Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

anyone like her books/philosophy?

By Azn_Cowboy (Azn_Cowboy) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Yea. I liked Anthem and Atlas Shrugged. I haven't read The Fountain Head yet though... I hear it's good.

By Apguy (Apguy) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 03:50 pm: Edit

The Fountain Head is one of the books we can select for summer reading for AP english next year. At 700 pages I doubt I'll be reading that any time soon.

By Rowan (Rowan) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 08:16 pm: Edit

The Fountainhead is an excellent book. I am generally a fast reader, and in the midst of studying for AP tests and whatnot I managed to finish it off in a week. (To compare, if I'd had nothing better to do than read, it would've taken me a day.)

I suggest you read it -- UNLESS you get very easily discouraged with humanity. It sort of falls in the same vein as Cat's Cradle by Vonnegut, Jr. (if you've read it) except that the ending is more esoteric in Ayn Rand's book.

They both make some interesting jabs at the social world, however. I suggest everyone read them at some point. They can really give you some perspective.

As for Ayn Rand herself, I can't say with too much conviction. The only one of her books I've read *is* The Fountainhead, so I can't offer comparison, but the philosophy from that book made sense, but was rather ... I would like to say "confusing," in a disappointing, disillusioned kind of way. As I mentioned before, if you're easily discouraged with the way humanity works, it's not a good book to read. On the other hand, it does make a few points almost blatantly. She goes a long way for explaining why the philosophy is desireable, but the characters exhibiting it are not the kinds I'd be willing to emulate. It left me feeling a bit... lost, I suppose.

Perhaps that has more to do with being a teenager than anything, though.

By Goneinfivemin (Goneinfivemin) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 11:46 am: Edit

Don't like the philosophy...liked the book though except the long passages explaining the philosophy.

By Ml41588 (Ml41588) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Anthem was a pretty good book, kind of interesting. She has very strong opinions though. I agree with her on some stuff, but just a toned down version. There was an essay contest for Anthem and Atlas Shrugged (i think). I entered but didn't win

By Thenarrator (Thenarrator) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 04:36 pm: Edit

Atlas Shrugged is an excellent book. Its rather lengthy, but excellent. There are infact essay contests for Ayn Rand books, and the rewards are LARGE. 10,000 1st place for Fountainhead, and 5 grand for Atlas Shrugged. More info can be found at www.aynrand.org

By Midnightdanzer (Midnightdanzer) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 06:20 pm: Edit

There are aspects of her philosophy i do like. I am extremely pro-capitalist, pro-individual blah blah...but at the same time, she's too obsessed with "reason" and "rationality" ...i think there needs to be a balance in life, and there should be room for spirituality etc...

Though i disagree with some aspects, i have IMMENSE respect for her. I've never read any of her books (but i plan to), so i'm no expert, i jsut watched this 3 hour documentary about her life and ideas.

By Me1 (Me1) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 07:53 pm: Edit

I think she's interesting. I don't agree w/her, cos I think she has some good points but takes them WAY overboard. However, I generally find different viewpoints to be relatively interesting.

By Brd (Brd) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 11:08 pm: Edit

For a completely different take on Ayn Rand, I might recommend checking out Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Wierd Things. In addition to castigating such hokum as Creationism, Holocost Denial and UFO sightings, Shermer also takes Rand and Objectivism to task.

By Nautical_2000 (Nautical_2000) on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 10:20 am: Edit

I have the utmost respect for her! I agree with her philosophy (although I do think it is a bit extreme is some areas). So far I've read Anthem (a book I recommend to everyone), The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged is the best book I've ever read. The way she presented her philosphy there was so profound it really impacted my outlook in life. As corny as it sounds, reading about her philosphy strengthened a lot of my own values. I plan to read We the Living and other books by her.

By Sixtoes (Sixtoes) on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 05:28 pm: Edit

Don't like the way she portrays sex- in her books it's almost always impersonal, violent, patriarchial and rape-but-not. She uses this to prop up the idea of the ideal woman, who is really cool and successful on the outside but for some reason becomes a whimpering sex slave in the bedroom. Pathetic, and we don't need to entrench that mindset any longer.

