valjean

I know that the question was not directed at me, but I'd like to state my opinion. I think a good writer would have been able to convey a more vivid visualization of the storm and still fully retain the metaphor. To prove this, I've tried rewriting the passage. I think my version is better visually because it clears up some questions presented by the original passage (while retaining the metaphor of the storm representing the battle being waged between those who think rationally and those who don't, the downfall of Taggart Transcontinental, the characters' passions, etc), such as: Is the red tinge caused by the mills or by the setting sun? If there is a tinge bright enough to illuminate the clouds and branches, how can he be looking into darkness? How exactly can a tree branch be seen as a "dim shape," and what does a "dim shape" look like anyway? You all may not agree that my passage proves my point; after all, I'm not a professional writer by any means. If you agree with me that a better passage can be written, though, I'd like to encourage you all to try it, as I have.

Inspector--I have to say that in our earlier exchange you have me beat. I couldn't express what I wanted to express clearly, and that just shows that I was trying to express a feeling and not more solid ideas. Also, I think you've proven that I need to read AS again and be more precise with my wording. To respond to the more recent discussion: I do think that Rand has serious flaws when it comes to her descriptions of how things look. Eddie has cited a good example and I could find more. However, she was able to convey metaphorical meaning through surroundings and nature--think about the "torch" in AS. And I think that Rand does belong among the ranks of the very best writers, because I think her ideas and her ability to express them so clearly in literature make up for the flaws she has.

Inspector, I take serious offense in the way you maliciously responded to what I've written. I think we should be able to criticize what another person says without being openly hostile and twisting bits of things they've said to make them look bad. That being said, I am going to continue to defend myself, but I've said what I wanted to say and I feel obligated to do this to further defend my honor and my position. If you would carefully read my entire post before responding, you'll see that I cover that. I said specifically that the perception that Rand divides her characters into two classes is immature. None of these are moral dilemmas--sure, they kind of seemed to be to the characters, but since they are all perfect Objectivists, you know exactly what choice they will make eventually, every time. And there is such a thing as a moral dilemma for which Objectivism does not provide an obvious choice between this or that---it just doesn't happen to these characters. Rand illustrates her points this way sometimes and I'm not saying that it's inferior; I'm saying that I personally prefer characters that are slightly different. I wasn't even talking about "moral compromises"--I was talking about compromises that even Objectivists must make in everyday life. And there you go, writing two paragraphs and insulting me throughout, over a single word. I didn't say that, I did think about it, and I stand by my position. To make the comment that my preference was "odd" would have been acceptable, although odd in itself since I clearly explained why I prefer what I do in this case. But the rest of this remark is entirely out of place--this forum is not a place people come to to read your comments that insult others. You shouldn't state this so harshly without at least qualifying the statement! I know LOTS of other non-naturalistic writers that have a syle quite unlike Rand's, Hugo as one of a bunch of potential examples.

