Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand was a writer whose philosophical novels made famous her distaste for government and the poor.
Just The Facts
- Wrote several stories including The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
- According to her theory of "objectivism," you are a drain upon society if you use public healthcare/unemployment insurance/roads.
- Ms. Rand agreed with Catherine MacKinnon's statement that "All sex is rape," but that's a good thing. Somehow.
Ayn Rand's Books
The works of Ayn Rand include Atlas Shrugged, a popular novel on the evils of government regulations; The Fountainhead, the story of rebellious architect Howard Roark struggling to maintain his integrity; and Anthem, which I didn't read because you only need the first two to be trendy.
The Fountainhead was a breathtaking, cliche-defying, rape-justifying read. Roark, its hero, chooses to fight in obscurity rather than sell out on his creative vision of how buildings ought to be designed. Also, he blows up a building because he's a genius and he can do whatever he wants. Sure, at 700 pages it was a little long, but at least it wasn't 700 pages describing cancer metastasis and tort law, like A Civil Action.
This book is like Lord of the Rings, but about Leukemia.
Atlas Shrugged follows Dagny Taggart, railroad heiress/author self insertion, on her quest to have sex with ("get raped by") a series of increasingly powerful men. Also, there's a minor subplot about the economy collapsing because of a guy called John Galt. The title, Atlas Shrugged, is a clever metaphor that one appreciates gradually as the story progresses, until halfway through the story when one character comes out and explains exactly what it means. Also, "halfway through the story" in this case means page 550, because the eleven-hundred page Atlas Shrugged is, according to the world's most "objective" source, the 9th longest book ever written. It used to be 10th, but then they decided that this probably didn't qualify as an actual novel. Of that 1100, about 25% is comprised of monologues on the virtue of selfishness which characters launch into whenever they are faced with staunch opposition, a large group of people or a shiny object. This culminates in a speech in which Rand Galt describes why every economic, political and philosophical idea ever taught is wrong.
Philosophy
Ayn Rand's philosophy of ubermenschian hero worship has become fodder for numerous parodies, critiques, and off-the-cuff references, from common drivel to incredibly high brow comedy; (see The 10 Best Animated Movies for (Traumatizing) Kids.) Her infamy is the result of her uncompromising belief that the only good in life is pursuing one's own interests. The weak deserve no attention, and to help others rather than shape the world to one's ideals is not only a distraction, it is morally repugnant.
So which of the following people do you think Ayn Rand admired?
We used a picture with a title, otherwise you'd have had no clue that was Helen Keller.
Answer: none of them. The Autobahn was wasteful government spending.
Do not jump to the conclusion that she was a racist, however. In fact, Rand actually wrote at length about the irrationality of racism. So as long as you used your mind to its utmost and sought to create rather than loot, Rand was probably going to be incredibly accepting of you no matter who you were. As long as you weren't gay.
Also, she's responsible for Ron Paul. Thanks, Ayn.
Ayn Rand's general message is good, personal responsibility over "the greater good". But she took it to far.
ReplyI found Atlas Shrugged an entertaining work of science fiction... while it took me 5 months to finish the first 500 pages, it only took me a week from there to finish, because it got pretty exciting.
ReplyThe core of her philosophy is only relying on yourself, which is good to live by, even though that principle doesn't contribute much to public policy.
And just because you had no special talent in Atlas Shrugged doesn't mean you were a commie bastard. You just had to believe that people who are richer than you have more talent and deserve more. Like Eddie Willers, who was supposed to represent the common man. Except in the end, he stays with the broken down train in the desert, and it's unclear whether the higher ups at Taggart Transcontinental will rescue him. He gets totally fucked for his loyalty, I guess, so that's not good.
Neither Rand or MacKinnon said or agreed that all sex is rape. That was a lie spread by her critics and misquoted in poorly researched articles.
ReplyActually MacKinnon more or less did say that, although she didn't quite mean it literally. She's also a terrible person who helped get a serial murderer/rapist (Karla Homolka) off the hook solely because she was a woman, so yeah.
I wouldn't exactly say that she was responsible for Ron Paul. He follows a lot of her ideas about government regulation and taxes, but he never bought into her aitheism, or her idea that giving to charity is for losers.
ReplyAnyone follow all the links? Anyone else catch the problem with the link that wouldn't qualify as a novel? That was f*cking hilarious!
