Ayn Rand

[Union 5-3992]

QUOTE (ColdFireYYZ @ May 25 2012, 08:43 PM)

I read the Fountainhead last month and loved it. I don't completely agree with her views (i.e. I believe in individualism but she took it too far) but overall, it was a great book and I'm looking forward to reading Atlas Shrugged.

Good luck. It took me three months to read it. I was a bit slow to start it, but read about half of it in the last week. As I have stated earlier this week, it is one of the longest books ever written.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Union 5-3992

[Union 5-3992]

Is it me or are a lot of people picking up Ayn Rand books this week?

[ColdFireYYZ]

QUOTE (Union 5-3992 @ May 25 2012, 08:47 PM)

QUOTE (ColdFireYYZ @ May 25 2012, 08:43 PM) I read the Fountainhead last month and loved it. I don't completely agree with her views (i.e. I believe in individualism but she took it too far) but overall, it was a great book and I'm looking forward to reading Atlas Shrugged. Good luck. It took me three months to read it. I was a bit slow to start it, but read about half of it in the last week. As I have stated earlier this week, it is one of the longest books ever written. I'm hoping to get it this weekend and finish during the summer. I got really into The Fountainhead and I read it for like 4 hours every night.

[beherit]

QUOTE (Union 5-3992 @ May 25 2012, 07:48 PM)

Is it me or are a lot of people picking up Ayn Rand books this week?

She's a best-selling author year-round.

[Ancient Ways]

Amusing video from cracked.com sending up both Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard:

 

Cracked

[spock]

QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Jun 29 2011, 07:56 AM)

QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Jun 28 2011, 10:35 PM) QUOTE (Earthshine Emmeline @ Jun 28 2011, 06:56 PM) I thought I'd put this out there. I'm personally divided on her ideas. Your personal opinions? i think if you take the idea you should strive to do your best from her you're ok. This whole concept of not compromising is ridiculous. It's the difference between living in a society and total anarchy. Everyone compromises at times, the challenge is knowing what is up for review and what is off limits. That's the trouble with philosophical idealists, extremists, purists, or whatever we may call them. They refuse to see and live in the real world, in which people do indeed compromise. At any given time, we cooperate, we tolerate, we give in, we back down, and sometimes, we do work for the good of others (which would annoy Ms. Rand quite a bit).   Human beings are social beings, regardless of what Rand thought. We are not just a huge group of independant individuals. We DO need to be with each other and work for each other. We can be selfish and self-centered, but we also work together. We cooperate with and depend on each other. Our species would have never survived this long without the basic desire to work as One.   Rand had some very good ideas for sure, but it seemed like she wanted all of us to be Vulcans - logical, analytical, and dispassionate. I don't like that kind of existence. Speaking of vulcans...   I read Rand back in the 90s and she had a HUGE influence on me. I read all her fiction and some non-fiction over the years. A lot of it resonated with me and still does. BUT, I could never reconcile her philosophy with my religion. Finally, a few years ago I read (yet another) book called "The Ideas of Ayn Rand" and learned that by the end of her life she could not make her philosophy "work" within the real world. There was no government system that would enact Objectivism and there were no other social arrangements that could embody it either (my take on it, anyway). So, being a little older now, I take parts of Randian thought and leave parts. She made some good points, but I filter them with some real life nowadays.

[Transcendent Pilgrim]

First read Rand when I was 12. The Fountainhead and the non-fiction Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal. Read Atlas Shrugged a year later. I was initially very taken by Objectivism. Of course I was also a socially awkward nerd who had no idea how real people in the real world actually behave. Since then actual life experience has led me to reject Objectivism, like most other isms it fails to take into account human nature and so fails as a pilosphy of life. But I do credit that early exposure to her ideas with my eventually becoming a (small l) libertarian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[deathlikesilence]

QUOTE (Transcendent Pilgrim @ Jul 25 2012, 08:41 PM)

First read Rand when I was 12. The Fountainhead and the non-fiction Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal. Read Atlas Shrugged a year later. I was initially very taken by Objectivism. Of course I was also a socially awkward nerd who had no idea how real people in the real world actually behave. Since then actual life experience has led me to reject Objectivism, like most other isms it fails to take into account human nature and so fails as a pilosphy of life. But I do credit that early exposure to her ideas with my eventually becoming a (small l) libertarian.

ayn rand's the best-selling children's author of all-time

[micgtr71]

Regardless of her philosophy, The Fountainhead is one of the best stories with the most memorable characters that I have ever read. I also like Atlas Shrugged and teach Anthem as part of my curriculum. I could poke holes in her philosophy all day. I don't think that it is necessary to embrace someone's philosophical/religious beliefs in order to enjoy their work.

