).

When I said "liberal" I meant it in the sense of "Leftist" not "American Democrat" ie:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology

So referring to you as a "radical liberal" wouldn't be too off-base. Still if you prefer me not to use the term I can certainly refrain.

I'd rather not continue old arguments, but:
-Obviously I disagree with you about the significance of Obama.
-My objection to Freeganism was that it was a stupid lifestyle. Not that it wasn't a lifestyle at all.
-I don't recall ever contradicting you about the Israeli military's strategy. My point has always been that the PLO, Hamas, and the like are just as much at fault and the whole area needs to calm the fuck down.

Cherry-Picking my responses and removing the context is only useful if you want to purposefully deceive the readers of this thread. I expect better of you. As I've stated, my "Wet-Blanket" comment was in response to your claim that the election of Obama did nothing. My anti-complacency post was part of a segway in a larger argument against the "leftists" who's political action amounted to being "lifestylers". You should know this, as I have already said this once or twice.

Now, if you want me to respond to your criticism of Rand, I will in a later post, I'm on my way out now and this clarification was all I had time for. Just promise me that you won't throw another hissy-fit and accuse me of having some sort of anti-Jillian agenda. I disagree with you on a number of fundamental levels, but it's not like I'm "Arching" you. I assure you I am not "The Monarch" and you are clearly not "Dr. Venture".

[Godslayer Jillian]

Cherry picking? I removed the one block of rhetoric in your post that was the assumptions of me rather than the actual claims of me. That's not cherry picking.

And let's not go back into a huge fight about semantics just because you choose to use your semantics over the ones used in the specific thing we're arguing (again, kinda like Pinstripes)
Anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism are not on the same blanket. At all.
Would you say the IRA and the Republicans fall into the blanket of Republicanism?