# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  What is it with Ayn Rand?

## krishna_lit

I once opened a book titled "Philosophy: Who needs it?" by Ayn Rand. It's a collection of essays and speeches by her. In it, she straightly offended Emanuel Kant saying that he singularly destroyed the world development with his philosophy. 

I wondered how can an author so blatantly criticize another person or a fellow philosopher. The thought that disturbed me so much about it was that Ayn Rand may had been a very influential author/philosopher but isn't it very rude on her part to knock another philosopher down just because she didn't like his teachings???

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> The thought that disturbed me so much about it was that Ayn Rand may had been a very influential author/philosopher


She's not, at all. She's influential amongst a very small group of militant right-wing conservatives who think themselves God's gift to mankind. She's not even beneath the contempt of real philosophers. Her criticizing Kant is akin to Bill O'Reilly criticizing Einstein.

----------


## Vota

I highly doubt that only militant right-wing conservatives are influenced by Ayn Rand's work. I would potentially call any work that is philosophical in nature, influential, when so many people have read the work. I would go as far as to guess that in this day and age, far more people have read Ayn Rand's work than Kant's. 

I'm greatly looking forward to reading the book, as well as the Fountainhead before it, so I can see what all the hub-bub is about.

----------


## mal4mac

There is so much rubbish that attains popularity that it would take all one's time to see what all the different hub-bub's are about. If I'd used hub-bubs to determine my reading, recently, I'd be reading novels about teenage vampires, wizard schoolboys and numerous shades of gray. And why would anyone interested in literature want to do that? And why would you want to read Ayn Rand?

----------


## Ecurb

Well, I've never read "Many Shades” or “Twilight”, but “Harry Potter wasn’t so bad, at least for the first two or three books. It went downhill after that, because the War with Voldemort was a bore compared to everyday life at Hogwarts. 
I read “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead” as a teenager, and I liked them, too (although not nearly as much as I liked other novels). The self-centered egomania of the characters appeals to the very young, I think. I never bought into the philosophy, but the passions, the rapes, the romances and the melodrama was appealing. It isn’t great literature – or even as good as (to name another book I liked as a teenager) something like “The Godfather”, but I can see why teenagers like the novels.

----------


## krishna_lit

> I'd be reading novels about teenage vampires, wizard schoolboys and numerous shades of gray. And why would anyone interested in literature want to do that? And why would you want to read Ayn Rand?


What you think is the definition so called "Literature" according to you?? I mean, what's wrong with reading anything that one is interested in? The sole point of literature is to live the kind of lives that we love in the form of _Stories,_ and being a citizen of such a world, what makes you say: 



> And why would anyone interested in literature want to do that?


One doesn't have the right to say so, at least not in this world of books. Be it Vampires stories or Wizarding worlds, readers live what they love. Every book that is written becomes a part of literature because it is liked and loved by somebody, but not that it is a part of literature so people have to like it and love it.

----------


## cacian

> I once opened a book titled "Philosophy: Who needs it?" by Ayn Rand. It's a collection of essays and speeches by her. In it, she straightly offended Emanuel Kant saying that he singularly destroyed the world development with his philosophy. 
> 
> I wondered how can an author so blatantly criticize another person or a fellow philosopher. The thought that disturbed me so much about it was that Ayn Rand may had been a very influential author/philosopher but isn't it very rude on her part to knock another philosopher down just because she didn't like his teachings???


one is allowed their opinions in the field of literature. that is part of extensive reading. take on others and say how they feel about it.
freedom of speech/thoughts. 
reading takes all sorts not just agreement. it is about the ability to sieve through ideas and decide for themselves without being accused of rudeness or impropriety.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> I highly doubt that only militant right-wing conservatives are influenced by Ayn Rand's work.


I guess you could say she influences real novelists and real philosophers on how not to write and think. 




> would go as far as to guess that in this day and age, far more people have read Ayn Rand's work than Kant's.