Her books should be read, though, I'll grant that. Made me question my political stance.

By Entropy (Entropy) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 04:41 pm: Edit

I've read The Fountainhead and anyone who has read that book realizes that it is not the name or ranking of the institution that validates your intelligence or marks your potential to contribute to society. The book doesn't deal with that topic directly, but Peter Keating, the scholarly architect who has won all of these accolades for his academic achievement is so busy kissing butt that he compromises his integrity, and realizes that he doesn't have any real purpose or control in his life because he is constantly measuring himself and his success through the eyes of others.
After reading this book, one can see why money, fame, and privilege does not guarantee happiness or even total respect from others.

"Egoism over altruism is the greatest crime ever committed by mankind" Henry Roark

By Magicdragonfly (Magicdragonfly) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 06:24 pm: Edit

I've read The Fountainhead..and it was one of the best books I've ever read...and I got one of my friends to read it - their response : excellent book. heh..
I want to read Atlas Shrugged.

By Magicdragonfly (Magicdragonfly) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 06:26 pm: Edit

there is an essay contest for Anthem (9th and 10th graders), Fountainhead (11th and 12th graders) and Atlas Shrugged(undergrad college students)

By Magicdragonfly (Magicdragonfly) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 06:33 pm: Edit

...On the other hand..I wouldn't recommend Fountainhead for people who aren't going to understand it very well..I won't mention names..However..some people just don't get it. *shakes head* which kind of confuses me because it doesn't seem too hard to GET. Whatever- anyway..Fountainhead is a great book, and you shouldn't let it's length scare you away from reading it. It makes you think a lot- and I agree w/ most aspects of her philosophy
- I was going to enter the essay contest but never quite got around to writing the essay (*rolls eyes*)
The book took me a LONG time to read because I didn't read that much every day..usually I read a book straight through but I took a while to finish this one..well..that was partially because of me getting thrown into a mental hospital (one of the staff had read the book and started talking to me about it..lol) and not actually having time to myself because they have every second of your day planned out. I recommend that you avoid mental hospitals..bad ones anyway..like the ones that are like a step below prison..yeah..

By Magicdragonfly (Magicdragonfly) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 08:49 pm: Edit

Entropy: where exactly is that quote in the book?

By Quentin_Compson (Quentin_Compson) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 05:12 pm: Edit

Actually, I just recently read the fountainhead; I liked it, but it was way too black and white. You have to take into account that this was written during the 'red scare' in the U.S., so Rand's anti-communist sentiments pervade the novel. A good read, but not my type of philosophy.

By Entropy (Entropy) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 06:57 pm: Edit

Um... oops, I must have that quote confused with something else, MagicDragonfly.

By Plaidboxers (Plaidboxers) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 10:27 pm: Edit

For my junior thesis paper this year, I decided to try to write a refutation of Ayn Rand's view of ethics. I read Anthem and many, many commentaries and biographies and exerpts. I've been thinking about Objectivism, and I'd like to hear s'more thoughts about it. Rand was a briliant woman indeed, but I would have to agree with the last part of Rowan's message about Fountainhead: "It left me feeling a bit... lost, I suppose."

I am overall a "conservative": I believe in reason and absolute truth (as Rand said she did) and I am definitely a capitalist. But, do you guys get the impression that Rand took capitalism way too far? Something must be wrong when you say that you should only love someone who "deserves" your love... (there would be no love to give!) Also, Rand's idea of knowledge was that it came only from the senses, empirically. But, the truth is, we are not just bundles of noses and ears and eyes... Rand said that it's wrong to believe anything we don't see for ourselves... But, a baby believes his parents that rat poision isn't good to eat, so is that wrong? There are just some things that we cannot find out on our own, and we must believe other people. So, Rand's idea of "reason" was really limited, I think.

Tell me what you think!

By Ben (Ben) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 05:35 am: Edit

Plaidboxers,

I think loving someone who doesn't "deserve" your love could develop into something harmful to both parties - a relationship that could never work out. I understand how that *sounds* mean, but I don't think it really is.

"a baby believes his parents that rat poison isn't good to eat, so is that wrong?"

