Ayn Rand's sudden increase in (internet) popularity?

Nice to see so many people disagreeing with Ayn Rand. :>ghoklebutter

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]Nice to see so many people disagreeing with Ayn Rand. :>jaydough

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]Nice to see so many people disagreeing with Ayn Rand. :>CRS98

I have only heard of her name and the book she has written.

I havent read it or know what opinions she expresses.

To those who said they "hate" her philosophy, why? What makes it worse then any other philosophy faulting out there? Which philosophical ideology do you feel trumps her's? Im not challenging you or anything, Im just curious of why you think its bad?Diablo-B

I mainly dislike it because of its overt hostility towards charity and philanthropy in general.

i blame bioshock

VaguelyTagged

Tenenbaum was the first person I had in mind.

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]To those who said they "hate" her philosophy, why? What makes it worse then any other philosophy faulting out there? Which philosophical ideology do you feel trumps her's? Im not challenging you or anything, Im just curious of why you think its bad?GabuEx

I mainly dislike it because of its overt hostility towards charity and philanthropy in general.

"During this period there was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left"

Interesting...She's a Liberterian though so, not exactly the same ideology.

We love hot chicks. What's new?SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]We love hot chicks. What's new?Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]We love hot chicks. What's new?DEVILinIRON

Anthemn is still an awesome book :P

edit: On topic, everyone has pretty much explained it, Bioshock and overall unhappiness in the government... because people are greedy.

Whenever liberal governments are in power Rand's books always sell more. There's a widespread perception among Conservatives that Obama's the most liberal president we've ever had. Also the fact that the Republican party is only getting farther and farther from true limited government policies doesn't hurt. Though I wouldn't exactly call myself an Objectivist I think it's great to see more and more people (especially young people) take interest in individualism and freedom.

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]To those who said they "hate" her philosophy, why? What makes it worse then any other philosophy faulting out there? Which philosophical ideology do you feel trumps her's? Im not challenging you or anything, Im just curious of why you think its bad?GabuEx

I mainly dislike it because of its overt hostility towards charity and philanthropy in general.

Agreed, that would be my opinion on her writings as well.

She's such a pest!!!!t3hrubikscube

[QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"]She's such a pest!!!!ghoklebutter

"During this period there was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left"

Interesting...She's a Liberterian though so, not exactly the same ideology.

Snipes_2

You find it strange that people who favor big government and "socialistic" programs, Don't agree with someone who preaches what was pretty much the Lazzie-Faire capitalistic version of anarchy?

That and anyone with a heart would smack the woman if she walked up to them while they were giving charity and told the person that they are stupid for giving what she thought was " undeserved hand-outs"

I mean really, not trying to get on you or start anything, but I don't see how most of her views could be farther than they already are to liberals, at least on Politics nad economics.

Wearing Che shirts stopped being edgy, so that one guy at every party ever had to move on to something else.

Who?

Pirate700

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]To those who said they "hate" her philosophy, why? What makes it worse then any other philosophy faulting out there? Which philosophical ideology do you feel trumps her's? Im not challenging you or anything, Im just curious of why you think its bad?PannicAtack

I disagree with pretty much everything that woman said, but my best friend is obsessed with her. He thinks she's one of the best philosophers.

i blame bioshock

VaguelyTagged

this is strange ,i usually say something like that,could be we be twins,we have too much in common :P

All I know is she wrote a book called "The Fountainhead". I have no idea what it's about.harashawn

I don't know about that, but personally, I'm relating more to her ideas now than I ever have before.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]To those who said they "hate" her philosophy, why? What makes it worse then any other philosophy faulting out there? Which philosophical ideology do you feel trumps her's? Im not challenging you or anything, Im just curious of why you think its bad?Teenaged

I mainly dislike it because of its overt hostility towards charity and philanthropy in general.

Basically, that people who are homeless, unemployed, or basically anyone who needs the services provided by charitable organizations, are lazy and thus unworthy of help, and that there is therefore nothing moral or virtuous of any kind in giving these people help. It separates people into groups of those who "deserve" what has happened to them and those who don't, and states that only those in the latter bucket should be given assistance. It's callous as **** and is something that I could never abide by, as I strongly believe that there is no such thing as truly "deserving" something.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I mainly dislike it because of its overt hostility towards charity and philanthropy in general.