Probably so, but, as mal implied, many more have read Harry Potter than Rand, so what's popularity got to do with it? Kant is still influencing philosophers and even popular philosophy. Even those who don't agree with him have to react to him. The good thing about Rand is that everyone who doesn't agree with her can safely ignore her; her influence is only penetrating to people that already agree with her. As the writer John Rogers once said: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."




> There is so much rubbish that attains popularity that it would take all one's time to see what all the different hub-bub's are about. If I'd used hub-bubs to determine my reading, recently, I'd be reading novels about teenage vampires, wizard schoolboys and numerous shades of gray. And why would anyone interested in literature want to do that? And why would you want to read Ayn Rand?


Having had Twilight forced upon me by a "caring" family member, and having been subjected to a few readings of Gray, I must say that Harry Potter is on a whole other level of better compared to those works. Potter is actually quite good, well-written, imaginative fantasy; probably as good as anything since Lord of the Rings.

----------


## cacian

> I guess you could say she influences real novelists and real philosophers on how not to write and think


interesting point but should we really be influenced by others rather then ourselves?
one does not want to be others but to themselves true.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> interesting point but should we really be influenced by others rather then ourselves?
> one does not want to be others but to themselves true.


The mistake is in thinking that "ourselves" haven't already been formed (partly) by others. Being social animals we can't escape the influence of others. The same holds true of literature an any art; originality really comes from having a wealth of influences rather than (claiming to have) no influences. No artist can create anything without some influence. After all, how would a novelist even know what a novel was without having read other novels? Throughout history, the most original artists tend to be those that were also the most experienced with other artists within their medium. Look at the Modernists, how Eliot wrote The Waste Land, one of the most original, groundbreaking poems ever, almost wholly out of imitations/quotations/translations from previous authors. 

So, really, I think the best way to form "yourself" as an artist is to incorporate as many influences as possible, rather than not being influenced at all.

----------


## krishna_lit

> should we really be influenced by others rather then ourselves?


There is no question of whether should we be influenced by others or ourselves, because we ARE influenced ONLY by outside occurances. Not a single thing or thought in our life is our own. But whether should we act upon what others try to make us is our own choice but YES we are only a product of what comes to us. 



> one does not want to be others but to themselves true.


I don't totally agree to this, because everybody have their set of inspirations and when somebody inspires us that is only because we, at least in the atomic form of our unconscious desire in our subconscious minds, we do want to be like that _somebody._ That is the only first reason why our attitude or thought process is moved towards that person. But yes there are also people who take these inspirations and wants and tries to be more than that somebody. That is good too. But many people want to be like somebody. May be an aspiring dancer would want to be like Michael Jackson, or a aspiring musician might dream to be like John Williams or a cricketer would love to see himself as good as Sachin Tendulkar or a new film director would love to become the next Spielberg...

----------


## cacian

> QUOTE=krishna_lit;1239424]There is no question of whether should we be influenced by others or ourselves, because we ARE influenced ONLY by outside occurances. Not a single thing or thought in our life is our own. But whether should we act upon what others try to make us is our own choice but YES we are only a product of what comes to us.


I do not agree. I think awareness stands a fair point here. why be someone else when you can be you?
we may influenced by others and the environment around us but one must learn to aware and tare.
one has to learn to sieve what one wishes to retain and reject what one does not as part of our psychological development.
To be a product is someone is perpetuating sameness and eventually leads to boredom. one can only hack so much of the same thing before it becomes worthless. novelty wears out and we as part of it become worn out. it is a grim prospect to think that we are to be the product of someone else's work and not our own imagination. flair is all about finding that balance between what one sees and what one wishes to make of it.




