Topic: Was Ayn Rand an atheist?
Anonymous A started this discussion 14 years ago #23,458
Also, should I bother reading Atlas Shrugged?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #366,702
Yes.
No.
No.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,703
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I heard that it's long, boring, and full of rape apology. Is this true?
I heard that it's long, boring, and full of rape apology. Is this true?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,704
Also, it seems like she was pro abortion. How do Paul Ryan, and Mountainman wrap their heads around that?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 12 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,705
Sup buspuppie?
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,706
@366,703 (A)
It is long and boring (in my opinion). It isn't full of rape apology from what I remember, but the main character is a female who has kind of an odd relationship with men. She is supposed to be a fiercely independent hypercapitalist who also loves being absolutely submissive to the desires of strong, wealthy hypercapitalist men. I haven't read it since High School so my memory of the specifics is kind of fuzzy. Essentially the book advocates for the wealthy to leave all the poor people and the government to starve to death (or worse) because all poor people and governments do is steal money away from successful people and give it to the undeserving. lazy. smelly poor people. Literally every character in the book who is wealthy is a portrayed as a hero, and every poor person and government employee is incompetent, greedy and cowardly. It's just pure libertarian propaganda of the worst sort.
It is long and boring (in my opinion). It isn't full of rape apology from what I remember, but the main character is a female who has kind of an odd relationship with men. She is supposed to be a fiercely independent hypercapitalist who also loves being absolutely submissive to the desires of strong, wealthy hypercapitalist men. I haven't read it since High School so my memory of the specifics is kind of fuzzy. Essentially the book advocates for the wealthy to leave all the poor people and the government to starve to death (or worse) because all poor people and governments do is steal money away from successful people and give it to the undeserving. lazy. smelly poor people. Literally every character in the book who is wealthy is a portrayed as a hero, and every poor person and government employee is incompetent, greedy and cowardly. It's just pure libertarian propaganda of the worst sort.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,708
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,709
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #366,710
1. Yes, she was an atheist, and she was also (to my surprise) pro-choice.
2. If you want to? It's an important and undeniably influential book. I personally hated it and, after I forced myself to read the entire thing, myself too. But to each their own.
2. If you want to? It's an important and undeniably influential book. I personally hated it and, after I forced myself to read the entire thing, myself too. But to each their own.
postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 39 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #366,720
Just watch the movie.
postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #366,721
@366,706 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
libertarianism, and Objectivism are in fact two different things. Both are kind of retarded though, and think that the world works by just taking out implements of government, and that that will somehow make everything peachy.
libertarianism, and Objectivism are in fact two different things. Both are kind of retarded though, and think that the world works by just taking out implements of government, and that that will somehow make everything peachy.
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #366,736
@previous (postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)Both seem to me to be really naive and disconnected from reality, relying on over-simplified idealistic ideas of modern society.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #366,737
@previous (E)
Some of these seem to fit Mountainman
1.Naive
2. Too smart for science
3. Denialican
4. More libertarian than art thou
5. Too much Heinlein
6. The Island
7. Creepy
8. Bizarrely hypocritical
9. Whitey
10. Caveat Emptor.
Some of these seem to fit Mountainman
1.Naive
2. Too smart for science
3. Denialican
4. More libertarian than art thou
5. Too much Heinlein
6. The Island
7. Creepy
8. Bizarrely hypocritical
9. Whitey
10. Caveat Emptor.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 24 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,748
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,876
@Op
Yes.
Yes, it is a hugely influential book that will help you to understand a lot of the people in politics who cite her as an inspiration.
Yes.
Yes, it is a hugely influential book that will help you to understand a lot of the people in politics who cite her as an inspiration.
Anonymous G double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,877
@366,704 (A)
I don't like her at all, so there is nothing to wrap my head around. Paul Ryan says she was influential, and changed his thinking on some issues, not that he is an objectivist, or that she was even a good person.
I don't like her at all, so there is nothing to wrap my head around. Paul Ryan says she was influential, and changed his thinking on some issues, not that he is an objectivist, or that she was even a good person.
Anonymous G triple-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,878
@366,706 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Ayn Rand
> libertarian
She falls under the umbrella but she's hardly representative of libertarian thought.
> Ayn Rand
> libertarian
She falls under the umbrella but she's hardly representative of libertarian thought.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,885
@previous (G)
Who would you say is representative? It's not like Hayek, Friedman, Nozick, Rand etc. agreed on everything.
Who would you say is representative? It's not like Hayek, Friedman, Nozick, Rand etc. agreed on everything.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,887
Anonymous G double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,889
@366,885 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Because of her obsession with her moral philosophy her focus wasn't really in the same place as the others. A survey of self-described libertarians would be interesting to see who they identify with most.
Because of her obsession with her moral philosophy her focus wasn't really in the same place as the others. A survey of self-described libertarians would be interesting to see who they identify with most.
postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,939
@366,736 (E)
Yes. It's very easy to pick apart Liberterians, and their ideals. It sounds good, if you don't look into it at all. As soon as you start asking about regulation, monopolies, price caps/floors, most people concede that a little bit of government regulation is necessary. Objectivism doesn't work on a mass level, it just doesn't. The whole idea behind it is to just serve your own interests regardless of those around you, more or less. That might work as a personal philosophy, but not as a government one.
Yes. It's very easy to pick apart Liberterians, and their ideals. It sounds good, if you don't look into it at all. As soon as you start asking about regulation, monopolies, price caps/floors, most people concede that a little bit of government regulation is necessary. Objectivism doesn't work on a mass level, it just doesn't. The whole idea behind it is to just serve your own interests regardless of those around you, more or less. That might work as a personal philosophy, but not as a government one.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #366,989
@366,887 (G)
It's funny because this one was so obviously made by a Libertarian who got butthurt over @366,736 (E)
@366,737 (A)
The Apostle also fits him quite well.
It's funny because this one was so obviously made by a Libertarian who got butthurt over @366,736 (E)
@366,737 (A)
The Apostle also fits him quite well.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 41 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #367,007
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #367,029
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #367,036
@366,939 (postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
> Objectivism doesn't work on a mass level, it just doesn't.
I'm a strong opponent of Objectivism, but that was just dumb.
> Objectivism doesn't work on a mass level, it just doesn't.
I'm a strong opponent of Objectivism, but that was just dumb.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #367,089
I believe so.