ReplyWhat the f**k was that? Reading that actually made me scared for my sanity. Jesus Christ.
Seriously? 100,000 more words than Les Mis? Les Mis was long enough for me; doubt I'm going to be able to make it through Atlas Shrugged, unless it has better pacing.
ReplyI'd love to see a fight between Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. SPOILER ALERT - Marx would win. EVEN BIGGER SPOILER ALERT - then Jesus and Abraham Lincoln would come and kick both their asses.
ReplyThis was the most original comment I have ever read. SPOILER ALERT - That was sarcasm.
The Virtue of Selfishness is her best work. She was much better with essays than novels.
ReplyShe was racist. She was racist towards Native Americans and complained about how they were "entitled savages", despite all her claims that she was open minded.
Reply Hide All See All 3 Repliesum...they are savages. didn't you see pocahontas?
She also said Palestinians deserved to have their land taken because they did not develop technology.
Okay, somebody missed the point of Pocahontas.
Ayn Rand was f*****g evil.
ReplyDespite agreeing with many of Ayn Rand's philosophies, I got a serious kick out of this article.
ReplyRand described her line of thinking as a new philosophy, but really it wasn't. It has been around for a long time. Here is some text from the Illiad:
ReplyOdysseus went straight up to Agamemnon and received from him his ancestral, imperishable staff. With this he went about among the ships of the Achaeans. Whenever he met a king or a chieftain, he stood by him and spoke to him courteously.....
But when he came across any common man who was making a noise, he struck him with his staff and rebuked him saying: "Sirrah, hold your peace, and listen to your betters...." but Thersites still went on wagging his unbridled tongue.... He was the ugliest man of all those that came before Troy..... Now, with a shrill, squeaky voice he began heaping his abuse on Agamemnon..... [long rant against the king of the Greeks/Achaeans skipped due to space]
Thus railed Thersites, but Odysseus at once went up to him and rebuked him sternly..... On this he beat him with his staff about the back and shoulders till he dropped and fell a-weeping. The golden scepter raised a bloody welt on his back, so he sat down frightened and in pain, looking foolish as he wiped the tears from his eyes.
As you can see in that passage above, many of Rand's ideas have been around for a while. Odysseus would definitely be one of her "men of the mind".
O rly?
Are you a moron?
f**k Ayn Rand, she's a Russian cunt. I swear, she's the Whore of Babylon. Thank God that f*****g b***h is dead, and probably burning in Hell.
ReplyWay to fail at starting a flame war, ignoramus.
The Fountainhead is my favorite book. Basically I thought it was saying don't let others vindicate you. Besides that I haven't read anything else she wrote, besides Anthem, which was for a class. And I really don't want to.
ReplyWhat a b***h
Reply Hide All See All 15 Repliesi take your statement to mean u have never read any of Ayn Rand's works. Apparently, a woman who creates a philosophy based on individual rights, a strong moral code, pure capitalism, laissez faire ideals, and the belief that man should work as hard as he can for his dreams is a bitch. Are the founding fathers of america bitches as well?
Have you ever played bioshock? Andrew Ryan's ideals in the creation of Rapture are solidly based in Rand's objectivist philosophy. By the way, the letters in Andrew Ryan also spell We R Ayn Rand. Coincidence? I think not.
Do some research and some reading before you call a woman whose philosophy closely resembles the ideals of the men who created the free-est country in the world a b***h
ThisWasntTaken have you played bioshock? cuz the whole game shows how andrew's theory was stupid and full of holes. america uses a mix of capitalism and socialism in order to create a workable system because people are not good enough to use pure communism or pure capitalism correctly (no the soviet union was not communist it says so in their name the union of soviet SOCIALIST republics). the ideals of pure capitalism were not invented during the american revolution and when america used them fully (during the 1920's) well it caused the depression. her ideals were not in most of the founding fathers because the founding fathers were not pure libertarians. also the guy is not calling her a b***h because she thinks people should work towards their goals he called her a b***h because she thinks government helping anyone is a waste. do a little research before you comment and yes ayn rand is a bitch.