> I don't totally agree to this, because everybody have their set of inspirations and when somebody inspires us that is only because we, at least in the atomic form of our unconscious desire in our subconscious minds, we do want to be like that _somebody._ That is the only first reason why our attitude or thought process is moved towards that person. But yes there are also people who take these inspirations and wants and tries to be more than that somebody. That is good too. But many people want to be like somebody. May be an aspiring dancer would want to be like Michael Jackson, or a aspiring musician might dream to be like John Williams or a cricketer would love to see himself as good as Sachin Tendulkar or a new film director would love to become the next Spielberg...


again following someone else step is one pilgrimage too many. why replicate Spielberg when you can showcase your volition and talent instead?
inspiration is admiration but it stops there. one must reinvent and find something new because of the inspiration but not for it.
are we become too lazy to think for ourselves? shadowing someone else says a lot about our intellectual development or lack of it.

----------


## cacian

> The mistake is in thinking that "ourselves" haven't already been formed (partly) by others. Being social animals we can't escape the influence of others. The same holds true of literature an any art; originality really comes from having a wealth of influences rather than (claiming to have) no influences. No artist can create anything without some influence. After all, how would a novelist even know what a novel was without having read other novels? Throughout history, the most original artists tend to be those that were also the most experienced with other artists within their medium. Look at the Modernists, how Eliot wrote The Waste Land, one of the most original, groundbreaking poems ever, almost wholly out of imitations/quotations/translations from previous authors. 
> 
> So, really, I think the best way to form "yourself" as an artist is to incorporate as many influences as possible, rather than not being influenced at all.


I agree that an influence is unavoidable as well important but one must find a balance between what one is and what he or she thinks he is.
we are easily influenced and led but we are easily fled too. there is a fine balance between the too and one must strive to find it I think.
one can only be true to themselves and happiness of mind is crucial to that. success is being able to suggest new ideas by learning past ones
only then originality is led.
one wishes to lead but not follow.

----------


## mal4mac

> Having had Twilight forced upon me by a "caring" family member, and having been subjected to a few readings of Gray, I must say that Harry Potter is on a whole other level of better compared to those works. Potter is actually quite good, well-written, imaginative fantasy; probably as good as anything since Lord of the Rings.


OK Morpheus you, Ecurb & Christopher Hitchens* have nudged me into, perhaps, reading the first one if it appears on the library new shelf. Still not expecting to like it much, but one needs to keep in touch with the Zeitgeist, however trivial it is becoming. Christopher provides a damning review of one of the later ones in his superb last collection of essays "Arguably", along the lines of Ecurb's criticism, so I'll probably stop at one! 

* http://www.amazon.com/Arguably-Essay.../dp/1455502782.

----------


## mal4mac

> So, really, I think the best way to form "yourself" as an artist is to incorporate as many influences as possible, rather than not being influenced at all.


Doesn't everyone get formed that way anyway? How can you escape being influenced by anything you encounter? Does a great artist form themselves using the kind of rational process you are implying, or is it a more organic, unconscious process? 

Whether "incorporation" is a conscious or unconscious process, I think we should be careful of what we use as grist for our mills.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> OK Morpheus you, Ecurb & Christopher Hitchens* have nudged me into, perhaps, reading the first one if it appears on the library new shelf. Still not expecting to like it much, but one needs to keep in touch with the Zeitgeist, however trivial it is becoming. Christopher provides a damning review of one of the later ones in his superb last collection of essays "Arguably", along the lines of Ecurb's criticism, so I'll probably stop at one! 
> 
> * http://www.amazon.com/Arguably-Essay.../dp/1455502782.


I have not read the whole series. I think I stopped at #4, not because it had jumped the shark or anything, I just usually get bored with reading the same authors after a while, especially when they aren't stylistically diverse. I haven't read that Hitch book either. Do you think you could summarize what he said? 




> Doesn't everyone get formed that way anyway? How can you escape being influenced by anything you encounter? Does a great artist form themselves using the kind of rational process you are implying, or is it a more organic, unconscious process? 
> 
> Whether "incorporation" is a conscious or unconscious process, I think we should be careful of what we use as grist for our mills.


I did mean to imply that everyone IS formed that way, whether consciously or unconsciously. 

