Phil Elmore Tips the Vote?

[Judah Maccabee]

http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html

Reader's List 100 Best Novels:

1. ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand
2. THE FOUNTAINHEAD by Ayn Rand
---
7. ANTHEM by Ayn Rand
8. WE THE LIVING by Ayn Rand

Notice that the "board" had 0 Rand novels.

[Wounded Ronin]

Phil Elmore could tip something alright...

[Te(V)plar]

Phil Elmore could tip something alright...
A van if he scoots too far to the right?

[Lampa]

Most people don't know that Atlas Shrugged was a piece of shit because they lack the fortitude to read a significant portion of it.

[Phrost]

Philosophically, or with regards to its Literary merit? The writing wasn't great, but the ideas behind the writing have some value.

[Xango]

I've read all of Ayn Rand's works. It takes awhile.

Clearly the results of that poll were swayed by "rapid response" teams from two well-known cults, the Objectivists and the Scient0logists, whose attention I will not draw by spelling their name correctly. This is the biggest problem with 'reader polls'.

[Lampa]

Philosophically, or with regards to its Literary merit? The writing wasn't great, but the ideas behind the writing have some value.

The writing was terrible from a literary standpoint. I don't think too many people who know the ins and outs of such things would disagree with me.

As to the philosophical aspect of the work, it's also crap. However, the WHY of it being crap is complicated enough to be worth debating.

You see, the philosophical aspects of all of Rand's works share the same problem. They are all reasonably comfortable paved roads off of a cliff. She starts with ideas that have merit and carries them too far to be taken seriously. So, if you examine one aspect of the foundation of a given idea from Rand it will sound like it has merit. However, for example, when you look at the concept of great individuals referenced in The Fountainhead the way she does, which is to say she believes that audience doesn't matter and promotes outdated concepts of the creative process, you can plainly see that it is actually bullshit.

Look at Latin American countries in the 19th and 20th centuries and tell me the kind of Social Darwinism Rand loved so well works better than the shit storm that was Russian Communism, for another example.

[Te(V)plar]

I liked Fountainhead....

[Epigram]

THE FOUNTAINHEAD = Infantilism for adults.

Waa i cant make it the way I want to. Waa, ill blow it up waaa.

[en1gma523]

You see, the philosophical aspects of all of Rand's works share the same problem. They are all reasonably comfortable paved roads off of a cliff. She starts with ideas that have merit and carries them too far to be taken seriously. So, if you examine one aspect of the foundation of a given idea from Rand it will sound like it has merit. However, for example, when you look at the concept of great individuals referenced in The Fountainhead the way she does, which is to say she believes that audience doesn't matter and promotes outdated concepts of the creative process, you can plainly see that it is actually bullshit.

.

Can you elaborate on this a little? Specifically, can you elaborate on your assertions that Rand's idealized person doesn't believe that the audience matters and the promotion of outdated creative process?

[Phrost]

How can you argue against the concepts that each person should own up to the fact deep down we're all selfish and everyone should ultimately be responsible for their own success by their own effort and on their own merit?

Given considerations of benefitting yourself through benefitting society, country, and family, I think her concepts behind the stories are valid. Hell, I'm considering writing a novel of my own based somewhat on these concepts.

[NoMan]

Look at Latin American countries in the 19th and 20th centuries and tell me the kind of Social Darwinism Rand loved so well works better than the shit storm that was Russian Communism, for another example.

Social Darwinism? Ayn Rand's novels are screeds usually, and for someone so dedicated to the promotion of anti-religious ideals, she has a lot of mythological elements. E.g. her hero, (John Galt?) at the end of Atlas Shrugged rebuilds the World a la' the motif of mythology from Sumeria on down.

However, saying she's a social Darwinist is a large, big, and absolutely astounding jump. That would mean she'd have to advocate a big government dedicated to helping the best and brightest get the most wealth, have the most children, and punish the less productive. Or are you referring to "Social Darwinism" as an epithet for anything that advocates competition at all? It has a more specific meaning a la' eugenics and other ideas than anything Rand ever promoted.