Hey, Commie, how do you justify taking money from others with the backing of physical force to support the causes YOU deem suitable? What do you have against free will? Why is it more righteous for the gov't to give money to people than people giving money to others if they so choose. Do you give extra money to the gov't? They can use it better than you can, right? You aren't some phony are you? I have yet to hear any of Rand's opponents so much as represent her philosophy properly before attacking it.
Hey Commie, the Soviet Union was both Socialist and Communist. In Marxist theory, Socialism is a step that a country needs to pass through in order to reach Communism. Communism is the end result OF Socialism. Ever read the Communist Manifesto? Marx explicitly says in the "10 point program of Communism" section that the goal of the Communist party in the short-term is to make the economy fully State-owned, and every single thing the Communist manifesto says should be done, THE SOVIET UNION DID. The old "The USSR wasn't TRUE Communism!" is a bullshit excuse that anyone who has ever actually read Marx's historical theories & manifesto knows is a lie.
And using pure Capitalism in the 20's?! Please, the Central bank was artificially lowering interest rates and expanding credit as f**k before the 1929 crash, and the moron Hoover tried to fix the crash with protectionist policies.
And the reason Rand opposes government action to help anyone is because government is FORCE, by definition. The government helping a person is the same as someone forcing other to help someone. Rand used to claim private charity is good, whilst governmental "charity" is just forced charity that does more harm than good.
Modern Communists these days don't even know anything about Marxist Theories or read his goddamned manifesto...
Let's find some common ground. Is it wrong that a millionaire has millions when people starve. Not necessarily, if he/she gives generously. How many of the super rich donate a significantly amount of their money? Not many. Where the individual human fails there must be a system to save those in need. That is what government should be. From each according to their means to each according to their needs, A common socialist ideal. Sounds pretty don't it? As opposed to look out for your best interests always, which is more or less what capitalism touts.
The System of "from Each according To His Ability and To Each According To His Need" Victimizes Those With Ability and Elevates Those With Need and For What Reason?
Their Need Either Came as a Result of incompetence or of Chance
Why Must i Be Held accountable For Either?
if Those Millionaires Gained it by Hardwork Rising from The Same Circumstances those poor denizens wallow in then is it wrong for them to Be Awarded for Their Ability?, Their Innovation?,Their Competence?
And i Don't Care Wether They Donate or Not it's Not their Job to Donate it nor their Duty,under The System You Propose Everyone Would Compete Not To Be The Most Able But The Most Needy The Most incompetent There is No Room in Such a System for innovation or Creativity and Thus Since Life is Growth, No Room for Life it is as Ayn Rand Said ,The Anti-Life.
tl;dr
Ayn Rand is a bitch.
ThisWasn'tTaken, America's not the freest country in the world. As of 2010, the most economically free nation in the world is Singapore.
Singapore may have the most free economy, but you get imprisoned for spitting on the sidewalk.
@WhytheFuckNot Capitalism is a state of total freedom and deregulation, therefore, it is inhumane and apathetic. Say that you had a brother or a sister who was going through a tough time and needed money. If you cared about them, you would give them some of your own money, because they are family, and you value their well being more than your own. Same way, society is like a family. Focusing only on personal interests is inhumane because you have no consideration for your society or Fellow Man. Communism doesn't work, because it is a philosophy based on love and compassion, in which the individual doesn't matter at all, and the economy of the entire society is valued the most. People don't have this kind of compassion in their nature, so obviously communism will never work. 'Freedom' only benefits the rich. The upper class will gain money through this freedom with no consideration for the poor, and no government regulation will be there in laissez faire capitalism to make sure that the lower class will be financially protected. Capitalism advocates apathy towards others and financial selfishness. In capitalism, there is no compassion, the compassion is sacrificed for the sake of a "freedom" that ONLY benefits the upper class. If a person is starving, a richer person will not view him as a fellow human being in need and try to help him, the richer person will claim that he deserves it and is worthless for not being productive. Capitalism is utilitarian, because a person's worth is determined by how much money they make, not by the fact that they are Humans. Advocates who preach complete freedom instead of the well being of other people and lower classes either doesn't really understand the consequences of such a system, or have no empathy for other people, so I suspect that they might possibly be psychopaths or idealists (or maybe both).