One statement most every creative writing teacher gets (I've heard) is from at least one student who says that they don't want to read poetry for fear of being influenced and losing their originality; the assumption being they haven't already been "formed" by what they know (or think they know) about poetry. Yet, If they aren't well-read, they can't really know what's original and what's not to begin with. So, in a sense, they've already been formed by influences; but because the influences are unconscious, and because they're so ignorant (of what poetry is out there), it deludes the students into thinking they haven't been influenced at all. I think that's one example of "unconscious influence." 

However, I also think that it can be, at least partially, conscious. Keats picked over Shakespeare's sonnets with a fine-toothed comb, writing notes in the margins about what he liked and didn't, and out of that "study" he formed much of his own aesthetic ideals. So I think that's an example of a very conscious kind of influence. In my own writing I often find that when I'm looking for an image, a metaphor, or some stylistic/formal device I find myself consciously reaching for things I've read; or I've found myself consciously "imitating" poets/poems I love in hopes that maybe some of their creative process will rub off on me, that I'll learn from trying to employ it myself. 

So I might say that there's always some unconscious influence which is based on one's level of experience with their art; yet, with good artists especially, there's almost always a conscious side to influence as well. I'm probably not as "careful" as you might recommend. I tend to want to try everything at least once. Sometimes I quickly learn that, for whatever reason, I'm not wired to write in a particular way. I attempted (a few times) writing a satirical piece via couplets ala Pope, or very simple lyrics ala Burns, and found that I just couldn't.

----------


## mal4mac

> I have not read the whole series. I think I stopped at #4, not because it had jumped the shark or anything, I just usually get bored with reading the same authors after a while, especially when they aren't stylistically diverse. I haven't read that Hitch book either. Do you think you could summarize what he said?


It's online:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/bo...itchens-t.html

Two ouch sentences:

"The repeated tactic of deus ex machina (without a deus) has a deplorable effect on both the plot and the dialogue."

It's also generally considered to be one of the worst flaws in bad science fiction/fantasy books.

"Greater authors — Arthur Conan Doyle most notably — have been in the same dilemma when seeking closure."

I doubt Hitch thinks Arthur Conan Doyle is all that great! So where does that leave Rowling? I tend to draw the line just below Arthur Conan Doyle, lesser authors are hardly worth bothering with.

----------


## Ecurb

"Harry Potter" isn't great, but it combines two excellent genres of Children's Literature: fantasy and the British Public School novel. Part of the fun is that Harry and his cohorts are more afraid of being caught outside the dormitory after hours by a teacher than they are of being killed by Voldemort. This seems to me an accurate description of the lives of children. In general, of the two genres, the British Public School parts are better than the fantasy parts (which are derivative and pedestrian). 

If you don't like British Public School novels or fantasy novels (or didn't like them as a child), mal4 mac, I wouldn't bother. If you like them, though, the first couple of books are worth reading. 

Arthur Conan Doyle is fun, because of the eccentricities of his characters, but his mysteries are replete with dozens of deus ex machinas (or, at least, solutions to the mysteries that are by modern standards contrived). 

Ayn Rand wrote overheated potboilers, which makes her philosophy of "Objectivism" seem misnamed. 

One cannot be a good writer without being a reader (in my opinion). How does one learn to sharpen one's taste and one's ear without reading? Could someone become a good cook without eating?

----------


## cafolini

"Could someone become a good cook without eating?" LOL
There are some that can do it. Double LOL

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> It's online... So where does that leave Rowling? I tend to draw the line just below Arthur Conan Doyle, lesser authors are hardly worth bothering with.


Thanks for the link. I have no objections to Deus Ex Machinas though. Another Hitch (Alfred Hitchcock) used them all the time and very few noticed because the craftsmanship was impeccable and the thematic substance was so saturating. To me, if one has to complain about DEMs then that just means that the author hasn't succeeded in making them not matter, which is a much more grievous concern. Having read both AC Doyle and Rowling, I think I'd put them roughly equal. At least what I'd say is that AC Doyle at hist best is better than Rowling at her best, but Doyle was not always at his best, and his worst is probably worse than Rowling's worst (as I find Rowling pretty consistent).

