Yes.

Pretty much.

>>25503824
Her prose is bad and her plots are uninteresting. I'm never going to read a novel of ideas unless the author baits me in with good storytelling. Rand isn't that.

>>25503824
nah it's just retarded and false

atlas shrugged:
>gigachad tries to build train out of new material, nobody has tried it before
>does no testing because he's an egomaniac
>all experts say he's a retard, he's gonna get himself killed
>gigachad says fuck the experts they're corrupt dumbasses and does it anyway
>it works cause he's a gigachad and the experts are all corrupt dumbasses

real life:
>gigachad tries to build submarine out of new material, nobody has tried it before
>does no testing because he's an egomaniac
>all experts say he's a retard, he's gonna get himself killed
>gigachad says fuck the experts they're corrupt dumbasses and does it anyway
>he gets himself and some kids killed because he was a retarded egomaniac and the experts actually know what they're talking about

>>25503824
if only I could express in a way you would understand the unfathomable depths of my loathing for you since you are reposting the OP of an already shit thread yet again
genuinely get a fucking life you loser, absolute fucking loser

fucking bellend
nonce cunt

>>25503844
Except in the book they did do the tests and everything. They determined that the thing would actually work, unlike the submarine guys.

>>25503854
The first car on the track is manned with them at 100 miles per hour. They didn't test it

File: Ayn_Rand_(1943_Talbot_por(...).jpg (12 KB, 250x303)

12 KB JPG

>>25503824
Firstly, most people going in to this are going to think that it is something in the vein of typical political fiction, like 1984, but with a ultra-capitalist take.

It isn't. Atlas Shrugged is a shitty romance novel with an ideology. It's billionaire romance shlock broken up with overlong and often redundant political rants. It belongs in the same category as those books where the author has clearly tried to turn their fetish into some kind of political movement or philosophy.

Secondly, Rand is just a conservative. She is a conservative who stole Lenin's epistemology (ironically) and decided to drop the moral posturing of her day to make her basic bitch conservative beliefs sound more profound. A bunch of libertarians came in behind her and headcanoned in some bullshit about how it was actually about total freedom, but their up their own assholes with that one. And you can get much better conservative thought than fucking Ayn Rand. Hell, you can get much better libertarian thought than Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand's ideology ultimately boils down to the "true" hard-boiled businessmen being god-men inherently better than the filthy masses who should be given leave to run the world as they see fit without consideration of said filthy masses, because the filthy poors will ultimately benefit from their great works of their betters, and also they should have rough sex with her anywhere, any time they want.

>>25503848
Kek, the redditparasite seethe is delicious.

File: Atlas Shrugged sex.jpg (1.22 MB, 2400x1422)

1.22 MB JPG

Is she right about this?

>>25503892
>the "true" hard-boiled businessmen being god-men inherently better than the filthy masses who should be given leave to run the world as they see fit without consideration of said filthy masses, because the filthy poors will ultimately benefit from their great works of their betters
The spite is thick and disgusting in your post. Yes, that's literally all we Libertarians want, we don't want to run your life, we just want to run our own, and if that means being 'god-men' and creating our own civilization, while being totally uncaring and inconsiderate of you 'masses', even though we charitably created your entire world, so be it, live in your little fiefdom of bureaucrats and be content.

File: choochoo.jpg (228 KB, 600x600)

228 KB JPG

>>25503837
that's kind of her point tho
she wanted to live in the world where slop like this book was the kind of mainstream novel you could buy at airports... and I'm using "slop" without negative connotations here
she's for economy/society what Crichton was for science and Dan Brown is for mysticism

through this lens, the amount of irrational seethe she generates from frothing-mouth leftists is unexpectedly hilarious (and a tad worrying...)

>>25503892
>>25503934
The rest of your post is trash, but I think the biggest flaw with Rand's philosophy is her lionization of concrete persons. The problem with it is its tendency toward subjectivization. A man's relationship to objective standards never changes by being a person who embodies them. They still stand over him and apart from him. And in actuality, you never do find an Objectivist hero who remains so for long. As soon as he becomes a "hero", he mistakes himself for the standard and promptly falls short of it. But this is in a sense my saying that Rand didn't go far enough, or that she just needed to be more consistently objective. I find her overall effort impressive and commendable.

It's garbage psychosexual fantasy. John Galt is a fairy tale character whom Rand appears to lust for. An allegory for this archetype of the grand genius billionaire carrying society on their shoulders may be Musk, Altman, and the other broligarchs. Musk didn't personally build Teslas, the slave laborers he employed did, the engineers designed the rockets, and whatever other slop his jeet sycophants are buying up nowadays. The "genius entrepreneur" myth obscures the collective labor that actually produces value. The real producer ironically is the working class who generates the product, the parasite is the Galt who sits on his ass and schmoozes with other nepobaby pricks gambling the surplus value on the stock market casino.