Also, WTFN, capitalism is only good in times of ENORMOUS productivity. The capitalist system rose up after the industrial revolution, because Industrialization brought loads of jobs, mass production, and higher standards of living. So, even though capitalism ultimately caters to the rich, there was enough stuff available that supply was greater than demand, and the lower classes living standards were able to rise. Of course, capitalism played a big part in this rise of production, because in capitalism, you are working for yourself instead of for some feudal lord (like in feudalism)or for society (like in communism), and since people are selfish, this makes them work harder and generally produce more. So, capitalism has a nice, shiny record in the past. Imagine if capitalism had emerged BEFORE the industrial revolution. The history of capitalism would've been much less glamorous. In this apathetic, bourgeoisie system, the lower class would've been crushed and neglected until either a revolution or a complete social collapse. After all, capitalism requires gigantic, almost infinite, levels of production to sustain. After the Industrial Revolution, this was possible, because there were factories, tons of resources, and nobody gave a crap about the environment anyway. But now, we know that the earth has limited resources. You have no idea how flawed capitalism is if you do not realize how "limited resources" destroys the sustainability of the system. Furthermore, the "American Dream" is mostly BS. Do you think that in a world rife with discrimination, homophobia, racism, sexism, drug use, apathy, and varying levels of educational access, everybody has an equal chance at becoming upper or middle class? If you grew up in a poor neighborhood, if you had bad education, if your family did not receive enough welfare to support themselves BECAUSE of the uncaring nature of capitalism, I believe your chances of becoming Bill Gates are way, way lower than that of a CEO's son who goes to a private school. Plus, capitalism is radical and unstable. It is marked by economic booms and economic crashes, booms being the American Twenties, crashes being the Great Depression and the recent Recession. And in the near future, thanks to America's comparatively unbridled economic freedom, I wouldn't be surprised if we faced a crash so big, the Communist Manifesto might wind up on our "To Read" Lists again.
Finally WTFN, you asked why you should be held accountable for the needy, whether they be needy out of chance or incompetence. Well, why should you? Apparently, even though society is full of humans like you, who's lives are worth no less than yours, a society which gave you the resources to thrive and ALLOWED you to become productive in the first place, you don't owe society or any of the individuals in it, in your mind? The only human that is worth working for is you yourself? So what, if you need society to live. Apparently, you don't owe society anything- you work, it pays you. You don't have to care about individuals who need your money. They don't apply as human in your mind, because you have no concern for them, you think they have nothing to do with them. It seems you lack empathy for anybody but yourself. If your family were as self centered as you, they probably wouldn't have wasted time and money raising you. But maybe you don't feel like you owe them either. Which is totally okay. It's not like you have an obligation to take care of a society you have no concern for. After all, most people don't feel empathy for the meat they eat, and sick people don't feel sorry for the bacteria they kill when they take antibiotics. There's no reason for you not to expand your sphere of apathy to your own race as well. Capitalism is a very natural thing, it's totally normal to care only about yourself. You have your rights, anyway. Still, if you consider compassion an "Anti-Life" and capitalism "Life," I think most of society would be better off dead, but that's my fact based opinion. It clearly doesn't mean much to you.
... What am I doing? It's not like anybody's going to read this far, anyway. Ah well, I'm bored, bye bye. :D :D :D
Aw man, I loved Bioshock
actually i really liked atlas shrugged but i just dont think objectivism will work. nice idea, but so was communism.
ReplyI am fairly certain that even Bertram Scudder wouldn't have Godwined.
ReplyAyn Rand versus Wittgenstein.
ReplyEvery statement is a selfish proposal.
Gah, Ayn f****n Rand. I understand why she hated anything remotely seeming like public charity (but I'm excusing her self centered cuntness)--she was middle class in the early 1900s, and her family was completely fucked up by the Bolsheviks. Regardless, she was a terrible writer, with no understanding of how narrative or plot function. The only reason people paid attention to it, or even though it was good, was that people assumed she was just being a Modernist. No, she was just a f*****g god awful writer and it completely sucks that she is one of the handful of household name woman writers. And I really shouldnt try to write coherently on the internet while high and sleep deprived.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesSo, would it be a good idea to go ahead and read the damn "Atlas Shrugged"? I've just rented it from my library, and it still lingers there, unopened.
I guess I want to have a formed opinion on the matter, perhaps looking for some ideological basis... but time is short an language infinite: This or the Divine Comedy?
Agree that Ayn Rand is an awful writer. She has some compelling ideas though.
