lol
so much respect that she created a “philosophy” that is utterly irrational and completely divorced from reality
lolno
She was anything but.
But she didn’t. What she experienced wasn’t in any way communist or socialist.
Lots of people say racism is evil, while still actually doing racist things. The concept is easy to agree on as evil. The problem is the particulars.
I’d comment for the rest, but all I know about Rand is from what other people say about her work. But, to continue discussion, I’ll ask this:
What do you think of the narrative that, while Rand was wrong, her (modern) followers have made what she said worse? Or that she provided excuses for people who were already awful?
Four posts that bring absolutely zero to the discussion. Talk about substance-free!
Well, that’s the thing. Her work can largely be described as original and insightful. Unfortunately, the parts that are original are not insightful, and the parts that are insightful are not original.*
What this boils down to is that, since the useful things you find in her writings are likely to be found elsewhere, you’re not depriving yourself of anything of value by turning your back on her.
Same principle that I use when deciding whether to put someone on my “Ignore” list.
*not an original witticism of mine, btw. It is attributed to Samuel Johnson.
She didn’t have anything useful to say about motivation. If pressed I think she would outright deny that a rational person can have motivation to work harder than they already are, as long as they are focused and thinking. To her, the primary choice is whether to think or not. If you think, you will work to support your life. Asking what motivates this choice is considered an invalid question, as that is the primary choice. If someone feels unmotivated they are probably being irrational. If someone feels more motivated, they are probably just being more rational. Pretty much useless gibberish that doesn’t make any attempt to explain the world as it is.
Since I took Atlas Shrugged as a science fiction novel about the death of a society like ours via the means of a philosophical collapse, I enjoyed it thoroughly. Kind of like Harry Turtledove’s “What if alien lizards invaded at the height of WW2” series of books. Both books have bad writing, stock characters, and wildly implausible scenarios (don’t forget, much of the plot in AS is the search for a perpetual motion machine invented by John Galt), but they are written with such an earnestness that I’m always drawn into them.
Fountainhead, though… that was a bunch of crap. Stick with the sci-fi, Ayn! 
Disclaimer: I have never read one word of any of her books. I cannot imagine my life being so empty that I would want to devote five minutes to reading any of her books. All I know about Ayn Rand is that her fans are generally libertarians and I consider libertarianism to be not only intellectually bankrupt but morally bankrupt as well. So if you’re a college freshman and have read her books and want to yammer on all night with your roommate about her, bully for you. In time, you’ll grow up and abandon her silly ideas.
Now if she had talent as an author in the Stephen King sense where you want to follow the stories, I’d give her a shot. But from everything I’ve ever heard about her work, it really doesn’t sound like it would be worth my while to open one up.
One of the things Rand railed against, especially in The Fountainhead, is when people have opinions only based on what other people already think. If you don’t want to read her stuff, fine. But then you should probably reserve your opinions about her work to yourself, to avoid embarrassment.
It is odd to hear an argument based on “I have no experience with it, but since I don’t like <quality X> about the people I know who like it, I think it’s the worst thing evah”, isn’t it?
Oh, wait… no it’s not. :rolleyes:
I’ve never read Mein Kampf either but have enough of an opinion on the fans of the author to make me not read it.
No, you have an opinion on the author based upon his other work. Had he merely written the one book and then disappeared from history, you likely would have no opinion at all.
Which is a great example of how irrational and divorced from reality she was.
Because in the real world, we have a limited amount of time, not nearly enough to fully investigate everything we have to make decisions about.
Then you’re totally ignorant of her epistemological writings, in which she discussed this subject extensively.
I’m not ignorant of them; I understand them well enough to know that they’re not worth giving serious consideration to because they’re utter nonsense.
You have made your contempt clear in several posts without backing any of it up with anything. I’m not clear why you think anyone should pay attention to your unsupported opinion.
As for your response to my post, you clearly don’t understand the difference between “I have decided, due to reviews, not to spend my time reading this” and “I have decided, due to reviews, not to spend my time reading this awful trash.” In the first case you are only making a decision about the judicious use of your time. In the second, you are deciding the objective value of something based only on other people’s opinions.
I’m in the minority here; I enjoyed her novels.
If you want to give her a fair chance, pick up a library copy of “Apollo and Dionysus” and read the title essay. It’s pretty damning, I’m afraid. She takes a fairly straightforward premise – reason is better than emotion – and makes it into a nasty, vitriolic diatribe, bad-mouthing hippies (!) and otherwise making a horse’s ass of herself.
Still, you ought to read something of hers, just to know whereof you speak.
I’ve read that, too – okay, after a little while I just started skimming. Rand is by far the better writer.
No such thing. “Objective value” is a meaningless, self-contradictory term.