GabuEx

Basically, that people who are homeless, unemployed, or basically anyone who needs the services provided by charitable organizations, are lazy and thus unworthy of help, and that there is therefore nothing moral or virtuous of any kind in giving these people help. It separates people into groups of those who "deserve" what has happened to them and those who don't, and states that only those in the latter bucket should be given assistance. It's callous as **** and is something that I could never abide by, as I strongly believe that there is no such thing as truly "deserving" something.

Anyone who actually knows the damn story knows the people he stole from stepped on top of everyone else and went out of their way to make sure those already less fortunate were incapable of doing anything about it.

I love how she even says Peter Pan is one of the most evil characters in fiction. "He stole from the capable and gave to incapable blah blah blah."

Anyone who actually knows the damn story knows the people he stole from stepped on top of everyone else and went out of their way to make sure those already less fortunate were incapable of doing anything about it.

SeraphimGoddess

Peter Pan, or Robin Hood?

Peter Pan, or Robin Hood?

GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Peter Pan, or Robin Hood?

SeraphimGoddess

Actually, the passage in Atlas Shrugged where this is stated goes into a bit more detail than that. It admits that the original purpose of Robin Hood was to rob from the unjust tax collectors and other institutional thieves, but explains that despite this, the name of Robin Hood has been used in other more nefarious ways as a literary representative of the redistribution of wealth.

Admittedly this is no fault of the original characterizations, but as a result, Rand felt the need to turn the character of Robin Hood on its head. This is where the character Ragnar Danneskjold came from.

[QUOTE="SeraphimGoddess"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Peter Pan, or Robin Hood?

m0zart

Actually, the passage in Atlas Shrugged where this is stated goes into a bit more detail than that. It admits that the original purpose of Robin Hood was to rob from the unjust tax collectors and other institutional thieves, but explains that despite this, the name of Robin Hood has been used in other more nefarious ways as a literary representative of the redistribution of wealth.

Admittedly this is no fault of the original characterizations, but as a result, Rand felt the need to turn the character of Robin Hood on its head. This is where the character Ragnar Danneskjold came from.

True, but I clearly remember Ragnar or whoever it was stating that his character was still that of an evil one (regardless of who is telling the story or not).SeraphimGoddess

True, but Ragnar is the one making the statement about Robin Hood, and the time in which he states that this character is evil, he states what I basically just stated in the previous postl.

So no I am not denying his character said that in the story, I am simply filling you in on the whole story -- since that's the only way to tell one.

[QUOTE="SeraphimGoddess"]True, but I clearly remember Ragnar or whoever it was stating that his character was still that of an evil one (regardless of who is telling the story or not).m0zart

True, but Ragnar is the one making the statement about Robin Hood, and the time in which he states that this character is evil, he states what I basically just stated in the previous postl.

So no I am not denying his character said that in the story, I am simply filling you in on the whole story -- since that's the only way to tell one.

It seems like I have been seeing her name more often lately. I can't really fathom why she and her objectivist ideology are this popular. Any Randians willing to explain?TELLMEYOURLIFE

So much of what has gone on for the past two decades emulates much of Atlas Shrugged.

Well, I find it rather dumb to hate a character for their political/moral message created by the author of the story, but that's an argument for Ragnar... if he existed. :PSeraphimGoddess

Rand wasn't as concerned with the past as she was with the present. Hence, much of what is written in Atlas Shrugged was an argument being made to the primary generation that existed when she made it. It would have made no sense for her to give Robin Hood a free pass when the character was being used in that manner in the present.

That was a bit part of what Rand was trying to do in that book -- turn many literary characters on their heads and to her purposes. Ragnar's character is, essentially, Robin Hood as Rand would have wanted him to be. In the same passage that he explains his issues with Robin Hood (again, in the modern culture of the day), Ragnar says this: "What I actually am, Mr. Rearden, is a policeman. It is a policeman's duty to protect men from criminals – criminals being those who seize wealth by force. ... But when robbery becomes the purpose of the law...then it is an outlaw who has to become a policeman."

That's about as close to a modern-day Robin Hood as she could get, though one dedicated to returning property that was, as Rand would think, stolen from producers.