It is from this perspective that I said what I've said earlier--that one of Rand's flaws as a writer was creating unrealistic characters. To divide the human race into two classes, heroes and villains, would obviously create unrealistic characters--characters who, on the one hand are too "coldly rational" (by that I meant, earlier, characters who are perfect and don't experience a variety of moral dillemas, compromises, and emotions to which normal people can relate) and who on the other hand are so evil that again, we cannot relate to them. Yes, Rand tried to portray her vision of the ideal or "perfect" (as much as possible) man--John Galt, for example--and this is a man to whom I cannot relate. However, from AisA's recent post, I have come to realize that that perspective is perhaps a shallow and incorrect one. It's been several months since I've read either AS or FH (both for the first time) and, over time, we tend to only remember the really major characters. The ones I remember the most clearly--John Galt, Howard Roark, etc., did have some of the flaws I outlined above--but one must remember all the other characters to whom we can better relate. In other words, characters to whom I and many others cannot relate stand out against a background of more subtle characters. I think the blurring tendency I outlined in the above paragraph demonstrates something that many people, whether they are members of the media or casual readers, tend to do (whether from forgetfullness or lack of understanding)--categorize, classify, generalize, and look back on something that isn't exactly what they saw before, and isn't nearly as complete. It's not just my problem. This problem seems to have a greater tendency to occur with the works of Rand; writers like Victor Hugo, for example, use characters that one relates to and remembers vividly from the first encounter with them onward. His works have a different kind of subtlety that doesn't take away from the book as much as Rand's does if the reader misses it or loses it in his or her mind. The fact that Rand's writing contributes to such phenomena doesn't make her a lesser writer necessarily; it makes her much harder for the masses to appreciate, though. I personally prefer the style, technique, etc. of some other writers over that of Rand, but that certainly is only on a "personal preference" level and I will always prefer Rand's ideas. Another criticism of Rand--she knew what values and ideas she wanted to demonstrate, and she built situations and characters around them and demonstrated them thoroughly. This methodology automatically leads her writing to feel a bit "preachy" as some call it--I would call it "teachy" myself. This methodology, technique, and feel don't make her writing inferior--they make it different, and although I enjoy the feel of her writings better than a vast majority of writers, there are again some whose works feel to me far better on a personal preference level. I haven't mentioned plot and setting--other important characteristics of a story--but I must say that Rand was great on both--she didn't write stories that kept you on the edge of your seat as those of Dan Brown do, but she still did very well. P.S. to address Inspector: Thanks for questioning my wording in my last post, that is good for me and I hope I've answered some of your questions. Personally I don't consider myself an Objectivist because I can't say necessarily that I agree with every single aspect of Objectivism and although it seems to be a complete system, I think there may be more (especially on a personal level) that should be added (seperately, of course, since it's a closed system)--after all, I haven't read all of Rand's works even--but I do agree with well over 95% of Objectivism at least.

Sorry it has taken me a tad bit longer than it should to get back to this thread. No, I am saying that people like John Galt and Howard Roark do not and cannot exist in reality. They are too coldly, precisely rational and seem to lack certain attributes that are part of every human. I like my heroes to be heroic but reasonably human; I like them to be people I can relate to. I think I share this view with most readers in the general populace. Dagny, for example, is an improvement over Roark or Galt (although even she lacks the finesse of the characters of some writers). Your conclusion is right. I would have just said that if my point was to tell you all my personal feelings/experience, but I'm glad I made some sense anyway for once. And I'm glad you agree with me on Hugo! Define "rape." Obviously, we don't need to discuss this here--I was just referencing an event which, in any case, the average reader will perceive as rape, and you were just trying to undermine my credibility with something that's unimportant. Plus, I never used the word "simple", so please don't put quotes around it and words in my mouth. I never did understand what Rand was trying to convey with Eddie, but I saw him as kind of a "good person" character until the very end of the book. EDITED by poster for formatting

this makes me happy

The characters are predictable to someone who understands Objectivism because the heroes always do what Objectivist ethics dictates they should, while the villains always do the opposite. To people who don't understand Objectivism, actions like raping Dominique and destroying an apartment complex just seem too strange, erratic, or violent. So, from either perspective, the characters do not seem like real people--or even people as they "can and ought to be."

tnunamak--Objectivists do what is rationally best for their own lives. That means they are kind to people when it benefits them (as for me, I am almost always kind) and are sociable when it benefits them (again, almost always, to some degree). I found The Fountainhead to be problematic in trying to understand some aspects of Objectivism--you're brought up an excellent example of how it can be confusing to a beginner. There is currently an ongoing discussion about this here. P.S. Roark seems unsocial in relation to most people because, presumably, he only seek s the company of others whose friendship can bring some value to his life. He's not unsocial towards Dominique, for example. And in a book absolutely populated with "bad people," you wouldn't expect him to be friendly, therefore, with most people.

I have read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem. I liked them all (Atlas is one of my very favorite books), but I think her shortcomings make it difficult for people who are not thoroughly acquainted with her ideas to enjoy them, much less understand what she's saying. I didn't say unpredictability was good--I said overpredictability was bad. If you want to know my favorite writer, the answer is Victor Hugo. Of course, my favorite philosopher is Ayn Rand--but specifically as a philosopher, not as a writer. Like JMeganSnow, I also like J.K. Rowling and dislike writing in the style (if you can call it style) of Catch-22.