Her *actual* philosophy of economics isn't much different than John Stuart Mill's, and it revolves around the premise that people compete for resources, and that the mutual competition between providers is better than the government aiding one side or the other, tipping the scales.

The demerits of this viewpoint are that it ignores that conglomerates can build up, monopolize a market, and effectively dominate it like any government cartel.

For her literary value, she preaches way tooooooo much, and it's hyperbolic.

[MrMcFu]

Her books are so applicable to real life, since noone of any moral value ever inherits anything, they simply work at it and it magically comes to them because they are morally superior in recognizing their own selfishness.

Plus they pay everything back all the time with interest.

. . . Using little gold coins.

[Jekyll]

How can you argue against the concepts that each person should own up to the fact deep down we're all selfish and everyone should ultimately be responsible for their own success by their own effort and on their own merit?

Given considerations of benefitting yourself through benefitting society, country, and family, I think her concepts behind the stories are valid. Hell, I'm considering writing a novel of my own based somewhat on these concepts.

Ayn Rand just takes as fundemental truths all the approximations and assumptions needed to make the free market work and uses them to show how wonderful the world would be if we just did nothing and let the free market be.

As a school of though randisms(or whatever you want to call it) lies somewhere between outright intellectual fraud and a complete failure to comprehend the world.

You can claim that any action we perform is ultimately selfish and driven by our desires to feel better about ourselves. But doing so offers no insight and ignores the times when people are prepared to sacrifice their very lives for the sake of those around them.

[Phrost]

Why do people sacrifice themselves for others?

So that the others benefit from the sacrifice, obviously. But think about it... people don't sacrifice themselves for their enemies or for inanimate objects, they sacrifice themselves for their friends, loved ones, family, and countrymen. This still benefits them because a.) they will be remembered for their act, and b.) they make the sacrifice for the benefit of people they wish to see survive.

Nature is selfish. Selfishness ensures survival. The reason the she-wolf will fight a bear to the death to protect her cubs is not selflessness, it's the selfish desire for the survival of her genes into the next generation; which is the point of all life, to carry on. It's no different for sentient creatures like us, just expanded a bit to encompas the survival of societies, ideals, and religious memes. All true morality is based on survival. So called "selfless" acts do benefit the individual, selfishly, in being done to promote the survival of a particular aspect of that person's life that he or she valued.

Think about it, would anyone be called a hero if they laid down their life to protect a soda machine from falling to the ground and breaking? They'd be called an idiot. This is because "selfless sacrifice" is only heroic when it is done to benefit something the individual or society holds as valuable in the first place.

It is selfish to fight and die for the benefit of society, if you care about what that society represents and/or can do for you and your loved ones.

[NextGuard]

Why do people sacrifice themselves for others?

So that the others benefit from the sacrifice, obviously. But think about it... people don't sacrifice themselves for their enemies or for inanimate objects, they sacrifice themselves for their friends, loved ones, family, and countrymen. This still benefits them because a.) they will be remembered for their act, and b.) they make the sacrifice for the benefit of people they wish to see survive.

Nature is selfish. Selfishness ensures survival. The reason the she-wolf will fight a bear to the death to protect her cubs is not selflessness, it's the selfish desire for the survival of her genes into the next generation; which is the point of all life, to carry on. It's no different for sentient creatures like us, just expanded a bit to encompas the survival of societies, ideals, and religious memes. All true morality is based on survival. So called "selfless" acts do benefit the individual, selfishly, in being done to promote the survival of a particular aspect of that person's life that he or she valued.

Think about it, would anyone be called a hero if they laid down their life to protect a soda machine from falling to the ground and breaking? They'd be called an idiot. This is because "selfless sacrifice" is only heroic when it is done to benefit something the individual or society holds as valuable in the first place.

It is selfish to fight and die for the benefit of society, if you care about what that society represents and/or can do for you and your loved ones.


Exactly. And Ayn Rand has a legitimate place. But the proof of the lack of validity to this poll is the three L. Ron Hubbards among the top ten.