Didn't want to foul up the other thread, so...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ayn rand is a stupid fucking bitch.

If you're going to say that, explain why you think so.

I believe Pk is a former marxist. All marxists have a corrosive hatred for Rand. He just hasn't grown out of it yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I believe Pk is a former marxist. All marxists have a corrosive hatred for Rand. He just hasn't grown out of it yet.

Fuck off.

k, just thought I'd explain..since pk doesn't bring up his radical origins often. Rand's philosophy is the polar opposite of communism/collectivism...so you can't expect much love among lefties.

as posted in the other thread. even the radical liberals agree with me

quote:

Several prominent critics of the movement, including Murray Rothbard (who helped define modern libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism),[118] Jeff Walker,[119] and Michael Shermer (libertarian and founder of the The Skeptics Society),[120] view Objectivism as a cult, arguing that it exhibited typical cult traits, including slavish adherence to unprovable doctrines and extreme adulation of the founder.

wiki

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt k, just thought I'd explain..since pk doesn't bring up his radical origins often.

And you would be greatly in error if you thought that marxism, in any way, defined my "origins".

To answer your question domesticated, ayn rand is as utopian as the socialists. Her ideas would spell absolute disaster for the populace, if being beneficial for the business class, at least for a while. Her notions that society can be stripped of all collectivist initiatives and deconstructed to such an extent to make every basis of law equate to individualism just doesn't relate too well to the reality of modern political states.

She's like any other extremist; a slavish attraction to ideology over historical evidence or demonstrable realities.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN To answer your question domesticated, ayn rand is as utopian as the socialists. Her ideas would spell absolute disaster for the populace, if being beneficial for the business class, at least for a while. Her notions that society can be stripped of all collectivist initiatives and deconstructed to such an extent to make every basis of law equate to individualism just doesn't relate too well to the reality of modern political states. She's like any other extremist; a slavish attraction to ideology over historical evidence or demonstrable realities.

Thank you; that's better. Just so you know, I don't actually agree with a great deal of her philosophy. I agree with you; society could never function properly under a laissez-faire system. I just think she's a really good writer.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Thank you; that's better. Just so you know, I don't actually agree with a great deal of her philosophy. I agree with you; society could never function properly under a laissez-faire system. I just think she's a really good writer.

yeah, i never thought you did. you're far too pragmatic and realistic for that! capitalizt on the other hand wants to sodomise her corpse with affection.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN if rand was anything of note she would have played an influential role in 20th century academia. she didn't. she's only famous for being a cuckoo.

True she wasn't very influential in "academia" since very few classes are taught on objectivism, however she certainly had an influence on the minds of her readers. Atlas Shrugged is 50 frakkin years old still sells 200,000 copies a year. It's #2 AND #5 on Amazon's best seller list currently: http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestseller..._1?ie=UTF8&pg=1

I also believe a study was done in the 90s that found it was the second most influential book of all time right behind the bible. People who worship her every word may be considered "cultists"..but I don't think that describes the majority of her fans. You can always take valuable things from someone's philosophy while ignoring the wackier aspects. Being an absolute purist makes no sense.

Last edited by Capitalizt on May-14-2009 at 13:56

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt True she wasn't very influential in "academia" since very few classes are taught on objectivism,

irrelevant. i didn't have to take a class on marxism to come across marx's influence in literature.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt however she certainly had an influence on the minds of her readers.

big deal.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I also believe a study was done in the 90s that found it was the second most influential book of all time right behind the bible.

maybe in the US of A, but the rest of the world = no chance in hell.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt You can always take valuable things from someone's philosophy while ignoring the wackier aspects. Being an absolute purist makes no sense.

there are innumerable writers of the libertarian bent that are far more interesting than anything rand ever penned; many writing hundreds of years before she lived.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN there are innumerable writers of the libertarian bent that are far more interesting than anything rand ever penned; many writing hundreds of years before she lived.

So you think don't think her philosophical ideas, characters or plotlines are interesting or intelligent in any way?

I read a bunch of Ayn Rand in one of my Uni classes, forgot almost all of it

___________________
I love grapes

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated So you think don't think her philosophical ideas, characters or plotlines are interesting or intelligent in any way?

man, i couldn't even tell you what ive read by her. its been at least a decade. im pretty sure i only ever read her non-fiction work though.

___________________