----------


## Vota

"probably as good as anything since The Lord of The Rings".

I think I barfed a little when I read that.

"Rand is still influencing "people" and even popular philosophy. Even those who don't agree with her have to react to her." Flipped it for ya.

I have no idea what I'll think of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead until I've read them, but I have read some Kant, and I can say, imho, that he has one of THE WORST writing styles I have ever had the displeasure to read. Aristotle is practically a Michelangelo of letters in comparison.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> I think I barfed a little when I read that.


I'm hardly some hardcore Harry Potter nerd. These days I spend 80% of my time reading poetry and the other 20% reading criticism/theory on film and literature. I haven't read much fantasy since my teens and early 20s, so I'm not going to spend much time defending the statement. There is undoubtedly a lot of fantasy out there I'm not familiar with, but from my experience I still think Harry Potter is a quality example of the genre, and much of the hate I see for it seems like little more than predictable attempts at elitist backlash. 




> Flipped it for ya.


The flip is wrong. Rand is not taken seriously by anyone who doesn't agree with her, unlike the genuinely great philosophers, authors, artists, etc. 




> I have no idea what I'll think of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead until I've read them, but I have read some Kant, and I can say, imho, that he has one of THE WORST writing styles I have ever had the displeasure to read. Aristotle is practically a Michelangelo of letters in comparison.


I find a lot of philosophers to be deplorable writers. I often think that's a product of them struggling to express complex thoughts through the limiting filter of language, perhaps combined with a lack of understanding of how best to express those thoughts, hence all of the technical terminology and even neologisms; these things aren't helped by the fact that most need to be translated. I often find it more helpful to read books ON philosophers as opposed to reading philosophers themselves. 

Anyway, the point was simply that Kant's philosophy is still influencing philosophers, whether those philosophers accept and expand on his thoughts or reject his thoughts and forge another path. This is nothing like Rand, where most people either accept her word as gospel or (rightly) ignore her.

----------


## cafolini

> I'm hardly some hardcore Harry Potter nerd. These days I spend 80% of my time reading poetry and the other 20% reading criticism/theory on film and literature. I haven't read much fantasy since my teens and early 20s, so I'm not going to spend much time defending the statement. There is undoubtedly a lot of fantasy out there I'm not familiar with, but from my experience I still think Harry Potter is a quality example of the genre, and much of the hate I see for it seems like little more than predictable attempts at elitist backlash. 
> 
> The flip is wrong. Rand is not taken seriously by anyone who doesn't agree with her, unlike the genuinely great philosophers, authors, artists, etc. 
> 
> I find a lot of philosophers to be deplorable writers. I often think that's a product of them struggling to express complex thoughts through the limiting filter of language, perhaps combined with a lack of understanding of how best to express those thoughts, hence all of the technical terminology and even neologisms; these things aren't helped by the fact that most need to be translated. I often find it more helpful to read books ON philosophers as opposed to reading philosophers themselves. 
> 
> Anyway, the point was simply that Kant's philosophy is still influencing philosophers, whether those philosophers accept and expand on his thoughts or reject his thoughts and forge another path. This is nothing like Rand, where most people either accept her word as gospel or (rightly) ignore her.


How did Rand divorced Kant without Aristotle permission, and married Electrified Gustav, with you as a witness. And where the Hell is Harry Potter not mounting guard on the stone with you so close. ROFLMAO

----------


## Vota

The only problem I really have with what you said is, that people ignore Rand's work when/if they disagree with it, but that's essentially what people do when they reject Kant's work, ignore it. It's nearly the same thing. One disparages and one pays a little lip service, but neither agrees.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> The only problem I really have with what you said is, that people ignore Rand's work when/if they disagree with it, but that's essentially what people do when they reject Kant's work, ignore it. It's nearly the same thing. One disparages and one pays a little lip service, but neither agrees.