Other characters are also sort of reinvented characters taken from classical stories of the time which were being used for political purposes in the modern culture. John Galt is intended as a bit of a Jean Valjean (though I think in this case Rand did not get the characterization right to make a real comparison), while Francisco D'Anconia is clearly intended to be a combination of the Pied Piper and the Count of Monte Cristo. Rand actually didn't have the same dislike of these characters though -- she considered Les Miserables for instance to be her favorite book (outside of her own). But she certainly felt claiming their characteristics for her own novel and reversing their purposes (or the use of their personage in modern culture) was important given the political climate, especially since the original characters were being used by the other side.

"During this period there was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left"

Interesting...She's a Liberterian though so, not exactly the same ideology.

Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

"During this period there was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left"

Interesting...She's a Liberterian though so, not exactly the same ideology.

TELLMEYOURLIFE

Well... she was at least in deed. Her political philosophy boils down to the non-aggression principle, which is the core of modern Libertarianism. It's true Rand eschewed the term, and she claimed to have good reasons for it, but it always seemed to me to boil down to ego issues. She used to call libertarians "Hippies of the Right", which I find comical, and frankly as a libertarian, it feels like more of a complement than an insult.

Just an FYI, Rand received almost as much criticism from the Right as she did from the Left. After the publication of Atlas Shrugged, there was a barrage of anti-Rand sentiment coming from Right-wing establishments, especially the likes of William F. Buckley. Rand despised the philosophical underpinnings of the Left, but she hated those of the Right even more, especially those that were employed in their "defense" of Capitalism, as she explains in this particular video, which has been appropriately titled by its poster as "Ayn Rand's message to Glenn Beck".

[QUOTE="SeraphimGoddess"]Well, I find it rather dumb to hate a character for their political/moral message created by the author of the story, but that's an argument for Ragnar... if he existed. :Pm0zart

Rand wasn't as concerned with the past as she was with the present. Hence, much of what is written in Atlas Shrugged was an argument being made to the primary generation that existed when she made it. It would have made no sense for her to give Robin Hood a free pass when the character was being used in that manner in the present.

That was a bit part of what Rand was trying to do in that book -- turn many literary characters on their heads and to her purposes. Ragnar's character is, essentially, Robin Hood as Rand would have wanted him to be. In the same passage that he explains his issues with Robin Hood (again, in the modern culture of the day), Ragnar says this: "What I actually am, Mr. Rearden, is a policeman. It is a policeman's duty to protect men from criminals – criminals being those who seize wealth by force. ... But when robbery becomes the purpose of the law...then it is an outlaw who has to become a policeman."

That's about as close to a modern-day Robin Hood as she could get, though one dedicated to returning property that was, as Rand would think, stolen from producers.

Other characters are also sort of reinvented characters taken from classical stories of the time which were being used for political purposes in the modern culture. John Galt is intended as a bit of a Jean Valjean (though I think in this case Rand did not get the characterization right to make a real comparison), while Francisco D'Anconia is clearly intended to be a combination of the Pied Piper and the Count of Monte Cristo. Rand actually didn't have the same dislike of these characters though -- she considered Les Miserables for instance to be her favorite book (outside of her own). But she certainly felt claiming their characteristics for her own novel and reversing their purposes (or the use of their personage in modern culture) was important given the political climate, especially since the original characters were being used by the other side.

Objectivism is cool when you're an arse like me.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

"During this period there was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left"

Interesting...She's a Liberterian though so, not exactly the same ideology.

TELLMEYOURLIFE

[QUOTE="TELLMEYOURLIFE"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

"During this period there was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left"

Interesting...She's a Liberterian though so, not exactly the same ideology.

m0zart

Well... she was at least in deed. Her political philosophy boils down to the non-aggression principle, which is the core of modern Libertarianism. It's true Rand eschewed the term, and she claimed to have good reasons for it, but it always seemed to me to boil down to ego issues. She used to call libertarians "Hippies of the Right", which I find comical, and frankly as a libertarian, it feels like more of a complement than an insult.

Just an FYI, Rand received almost as much criticism from the Right as she did from the Left. After the publication of Atlas Shrugged, there was a barrage of anti-Rand sentiment coming from Right-wing establishments, especially the likes of William F. Buckley. Rand despised the philosophical underpinnings of the Left, but she hated those of the Right even more, especially those that were employed in their "defense" of Capitalism, as she explains in this particular video, which has been appropriately titled by its poster as "Ayn Rand's message to Glenn Beck".