I think your mixing up the meaning of "empirical". That kind of thing *has* empirical evidence to back it up. I'm sure there is ways which a biochemist could explain exactly why rat poison isn't good. By "empirical" there is observable, documented, reproducible scientific evidence to back up such a claim. I don't think Rand wanted everyone to experience something first hand to believe it, I think she just wanted people to have developed a "reason barrier" from loosing your individuality to certain unknowns - like becoming indoctrinated into the "mass" because someone gave you not-so-empirical evidence of some mystical cause, i.e. "If you don't join our religion, your going to hell." Such a person would loose their ability to "discover" any more empirical truths because other ones were already "discovered" by their irrational beliefs. Like Evolution vs. Creationism...
Actually, that reminds me of something, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem has been used to say that computers can never be as smart as humans, because a computer's knowledge comes from a fixed set of axioms. Only humans can uncover "new" truths. I think that is why Rand was so empirical - someone who automatically ascribes to an irrational (i.e. "unempirical") belief loses their ability to uncover new axioms because they've already irrationally been "discovered" by the belief. They therefore become no more an "individual" as a computer programmed by a fixed set of axioms.

On a side note, I don't agree with Rand on some issues either - or maybe I don't understand them. Like above, someone made a comment on Rand's view of sex... can anyone explain that? I thought it was kind of weird too. Also, I wonder what she would think of mathematics, something that is VERY rational but, especially at the upper levels, based on little or no empirical evidence. Of course, maybe I'm mixing the meaning of "empirical"..?

Sorry for the disorganization of my thinking

By Plaidboxers (Plaidboxers) on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 08:24 pm: Edit

Thanks a bunch, Ben, for your response!

What you wrote does bring up some more questions, though... If you ever have a few free seconds I'd love to hear what you, or anyone else, thinks.

First, you said, "loving someone who doesn't 'deserve' your love could develop into something harmful to both parties," and I think that was pretty much what Rand was thinking too. But, does anyone really "deserve" our love? Sometimes it seems that my brothers are trying to send me to the asylum, but if I tried to drive them nuts in return, the problem would only escalate. Unless I am willing to be kind to them (despite their stupidity), there won't ever be peace between us until we're dead. I know that contradicts Rand's idea of the virtue of selfishness, but this unmerited love is the only rational thing in the end. That's my take.

Also, I agree with you about the definition of empirical. Indeed, there are very many empirical ways to discover that "rat poison is not candy" (ask any doctor). But, when your doctor walks up to you and says "No, rat poison is bad for you," you have a choice: you may either believe what the doctor said or you may disbelieve him and go home to find out yourself. For me, faith in the doctor seems the smart choice, because I trust him.

Let me think of a better example, perhaps... How do you know what city you were born in? I was born in Austin, Texas, but I only know that because I had faith in what my parents told me. I cannot empirically discover it. I guess I could find my birth certificate, but that could have been faked. I could call a bunch of hospitals and see if they have my name on record, but they could be lying to me. I understand that perhaps Rand meant "empirical" in a broad sense, but she also left zero room for faith in the realm of reason. She said faith in anything is foolish, but I can think of a thousand situations where we must either have faith, or not know the answer. That is my point about the incompleteness of empricism.

In that same vein, I don't see how believing in something (such as religion, for instance) will automatically take away your individuality. Certainly I see that it is possible (the stick-your-head-in-the-sand club would be pretty restricting), but it is not always that way. (And please don't try to argue that religion is always the same thing as sticking your head in the sand; it is simply not true.) The fact of the matter is this: everyone has some sort of "religion." Everyone has assumptions which they can't prove. Everyone. Concerning Creationism vs. Evolution, both sides must have faith. The Christian assumes that there is a God (which you can never prove empirically) and the Evolutionist assumes that disorderly molecules can slowly become organized into life (which you cannot prove empirically). No amount of science makes one better than the other. Ask yourself question after question about what you consider true, and you will eventually come to the answer "I just believe it."

Just some thoughts, thanks for reading them... Tell me what you think. Yeah, someone have an answer to Ben's questions? I wanna know too.