They're "the same thing" in that the dissenters disagree, but completely unalike in how they react. I think you do a disservice to Kant to say that his dissenters merely pay "lip service" to him. Philosophies can be formed out of a philosopher explaining WHY they disagree with Kant because his ideas are deep enough to provoke opposing philosophies. 

Let me give you a different example: I'm an atheist. When I encounter the arguments of Ray Comfort I can dismiss them because of their blatant idiocy; yet when I encounter the arguments of William Lane Craig I actually have to deal with them, because they aren't as blatantly wrong as, say, Comfort's Banana Argument. It was actually me encountering WLC many years ago that got me interested in cosmology and quantum physics. Comfort just made me sad for humanity. 

Maybe Rand isn't as bad as Comfort, but she probably is to Comfort what Craig is to Kant.

----------


## hellsapoppin

> I once opened a book titled "Philosophy: Who needs it?" by Ayn Rand. It's a collection of essays and speeches by her. In it, she straightly offended Emanuel Kant saying that he singularly destroyed the world development with his philosophy. 
> 
> I wondered how can an author so blatantly criticize another person or a fellow philosopher. The thought that disturbed me so much about it was that Ayn Rand may had been a very influential author/philosopher but isn't it very rude on her part to knock another philosopher down just because she didn't like his teachings???





Ayn Rand - she is looked upon by the right wingers as some form of modern day goddess or saviouress who is mounted on a white charger and is out to save the world from the thralldom of socialism and liberalism. What is so especially ironic in all this is that the conservatives (the guardians of everything that is good, moral, and upright or so they think) look to her as some form of role model. This despite the fact that she lived a degenerate life, screwed every young man she could find, left her husband all alone when he was sick, smoked and drank herself to death, publicly professed hatred for welfare but secretly collected it under her married name. Then, most ironic of all - that while Christian conservatives love her she went on record as calling Jesus the biggest fraud in history and that the best thing about Christmas was its commercialization!

Therefore, it's not so much Rand who was all screwed up --- it's the not so brilliant delusionals who love her that are the ones who are most screwy!

----------


## thialfi

> Harry Potter wasnt so bad, at least for the first two or three books. It went downhill after that, because the War with Voldemort was a bore compared to everyday life at Hogwarts.


I'm late to the party. I quit after four books primarily because of length, but I love that quote.

Did you ever see an English movie called "Belles of Saint Trinian's"? Everyday life was interesting there also.

----------


## svejorange

I wish everyone the best of luck!

----------


## SageOfMainSt.

IF YOU'RE AYNAL, YOU'LL GET RANDY

In that book, Rand never explained exactly what was wrong with Kant. She also wrote a book review of "Beyond Freedom and Dignity," while admitting that she hadn't even read it.

----------


## SageOfMainSt.

John Galt was a gutless victim of corporate patents; Rand's heroes who own them through Low IQ brute force are parasites. So is anyone who gets an inheritance, like the Socialite Socialists who finally forced Galt to man up, which the pathetic little nerd never would have done outside of Rand's insulting richloving fantasy. (I had about ten more lines here, but they got lost because of a poor connection to this embee. I may have to quit this place, definitely if I get replies that are jealously anti-IQ blind conformity to professional flunkies of the bipartisan ruling class)

----------


## Ekimhtims

I remember reading Atlas Shrugged during lunch break at work one day and a fellow employee told me she didn't like the book. When her ignorance of the plot quickly became apparent I asked if she read it; she hadn't. I then had to remind her of a few things called historical context, personal biography, and the nature of literature. Needless to say she didn't flex her moral superiority anymore over one who enjoyed a fictional novel well worth reading.

----------


## kev67

I am reading _The Fountainhead_. I think it's pretty good. It has an original plot. It is about work. It's way better than _Fahrenheit 451_, which I read before it. I don't think it discusses Rand's theory of Objectivism as much as _Atlas Shrugged_, but _Atlas Shrugged_ is massive and I did not want to commit to so long a read if I was not going to enjoy it. _The Fountainhead_ is long enough. I

----------

