Someone tell me about this book, I've heard good and bad things about it. I picked it up today, the printing is real small and it's at least 100 pages long. Looks interesting though.

I've read very little about Ayn Rand, and a few friends have said good things about her, but even more people think she is basically a huge cunt. Her philosophy is based on objectivism/individualism/capitalism which is based in her theories more or less that everybody has a right to be a self-promoting consumer asshole, and fuck the rest of the world for that matter. Plus, she basically said Immanuel Kant (my favorite philosopher who's quoted in my sig), is an idiot and a liar.

I think Atlas Shrugged is like 1000-some pages long and I'm sure as fuck not reading it, but I'll read her theories in shorter books to gain some perspective.

Honestly, I don't know. I haven't read it. I did enjoy "We the Living", though.

It's crap.

I read "The Fountainhead"...that was enough Ayn Rand for me, thank you.

They're right.



They're right, too. She was harsh, judgmental, and downright mean when she hit old age.





Though she hated being recognized as such, her works and thought practically founded the entire basis for my (small) political party, the Libertarians.



Yes. She in fact stated at one point that he was the most evil man in mankind's history. That's a bit overboard, but his philosophy did stand directly opposite hers in every point. Kant claims (correct me if I'm wrong, GV) that reality is, in and of itself, unknowable, that the senses "distort" reality, meaning that our experience is subjective.

Kant's morality, the part which abhorred Rand the most, is that "good" comes from following a universal law, called the "categorical imperitive (sp?)", at all times, regardless of the outcome of your action and the effects on one's (or anyone's) happiness. Follwing the "categorical imperitive" means to consider the essence of what you're considering doing (divorced of all context) as being an actual law that everyone at all times must follow, evaluating the result of such a law, and acting accordingly. For example, starting a fistfight in a bar is immoral since things wouldn't be very nice if everyone always started fistfights all the time. Sounds good until some context is placed in the situation: if the Germans were busting down your door and asked you if you had seen any Jews, the moral thing, in Kant's view, is to tell that they are hiding in your attic, since lying (lying as such; not "lying to protect innocents" since context must always be excluded when considering the morality of your actions in his view) would not make the world plausible if everyone did it all the time.



If you're interested in her theories, they're divided among four or five paperbacks that are available almost anywhere.

In short, she says that, given a properly working mind, what you see is what you get as far as reality goes; she says that reason is man's way of knowing that reality; she says that morality comes from doing what you need to do to be happy as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others; and, in turn, she preaches capitalism as being politically moral when it is untainted.

she's a simply atrocious writer. save yourself several days of frustration and just read "Anthem" and leave it at that.

He's right. "Anthem" is good as a short story, but her fiction prose is hard to read.

Did she get worse with time? I enjoyed "We The Living". It wasn't the greatest writing ever, there were times it dragged, but there were parts I thought had some excellent writing.

I do think a lot of people have so much trouble looking past her views to even fairly analyze her work. Plus, like anything else, it's often a matter of opinion. I thought "Brave New World" was insanely boring. Yeah, I got the message, but the way it was presented sucked.

Can someone explain to me how Kant is not a giant cock, because the categorical imperative business sure makes him seem like one.

I haven't studied Kant's moralistic theories yet, although I'd like check out a few of his works on the subject in the coming weeks. I'm no fucking expert when it comes to philosophy, I'm not a major and I could only name about 10 philosophers, but out of the one's I've studied in metaphysics, Kant's made the most sense to me, it was the most thorough and organized and I see a hard time arguing against it. But like I said, I don't know his philosophy on morals.

Darrin, I've only read Kant's Prolegomena which is basically his watered-down version of The Critique of Pure Reason (that's next for me). As far as metaphysics goes, Kant believed that we cannot come to know things that we have not "experienced" although it is possible to aquire knowledge prior-to-experience through scientific law and understanding - which basically proves the existence of the world external to the individual, as well as properties of cause and effect. Essentially, we only know what and how we feel and percieve things, and we can never know about universal questions like God and the soul because those ideas are completely foreign to us and impossible (since we all share the same experience). That's more or less the gist of it and what you mean by not knowing "things in themselves," ie the true nature of matter as opposed to some substance that exists outside of space/time. You're a mathematician, so you should have a pretty interesting perspective on this. It would be great if someone else here could clarify, but I took a class last semester and did very well so I'm assuming I have somewhat of a grasp of the material; but then again its not even my particular field.

good god almighty i watch this trailer and I have zero interest to pick up the used copy i received. This is number one on Modern Library's Reader List? Okay...

I actually thought the first, oh, 1/3 of the book was pretty enjoyable. Working a little too hard to make a point, but fun enough....the further in I got, the more eye rolling I had to do. I pretty much finished it out of spite.

LOL @ GV reading Kant.

Get lost for fuck's sake.

I heard Mickey quit the board because Anne Ranne needed an understudy. Please direct inquiries to Alex in the RMLeaks thread.

The trailer doesn't look THAT bad.... it doesn't look that good, but.....