>>25503959
Musk is not Galt. Galt was a real creator

>>25503959
I love this post because Rand-haters always fall for the bait and gainsay her philosophy in exactly the terms she set up for them, thus exposing themselves as evil from the get-go. They just decide to lose the debate as soon as they enter. If they were smart, they'd reframe the discussion first, but Rand so gets under their skin that they lose their minds.

>>25503969
Her philosophy is just obviously retarded even on its own terms, there's no reason to put that much effort into it

File: great chain of being.jpg (2.2 MB, 2092x3016)

2.2 MB JPG

>>25503934
>>25503955
You are a lolbert retard who has headcanoned in a bunch of bullshit that Rand never thought or meant. She thinks the world ought to be run by great men of intelligence (as proven exclusively by business success) who she thinks are fundamentally superior to all other men. The whole point of Galt's Gulch is to supposedly prove their fundamental superiority, as many of the men who were once big business magnates suddenly become menial laborers, only to then become the best medial laborers that ever did live in their particular fields that they just started months ago because they are fundamentally superior, and also to say that society needs the rich people most of all since all the great institutions of society are really just extensions of these great personalities. It is the medieval concept Great Chain of Being with the invisible hand of the market serving for the will of God. Which is to say: basic bitch conservatism that has existed literally since the middle ages given a secular revision.

Any novel about railroads is going to be on my reading list. I bet this is a great one. Choo-Choo!!

>>25503824
This retarded woman completely misunderstood Kant. I don’t know what this book is about and I don’t care enough to find out anyway. I prefer “wasting” my time with Plato, More or Marx’s scum.

File: 1785900843453349.png (28 KB, 647x161)

28 KB PNG

>>25503824
I think it's based how she views philosophy as a list of boxes to be filled, like filling out a character sheet for dnd.

>>25503955
>inb4 everything is personal, if you are a person
yeah it would have been great if the hero was raped by his values until he transforms into something else, greater (in the Giger / Lovecraft sense), but
1. that would have been another book, not one where characters serve as representatives of ideas
2. Rand was not Christian, heck she wasn't even religiously Jewish, so there would have been no other way out but suicide... and that would have contradicted the point of the book lol

>>25503824
I enjoy pointing out Ayn Rand is the most prominent and influential female philosopher in history

File: bro thinks he's on the team1.jpg (118 KB, 1200x704)

118 KB JPG

>>25503934
>we just want to run our own, and if that means being 'god-men' and creating our own civilization, while being totally uncaring and inconsiderate of you 'masses', even though we charitably created your entire world, so be it, live in your little fiefdom of bureaucrats and be content.
>we
Who's "we"? lmao

>>25503892
>Atlas Shrugged is a shitty romance novel with an ideology. It's billionaire romance shlock broken up with overlong and often redundant political rants. It belongs in the same category as those books where the author has clearly tried to turn their fetish into some kind of political movement or philosophy.
sounds like juliette by de sade

>>25504037
It's not just her novel, though. Rand herself insisted that her ideal heroes exist in real life. I'm saying that's almost a contradiction in terms. It's impossible to remain objective and arrive at the conclusion that anyone, especially anyone still living, embodies the ideal. In order to say that, you must either have exhaustively evaluated every detail of a person's decisions in his life (which is impossible), or you must exchange the ideal with the individual and make the subjective serve the function of the objective. Obviously the latter is a great danger to which men are prone. It's easy to change from "what he did was right, therefore he is right" to "he is right, therefore what he did was right".

>>25504032
>objective reality
Objective by what metric? How does she know what's really real?
>reason
You can rationalize anything
>self-interest
What if someone's self-interest is based on destroying and ransacking the capitalist system?
>capitalism
Maximizing profits means the total lowering of standards. If capital is the supreme and singular ideal then this is carte blanche to outsource all labor or leave it to imported laborers willing to work at a quarter of the wages they ought to get to produce lower-quality items because there's no incentive to do otherwise. The fiction of being kept in check by competitors providing 'better quality' is a cute and naive sentiment but any corporation will invariably settle for putting in the least amount of effort into production as they can if they can get away with it.

