Why do people hate her, /lit/?
>>8024174
Because she us a bad writer and a worse philosopher.
>>8024186
/thread
>>8024186
Yeah but what is it exactly about her philosophy that pisses people off, what is bad about it?
t. Normie
>>8024195
brutish selfish crap
>>8024195
It's the epitome of fedora
>>8024174
She was a bad writer indeed, her novels are quite dry and boring. As for her philosphy, It's entry level and very simple, but everything she said is true.
>>8024195
Read her books. She is demanding that all of society act like John Galt or Howard Roark. There is no space for social safety nets, old age pensions, social medicine for the disabled or elderly, public housing. And her heroes dont act like human beings. They are forces unto themselves.
Her books are interesting for the protagonists (especially Roark) and as a case study regarding a young woman who lost everything to bolshevism, but aside from that her "philosophy" only functions as a moral out for those who do not care about their fellow man as much as the almighty dollar.
Ugly selfish jew hag
I think people hate her because of misogyny.
>>8024332
>a young woman who lost everything to bolshevism
by losing everything to bolshevism you mean she was allowed to study in a soviet university and to move to a first world country where she became a celebrated writer... such a loss indeed
>b-but how can society function when everyone acts like roark ?
She said all MEN should act like that.
>sh-she took welfare! She is a hypocrite!
She said women were shit and she was a woman. No hypocrisy here.
Sadly, she was a victim of sexism from liberals and big government.
>>8024338
Your redundancy is poetic.
>>8024362
>Zinovy Rosenbaum was a successful pharmacist and businessman, eventually owning a pharmacy and the building in which it was located.[13] With a passion for the liberal arts, Rand later said she found school unchallenging and she began writing screenplays at the age of eight and novels at the age of ten.[14] At the prestigious Stoiunina Gymnasium, her closest friend was Vladimir Nabokov's younger sister, Olga. The two girls shared an intense interest in politics and would engage in debates at the Nabokov mansion: while Nabokova defended constitutional monarchy, Rand supported republican ideals.[15] She was twelve at the time of the February Revolution of 1917, during which she favored Alexander Kerensky over Tsar Nicholas II.
>The subsequent October Revolution and the rule of the Bolsheviks under Vladimir Lenin disrupted the life the family had previously enjoyed. Her father’s business was confiscated and the family displaced. They fled to the Crimean Peninsula, which was initially under control of the White Army during the Russian Civil War.
Typical marxist apologist. For all that is wrong with her philosophy, I'd rather live in Galt's world than Lenin's.
>>8024332
Riddle me this anon: Would the world not be a better functioning place if everyone was autistic?
>>8024374
>all women are shit
>victim of sexism
Shoo shoo reactionary. Stop appropriating terms you don't understand!
>>8024332
I guess you skipped over the chapters with Eddie Willers,Mike Donnigan,Catherine Halsey, and Cherryl Taggart in your readings. Also known as three quarters of Atlas Shrugged, and half of The Fountainhead.
>>8026254
The existence of a few side characters that embody the spirit of the novel does not negate the vast majority of mankind that exist, throughout the novel, shuffling around not helping themselves.
>>8024332
>Read her books. She is demanding that all of society act like John Galt or Howard Roark. There is no space for social safety nets, old age pensions, social medicine for the disabled or elderly, public housing.
isn't it what the usa wants anyway? remember how they were so firmly against 'obamacare'
>>8026269
It does negate what you said though:
>She is demanding that all of society act like John Galt or Howard Roark.
The point of these characters is to illustrate that you don't have to be bourgeoisie in order to function in society.
As for the portrayal of the vast majority of mankind that exist in the novel; it's a a dystopian novel, of fucking course the vast majority of people aren't going to aren't going to be presented as functioning.
Do you want her to go through everyone on the planet and give them their own story? I didn't even include the brakeman or the sculptor because they're even more minor than the characters I listed. The implication drawn from these characters and the setting is that there are more like them out there.
Libercuck here. Why is it that a lot of libertarian philosophers are complete garbage? Stefan Molyneux, Ayn Rand, et cetera et cetera. Are there any libertarian philosophers who aren't shit, or should I just pick another ideology?
>>8026455
Robert Nozick.
He's still wrong, but he writes clearly and is not a total moron.
>>8024500
>if everyone is autistic, then no one is
I guess so.
>>8024332
She is demanding that individuals within society try and become like Roark. No one can be like Galt because he's no one.
Only children ask questions that start with why.
>>8026974
Why do you think that?
>>8026974
Is that why Rand said that philosophers never questioned why we should have ethics or needed it?
>>8026363
i dont know what you're trying to argue. it's clear to everyone that the 4 protagonists are the bulk of AS. the "point" of the novel is to make these characters mouthpieces for Rand's ideology. those 4 characters are the only ones that matter. at the end they are the only ones still standing. i mean for god's sake, 3 businesspeople pull off a fucking heist to save the 4th one? it's clear they're some kinda superhuman, and not believable ones either.