If you live in the United States, Atlas Shrugged is a billion times more relevant, anywhere else, you should read the Divine Comedy because classical philosophers are trendy.
I wouldn't get Atlas Shrugged from a library. If you manage to finish it before it's begun accumulating late fees, you probably just skimmed large portions of it. It's a pretty thick read. Ms. Rand was very fond of describing things in the longest wording possible. Txyan08 is right though, this novel is relevant more in today's United States than ever before. Don't bother reading The Divine Comedy. Just read the Cliffs Notes, and research the themes on your own. It is better to learn and retain knowledge than to have the ability to claim "I read that once". I'm much more impressed with someone who understands the ideas than someone who sat down and read a book like it was an assignment.
While I certainly found the book leaving much to be desired (And I'm a supporter of Ayn Rand's general philosophy, though that'll just start flame-wars) I still found it decent to read. She was essentially writing her philosophy as an analogy in book-form. So yes, it had a lot of issues (long-windedness being one of them - you really can skim a fair amount of it and still get everything, due to the excessive descriptions of physical surroundings that have little to no impact) get the picture. Going in knowing what to expect as for the writing, but not the story or the philosophy, makes it an interesting book.
Okay.One of the whole things that make"Objectivism"almost laughable if folks didn't take it so seriously is that it's so
ReplyBass Ackwards!!!
"The Virtue of Selfishness":Now isn't that an oxymoron??
How is selfishness a virtue??
Now without trying to sound like ElDickwadMuyGrande William Bennett;former Secretary of Education/Moralist/Gambling Addict;and his constant"Virtues and Values"Mantra;selfishness isn't a virtue!!!
It's the total opposite!!
Example:Last week,we had a very heavy snowstorm in North Texas.
Some folks were without power and were trapped in their homes
or had to stay in Hotels;Motels or Emergency Shelters.
After it dissapated and people were able to go about their business again,I read a few letters in the Dallas Morning News about it.
And this one dickwad wrote a letter about how"He and His Family Stayed In The Local Hilton Garden Inn Where He and Has Family Swam In The Heated Pool Then Enjoyed All The New PPV Movies and\
Ate Snacks and Had a Great Time!!".
Now nothing wrong with that,it's great if you got the money to do it and I'm not condemning the guy for it in the least!!
However,he went on to say that"Poor Planning On Your Part Shouldn't Cut Into My Fun!!".
UhHuh!!!Now doesn't that sound almost Randish??
Except for one thing,Randians don't beleive in fun!!
Their idea of fun is deciding who's hotter:Dagny Taggart or
Howard Roark??
Which kinda reminds me of the"Tea Party Movement":
Basically,the"Tea Party Movement"reminds me of what would've
happened if Ayn Rand seduced Larry the Cable Guy and the Tea Party Crowd are the result!!
Gustatus Similis Pullis
Cut back on your exclamation points for one short moment, sonny boy. The idea of "the Virtue of Selishness" and so on are not that being a dick is okay. If you actually read the books, they point out quite clearly that her opnion of money-wasting useless persons is... almost murderously angry. The idea is, one looks out for ones own interests, but logically and in ways that would better mankind. All she does is point out that in bettering mankind, you ought to get some damn credit. Rand lived in the country that has made millions upon trillions of dollars off of two properties- the Kalashnikov and Tetris. Guess how much of that money went back to the men who came up with those?
I realise this is a humour site and I'm taking this way too seriously. But think before you speak, dipshit. At least provide an argument that makes some f*****g sense.
On an unrelated note! The article was actually pretty funny. Thanks!
Point being, she needed to remove whatever massive unholy object was lodged far up her ass, and learn to chill the f**k out with that kind of thinking.
For those who live in a land of opportunity, or any set of circumstances which afford individual pursuits, there should be no over-arching philosophy governing how to spend one's life. Ayn Rand had no right to lay claim to the 'best way to live', according to her bullshit "pursue self-interests or live a coward" tripe.
If I choose to dedicate my life to the goddamn Peace Core, giving up all my personal endeavors to contribute to the welfare of others, I should be able to goddamn do it.
No amount of self-preservation of interests will right every wrong in a society. Her 'ideal state' was exactly what she proclaimed it to be. Selfish.
The world is more nuanced than that load of crap.