Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
was all "OK now they should put a 'Don't' in Canada"
Sounds a bit boring. This guy is welcome to her.
I might do similar and put something like 'Eat pies' across Wiltshire.
She's the scourge of student discourse, the horribly simplistic, plain batshit fuckup whose horrendous works may seem empowering to naive 17 year-olds and yet whose teachings remain in the hearts of the pretentious adults these striplings are placated into becoming.
Reality exists independent of consciousness, and you can interpret that reality through rational inquiry? What a playful pretender.
we've got a live one!
By 'pretentious' I mean 'pretending to be intellectual authorities on the way the world works' - Randroids tend to be nauseatingly closed-minded and dogmatic about their worldview, which itself happens to be really, really reductive.
I've read her stuff, and even enjoyed it, but I'm not one of 'those' people.
I was a teenager, and it's a bit embarrassing, but hey, it beats reading Harry Potter and Chuck Palanihuk or whatever puerile dreck everyone else my age was being spoon-fed.
you are still the coolest
both those are fairly entertaining bits of pop culture, harmless and fun. Rand just seems like a pseudo intellectual justification for selfish politics which even though is pretty much the mainstream anyway is somehow seen by her readers as rebellious.
Harmless and fun don't do it for me. I need substance. Just because I read her doesn't mean I agree with her on everything.
I'm frankly sick of anti-intellectual pride. I speak up about it. Anti intellectual pride leads directly to fascism, when people are too caught up in 'harmless fun' all the time to ever give any thought to the bullshit that's being fed to them. So yeah, my snobbishness is needed.
but i'm too busy finishing the 5th harry potter book you *thinks of high-brow insult* cretins.
as works of literature, her books are fucking awful. At least Harry Potter and Palanihuk have actual characters, and not just paper-thin mouthpieces for various ideologies and endless fucking monologues, and dialogue that bear no relation to the way people actually speak to each other.
I'd forgotten about him. What a consumate Fart-Clart
spelling out 'Play Bioshock'
but that isn't real is it? how the fuck was that written and with what? I'm being trolled so hard right now by the trolldian
He didn't physically paint on the letters 50 miles wide...
biggest graffiti bombing in history
what's remarkable about that?
makes a pretty pattern.
would've been much better if he wrote it in 50 mile wide letters
i was thinking 'this is definitely going to be the dick on the roof'
shit...it was through playing bioshock.
withough ever reading/hearing of her
have read her, and realise that she talks absolute rot.
go back to supporting Hitler by reading Harry Potter or whatever it is you people do
it's that she's a lightweight who wrote fucking awful books. There are people who argued along similar lines, like Robert Nozick (libertarianism), or Bernard Williams (moral egoism) who have far more intellectual weight and consequently are far more respected and taken seriously. There's not a conspiracy amongst haughty left wing intellectual elites to ignore her - she's just shit.
What the fuck are you talking about?
She wrote one of the longest novels that's ever been written. She created her own philosophy (objectivism). There is an Institute that exclusively deals with the teachings of Ayn Rand. Her ideas are the topic of more conversation and debate than both Robert Nozick and Bernard Williams combined, etc. etc.
Jus' saying, like...
"Her ideas are the topic of more conversation and debate than both Robert Nozick and Bernard Williams combined, etc. etc."
PROOF PLEASE. Can you provide a pie chart.
when they've written something of that scope and magnitude. It's also a well-written book, even if you don't agree with the ideas behind it.
Also, to your question down there, just.. really? Do you really think a thread on either one of those two would get this many replies?
I'm not a huge supporter of all of Rand's ideas, but she's definitely not a 'lightweight' or 'not respected.'
I'd imagine there are plenty of manuscripts out there written by shut ins and mentalists that dwarf it. (insert crack about Rand being exactly that, although she somehow managed to convince someone to sell the bloody thing)
Aside from the fact that using the length of someone's writings is the very definition of damning them with faint praise,I still don't think she's tremendously interesting or relevant nowadays. Humanistic psychology tried putting an empirical slant on her ideas and they fell apart. Modern social, cognitive and neuro-psychology pretty much put the lid on her as far more general ideas about human thought and behaviour as far I'm concerned, and after that you're left with little more than a broad set of political beliefs (and therefore you're back at libertarianism, which she despised so much)
That'll learn me to try and write long posts on modern technology.