>>25504080
It's not really that Rand is claiming "I have rationally proved that capitalism is objectively the best system." Her point is more methodological. She insists on objective reality as opposed to those who actually, philosophically reject objective reality in the abstract as anything that can bind human behavior. She insists on reason against those who philosophically insist that reason is an illusion or is impossible. Sure, the people who reject objective reality and reason still appeal to objective reality and to reason when it suits them, but they've allowed themselves to be inconsistent.
Self interest is not merely "what I want to do"; objective reality and reason are still foremost, and they restrict what you can possibly ascertain as your self interest. The rule that Rand identifies as the basis of ethics is life. Self interest is that which conduces to life. So your self interest must be consistent with living life as a man, and you cannot methodologically allow for a conception of self interest that is not tethered to reason and objective reality, because then you could never be consistent. And since, in order to conceive of any kind of self interest according to the above method, much less act on it, your right to use your mind to make decisions is presupposed, then government cannot in principle have the right to constrain that liberty, except of course on the principle that your liberty may not imperil the life or liberty of others.

>>25504107
>Self interest is not merely "what I want to do"; objective reality and reason are still foremost, and they restrict what you can possibly ascertain as your self interest.
Rugpulling a memecoin is completely in your self-interest, then.
>Self interest is that which conduces to life.
How can you say what is conducive to life? And if it is not completely or at least overwhelmingly in favor of your own life, then it is not self-interest.
>objective reality
Can you define it? If not, how can you claim to follow it?
>but they've allowed themselves to be inconsistent
By what metric should we ascertain how 'heroic' (in the Randian, Galtian sense) someone is? Their net worth? Surely not, since that means Musk, Thiel, and Bezos embody the supreme ideal, which, lol. Something less definable and more abstract? But then you're getting into the realm of subjectivity.
>She insists on reason against those who philosophically insist that reason is an illusion or is impossible.
Very well, but what makes her assertions so reasonable and valid? How is it that her reason is more reasonable than any other kind of reasonable argument? Her argument that reason is supreme amounts to just saying "because it is", without substantiating it or directing it in a manner that reinforces that claim, instead of using it to reinforce her own latent, post-hoc ideological precepts.

>>25504072
>insisted that her ideal heroes exist in real life
depends on what we mean by exist lol
embodying an ideal is an act of will, but is it your will or the "will" of the ideal?
smart girl, objectifying men ultimately

I have no idea about Objectivism, so feel free to point out where I am wrong (or right)... I'm interested

we got a seething commie in the thread boys

>>25504178
I hate communism but I hate dilettantes and intellectually impoverished charlatans more.

>>25503892
God damn this anon wasn't joking. I would rather read werewolf slop than this cuck shit. I didn't realize there were actually women who have a fetish for cucking

“They looked as if they knew that one may not approach you or speak in your presence or touch a fold of your dress. They knew it and it’s true. They looked at you with respect, didn’t they? They looked up to you?”
He seized her arm, threw her down on her knees, twisting her body against his legs, and bent down to kiss her mouth. She laughed soundlessly, her laughter mocking, but her eyes half-closed, veiled with pleasure.
Hours later, when they lay in bed together, his hand moving over her body, he asked suddenly, throwing her back against the curve of his arm, bending over her—and she knew, by the intensity of his face, by the sound of a gasp somewhere in the quality of his voice, even though his voice was low and steady, that the question broke out of him as if it were worn by the hours of torture he had spent with it:
“Who were the other men that had you?”
He looked at her as if the question were a sight visualized in every detail, a sight he loathed, but would not abandon; she heard the contempt in his voice, the hatred, the suffering—and an odd eagerness that did not pertain to torture; he had asked the question, holding her body tight against him.
She answered evenly, but he saw a dangerous flicker in her eyes, as of a warning that she understood him too well. “There was only one other, Hank.”
“When?”
“When I was seventeen.”
“Did it last?”
“For some years.”
“Who was he?”
She drew back, lying against his arm; he leaned closer, his face taut; she held his eyes. “I won’t answer you.”
“Did you love him?”
“I won’t answer.”
“Did you like sleeping with him?”
“Yes!”
The laughter in her eyes made it sound like a slap across his face, the laughter of her knowledge that this was the answer he dreaded and wanted.
He twisted her arms behind her, holding her helpless, her breasts pressed against him; she felt the pain ripping through her shoulders, she heard the anger in his words and the huskiness of pleasure in his voice: “Who was he?”
She did not answer, she looked at him, her eyes dark and oddly brilliant, and he saw that the shape of her mouth, distorted by pain, was the shape of a mocking smile.
He felt it change to a shape of surrender, under the touch of his lips. He held her body as if the violence and the despair of the way he took her could wipe his unknown rival out of existence, out of her past, and more: as if it could transform any part of her, even the rival, into an instrument of his pleasure. He knew, by the eagerness of her movement as her arms seized him, that this was the way she wanted to be taken.