[GeddysMullet]

QUOTE (micgtr71 @ Jul 27 2012, 06:33 AM)

Regardless of her philosophy, The Fountainhead is one of the best stories with the most memorable characters that I have ever read. I also like Atlas Shrugged and teach Anthem as part of my curriculum. I could poke holes in her philosophy all day. I don't think that it is necessary to embrace someone's philosophical/religious beliefs in order to enjoy their work.

I agree with this. I read The Fountainhead when I was young and took some very positive messages from it, without having any idea that it was meant to represent a broad practical philosophy. I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged as well because as a writer myself I was impressed with how in that book she was able to disregard every single rule of effective character building and yet still manage to come up with a story that captivated about characters that engaged me. I actually used to name her as one of my favourite authors, until I became aware that in so doing I gave people the impression that I actually thought that her crackpot philosophy was a valid and viable philosophy for living in the real world. When I realised that there are many people out there who do take "Objectivism" seriously and think that people should live their lives by it, it was not so much funny to me as it was scary. There are some sound principles in it, but they are sheathed to the point of near-invisibility in unrealistic and inhumane crackpottery.

 

In my experience, people who take "Objectivism" seriously and believe that it is a valid and viable philosophy for living in the real world are people whose emotional and intellectual development seem to be arrested at the age of about 16.

[Mr. Not]

QUOTE (ioc @ Jun 28 2011, 09:39 PM)

The words myopic and unrelenting spring to mind. The scope of her life experience was far too limited for the inflexibility her philosophy espoused. It only makes sense in the minimum of contexts. Unfortunately for most of her drivel, the number and structure of social systems are far more complex and diverse than "objectivism" allows. It betrays a lack of understanding towards social dependence and collective values borne from survival. Essentially, it just doesn't add up. (at least, to me. )

I like what you're saying here.

[Mr. Not]

QUOTE (Union 5-3992 @ Nov 24 2011, 09:48 AM)

I'm reading Atlas Shrugged and I'm loving it.

http://miskadoodlewrites.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/ronaldmcdonald.jpg

[burgeranacoke]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

 

-- John Rogers

Edited September 1, 2012 by burgeranacoke

[CygnusGal]

QUOTE (burgeranacoke @ Sep 1 2012, 10:44 AM)

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." -- John Rogers

Seconded.

 

Read both. I chose the orcs.

[drbirdsong]

I was just mentioning it in the thread on re-reading books. I read it at 18 and liked it, but could not get through the John Galt speech. Sometime in my mid 30s I tried again and still just skimmed that part. When I heard they were making a movie I read it again and had no problem. Unfortunately it seemed to get worse as time went on. I like a lot of the ideas that are presented and Francisco's monologue about money is just brilliant, but the characters are not very convincing as real people. The movie sucked ass.

[H. P. L.]

QUOTE (drbirdsong @ Sep 3 2012, 06:51 AM)

The movie sucked ass.

I tend to disagree. Given that they did not have big names or big money, they managed to make a decent flick. Still waiting for part 2, of course. Will there be the infamous speech?

[bathory]

QUOTE (H. P. L. @ Sep 3 2012, 04:08 AM)

QUOTE (drbirdsong @ Sep 3 2012, 06:51 AM) The movie sucked ass. I tend to disagree. Given that they did not have big names or big money, they managed to make a decent flick. Still waiting for part 2, of course. Will there be the infamous speech? The speech will be an entire movie...

[drbirdsong]

QUOTE (H. P. L. @ Sep 3 2012, 04:08 AM)

QUOTE (drbirdsong @ Sep 3 2012, 06:51 AM) The movie sucked ass. I tend to disagree. Given that they did not have big names or big money, they managed to make a decent flick. Still waiting for part 2, of course. Will there be the infamous speech? The movie was indeed made well for the money. The production values were fine and some of the acting was good as well. My argument was always that it should have been a series on cable instead of a movie. If you never read the book than it was probably fine, but knowing what is missing from the book made me think: Fail.