And I do think she's still relevant - maybe not in an advancement of ideas kind of way, but she's still influential and read by a lot of people. For example, Atlas Shrugged sales have risen pretty much year-by-year since its publication, and sales of it tripled last year (likely because Obama was elected).. Also, one of our (US) supreme court justices has cited Atlas Shrugged as his favorite book.
as Marckee suggested up there, popular acceptance doesn't really validate her ideas, but then again your original reply was against the suggestion that she isn't widely respected, which is fair enough.
From my own perspective, I don't see that there's anything of interest in there except from a historical perspective. I genuinely think that psychology has comprehensively debunked the idea of the flawless human, and from there it all falls apart. But I can see why it's attractive to people. Particularly those of the tea party persuasion, etc; that does rather lend favour to the idea that there's a strong cultiness/tribal aspect to it though.
(I SAID CULTINESS)
i.e. "There are people who argued along similar lines, like Robert Nozick (libertarianism), or Bernard Williams (moral egoism) who have far more intellectual weight and consequently are far more respected and taken seriously."
was that amongst those that actually know what they are talking about, Rand isn't as respected as Nozick or Williams. I'm not up with all of the arguements, but I imagine that he's saying that her theories have been demonstrated to be without the rigor necessary to lend them heavyweight credence, hence calling them 'lightweight'.
That issue is separate to the thousands (perhaps millions) of other people that might read her books and agree with them and set up institutes in their honour. Something that can be pulled to intellectual shreds may become incredibly significant. That doesn't automatically make is any less lightweight though, in the sense that ottermagic uses the term.
As I hinted up the thread, if you're going to base your idea of who is respected upon a)the number of pages in their book, b) the scope of the book, c) how many copies have been sold and d) whether some readers have established an institute in their name, then Rand has a very long way to go before she matches L Ron Hubbard, and everyone knows how much the world respects his views...
I think 'lightweight' is a fair assessment. As is 'populist' probably. I don't think she was necessarily writing to be populist; as it turned out a lot of what she wrote was objectively (ha!) bunkum, but still continued to have resonance with a lot of people.
She reminds me a bit of Dawkins in some ways. Both ostensibly focussing on the rational and objective, but doing it in a way that inspires fanaticism and emotion.
But I seem to remember a few additional paragraphs in which he discussed Dawkins with his son, and his son said the same thing that my old housemate (who was studying for a PhD in something to do with genetics), namely that Dawkins isn't up with the latest science and that a lot of the 'evidence' he uses has since been surpassed (which is not surprising given that the Selfish Gene came out nearly 35 years ago) leaving him as a polemicist rather than a scientist.
but it's a lovely article; cheers. It's very strange that in the whole argument about scientists versus science reporters that's often put forward by Ben Goldacre etc, the role of the literary scientist (or, indeed, polemicist) is rarely mentioned. Possibly because the debate is often framed from the context that the scientists are being misrepresented by the science writers; but this completely undervalues the role of the person who manages to capture the attention of the wider public.
I guess it follows that a scientist focuses on the issues that get the most attention. But many scientists are also taught to stick to their guns in an almost dogmatic sense, with the idea that they can pick and choose evidence to support their entrenched position. It's up to others to disprove it. But then when you've got someone who can write elegantly and capture wider attention, or has ideas that resonate with the public, then they're all the more difficult to argue against.
Christ, I'm rambling. we were talking about bioshock yeah? I liked it when the underwater man got the other man with the big drill
"Conservative commentators Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh have offered high praise of the book on their respective radio and television programs."
posting on an indie-music/culture website, perhaps?
cheers and bye
Of course no one on DIS is going to like her.
I hope they add that to her tombstone.
I can't be bothered waiting until she dies to pay someone to piss on her grave.
Like DanielKelly's inability to type.
she's widely seen - not just on DiS or whatevs - as a total shithawk, typically beloved briefly of US teens before they grow out of her in approx 6 months. But whatever, enjoy the delicious attention you're getting.
The only thing I really know about Ayn Rand is that Bert Cooper is a fan.
Confusing her with Ann Coulter
I'm at work
PLACATE THE STRIPLINGS
"She wrote one of the longest novels that's ever been written"
The revelation that Max Gogarty won a fucking Bafta...