>>25504208
Here's your scathing sober objectivist worldview bro
not to mention the main character Dagny is the most obvious self insert of all time

File: wolf.jpg (451 KB, 1500x2300)

451 KB JPG

>>25504208
>I would rather read werewolf slop
based

>>25503824
Capitalism has never worked. It always and without fail collapses in the end.

Liberal capitalists are the redditors.

>Rands heroes are internationalist elites
>These people have no allegiance to any state
>They only pick a state clean. enrich one, regrade another

Jeffery_Epstein.jpg

File: 1765384332958427.jpg (159 KB, 500x584)

159 KB JPG

>>25503824
if shed called herself a neoreactionary she would of invited debate from fulton sheen

File: 7ncnb9.jpg (118 KB, 618x412)

118 KB JPG

>>25503930
> try to imagine having sex out of God-focused charity and a sense of greater purpose

File: hoy.png (1.14 MB, 1024x1024)

1.14 MB PNG

>>25504480
they took responsibility tho, compared to shit-in-the-middle-of-the-street tier jews like pic rel

Rand threads always attract the biggest pseud lolcows on this board.

>>25503965
>Galt was a real creator
Hence why the book is fiction. That and Galt's Gulch not being immediately turned into a dystopian oligopoly.

>>25503824
Here's my theory.
I found the veneration of John Galt to be similar to the cult of personality surrounding Stalin.
The story itself reads like soviet propaganda just replace communism with capitalism, the working class with business magnates and, of course, dial up the weird cuck porn to 11.
Rand, while she despised communism, obviously had a soviet mindset deeply embedded within her which she, after her move, filtered through the American exceptionalism of her social circle.
So in a funny twist of irony most objectivists today are stalinists and don't even realize it.

>>25504713
she even inverts the soviet realism art

The only reason someone would consider atlas shrugged a good novel, is if its the only political work they've ever read, or they were memed into liking it by some white guy on Facebook

>>25504825
>memed into liking it by some white guy on Facebook
paul ryan said his favorite book was atlas shrugged. later, in front of a bunch of polacks, he changed it to summa theologiae. paul ryan had of course read neither

what's the difference between 'objective reality' and regular reality?

>>25503824
>woman
>jewish
I'm just not going to read it, no matter how many threads about it you make, I'm just not going to hahah

>>25504542
>responsibility
What does that mean?
Epstein is responsible for a LOT of the problems we're having

>>25504107
>She insists on reason against those who philosophically insist that reason is an illusion or is impossible
This is not a real thing. Practically no philosopher genuinely believes that reason or objective reality are illusions. What they do believe in are epistemic limits, which are qualitatively different than an illusion.
It's ironic that Rand makes the same error as marxists often do, conflating idealism for the idea that reality doesn't exist.

>>25503934
move to an island then dumbass

>>25504480
Why would anyone have allegiance to politicians? Are you mentally ill?

>>25503824
I played bioshock

File: 1594997385562.png (999 KB, 790x1977)

999 KB PNG

>>25505040

>>25505823
>Judeo-Christian
dispensationalist garbage

>>25505961
brownoid detected

>>25503892
She looks like she’d have a fantastic bush. Premium pubes. Nice firm prominent clit too?

>aCtuALy, sHIt TaSteS gOoD

>>25506005
Depends what they were eating before the shit

>>25505779
>politicians
States. Nationalist or at any rate nativist. Loyalty to ones homeland or countrymen. Not politicians, like some Brit who worships his king.

>>25505028
are you trying to outjew me?!

>>25506104
But what does "shit-in-the-middle-of-the-street tier jews like Epstein" mean?

>>25506113
the ones who don't take responsibility for their actions
learn english, jeetson

>>25506037
>>politicians
>States.
You don't have to repeat yourself.

>>25506037
A state is a political organization created by and for politicians to legitimize them exerting their will over a territory and/or population they control.

The only difference between having allegiance to a state and a king is the fucking honesty of the set up.

L'État, c'est moi

>>25506191
I didn't read your idiot woman's book. Maybe you didn't either.

>>25506210
Elected/appointed people OF a state are not the entirety of the land and people that comprise a state. I made myself clear what I was referring to.
>>25506570
THE STUPIDLY WEALTHY HAVE NO ALLEGIANCES TO ANY PARTICULAR LAND OR PEOPLE, THEY SEE IT ALL AS THERE'S OR POTENTIALLY THEIRS.
>The only difference between having allegiance to a state and a king is
NOTHING