>>8024174
Note how all criticism are
>not an argument
I don't get it. She's basically the female version of Ken Follett. Comparable to a PKD.
Atlas Shrugged is filled with perfect and unrealistic characters and one of the main plot-points is literally a machine that defy physics.
>b-but it's fiction so it works
Yeah, but Atlas Shrugged wasn't scif-it, it was and it is supposed to be a fiction based on real life, so ignoring major scientific facts just to justify your philosophical point of view it's a thing i would expect from a fanfiction writer, not the supposed "Greatest female writer of America"
>>8027061
>Greatest female writer of America
one doesn't need much except vagina and the american citizenship to become the greatest female writer of america
>>8027082
Have you not been following politics.
You can be any sex you want, any race, any nationality--whatever!
>>8024174
terrible prose
>>8027192
Dude, go kill yourself.
>>8027018
You really don't know what I'm trying to argue? I thought it was pretty clear.
>She is demanding that all of society act like John Galt or Howard Roark. <----- THIS STATEMENT
is...
bullshit, and nonfactual.
I provided references to characters throughout both novels that were placed there by Rand for the very purpose of making sure people like you wouldn't make rubbish statements like that.
>it's clear to everyone that the 4 protagonists are the bulk of AS. the "point" of the novel is to make these characters mouthpieces for Rand's ideology.
No shit, but that is a far cry away from what you're suggesting, that Rand "demands" that all of society be like them.
Switch over to The Fountainhead where Roark is talking about the Stoddard temple (~Pg. 375); here is a snippet:
>When a man entered this temple, he would feel space molded around him, for him, as if it had waited for his entrance, to be completed. It was a joyous place, with the joy of exaltation that must be quiet. It was a place where one would come to feel sinless and strong, to find the peace of spirit never granted save by one’s own glory.
There was no ornamentation inside, except the graded projections of the walls, and the vast windows. The place was not sealed under vaults, but thrown open to the earth around it, to the trees, the river, the sun—and to the skyline of the city in the distance, the skyscrapers, the shapes of man’s achievement on earth. At the end of the room, facing the entrance, with the city as background, stood the figure of a naked human body
The whole point of the design of the temple is to worship not god, but the spirit of man, and what man is capable of (covered more thoroughly in the chapter). Rand doesn't suggest that everyone be the protagonists in her stories, she suggests to be greater than the protagonists in her books, because the bounds to man's limits are unlimited.
Any rational person would say, hey, wait a minute Ayn, not all people are cut out to do that shit, to test the limits of man's greatness,etc... thus the characters that I referenced, and others very minor characters that I didn't reference. It might help if you actually read these characters that I'm referencing; their story-lines make it clear that they will never be greater than the protagonists, but they still are successful (aside from Taggart's wife) despite that.
>those 4 characters are the only ones that matter. at the end they are the only ones still standing. i mean for god's sake, 3 businesspeople pull off a fucking heist to save the 4th one? it's clear they're some kinda superhuman, and not believable ones either.
What does this have to do with Rand "demanding" everyone be like her protagonists? Now you're just attacking the plot, which is irrelevant to this discussion, and the statement you (or whoever) made. I personally agree, the ending was like something out of a comic book, and I didn't like it, but that's irrelevant.
>>8024374
are you voting for trump?
>>8024174
I personally dislike her highly dogmatic philosophy,
and feel that her talents in writing are wanting.
Though, that's just me.
>>8027211
the guy you're responding to is not the guy from earlier discussion.
also i find it funny that you're treating this author seriously, and reading a whole lot into it. and to prove a point that's trivial at most.
>>8027226
After Azealia Banks announced her support for him, I'm open to considering to idea.
>>8027246
>the guy you're responding to is not the guy from earlier discussion.
How the heck does that happen?
>>8027246
as opposed to not reading a whole lot into it? What does this even mean? That I shouldn't refute an incorrect statement (that claims to encompass two of an author's novels and her ideology as a whole -- you know, trivial stuff) based on the author, and not the work itself? What kind of thinking is that.
>>8024802
Can you even read? That Anon said "SHE" said all women were shit. No where in his post did he say he said women are shit. Also consider the fact that he proposed that she was a woman and her saying that women are shit is hypocritical because she is a woman and she is essentially saying she is shit.
>>8027392
i don't see how it's hypocritical to call yourself shit
it's modesty or self-effacement
>>8027252
this is an anonymous board where people enter and leave conversations at will. check your solipsistic privilege, kid
>>8027749
Is there a commonly asked questions board? I would like to study more about this 4chan community.
>>8024174
Becuase asking people to work really pisses them off. They want other the goverment to take others peoples money and hand it to them.