I, for one, would like to see this new subforum. Seeing people debate non-Objectivists and perhaps participating some is why I like the idea. I need some experience in that, as I'm about to enter a pretty liberal university setting.

I wouldn't say Rand's fiction writing is "bad," but her style is bland, her characters are predictable, and her books simply can become monotonous. The actions of the characters are sometimes too strange, and people have trouble relating to them. Most people will not understand a book like The Fountainhead enough to enjoy it, and after having several friends tell me they hated it, I stopped reccomending it to my non-Objectivist friends.

I just realized that this guy (mperkel) is the one behind http://www.churchofreality.org/ The bullshit he spouts on that site is just unbelievable.

Thanks for the useful info ds1973! I had read some of this stuff somewhere before, but it's nice to have it all right here now!

I also enjoyed that! Keep 'em coming!

Look carefully... I'm actually asking if it's trademarked. And if it's trademarkeable. But as you said, just guessing--it's probably not. Too bad people abuse the trademark symbol so much.

I wouldn't spend too much time on it at all Nour, although it does seem interesting. Some people may find these helpful (since several have asked for more information): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstructionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida And Nour, you may like to see this (obviously I like Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand You probably already know that Rand is a philosopher much more worthy of spending time on. Believe it or not, last year when I saw "sampling" some of the universities I got into, a professor in a class I attended was teaching this stuff. I chose to go somewhere else.

Looks very good! One question... it "Lai$$ez-Faire" actually trademarked--or trademarkeable, for that mattter? I mean, since it's just "liassez-faire" with $ signs?

I figured out the error already. Apparently you didn't read the post I made right before your post. That's okay though, thanks for the offer! BTW, my confusion was really semantic, not conceptual.

That's not what I said. What I said is that there is a difference, which you (Felipe) went on to explain well. I think that everyone who has posted in this thread except you would agree that Ayn Rand seperated her personal phobias from objective reality, and I'd bet that we've all read more of her material than you. (No offense intended) Earlier I said that "I don't think Ayn Rand ever said that altruism is evil"--thanks to jrs for correcting me. I thought "charity" would qualify as a subset of "altruism," but in looking up "altruism" in Webster's, I saw that the first word in the definition was "Selfless." Ayn Rand did say that altruism is evil and it's very clear why she did it. So, to mperkel--altruism is considered immoral by Objectivists because, since each man is an end in himself, it is irrational for one to sacrifice himself for the other selflessly. It is not immoral for Objectivists to help others if they're doing it to uphold their own values--even if just their own happiness--so you might see Objectivists engaging in something akin to "charity" (although by that I don't mean giving money to lazy people or anything like that). Like, for example, trying to help you to understand some of these concepts. (Although we do it mainly for the sake of working our brains, I think.)

I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify in more detail some of your questions and fallacious statements. Objectivism is defined as the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If a person finds a problem with this philosophy, he or she stops labeling himself or herself an "Objectivist." The argument for "rational selfishness" is complex and is based upon morality. I suggest that you read some of Ayn Rand's works--she upholds, supports, and defends this principle flawlessly. Again, the individual replaces this concept with reality in his or her own mind and is no longer to be considered an Objectivist. There is a big difference between pure science and philosophy. Pure science is the study of nature and is based upon a system of observation, hypothesis, experiment, etc. Philosophy works differently from this. It deals with more abstract concepts that are applied differently. Even so, if something did come along (which cannot happen due to the nature of philosophy), I'm sure that rational-minded individuals would accept the change and modify their philosophies. Objectivism holds the opposite to be true. It would be worthwile, again, to consult the writings of Ayn Rand or to ask questions like this more specifically. I can tell you that your survival depends on you--that is common sense and applies for every individual. The human race evolved above the animals because of the human mind and selfishness, not because of selflessness. Evolution does not occur in selfless societies--that is why there is no such thing anywhere in nature. (Even in a bee hive, the old saying "nature is cruel" applies.) The human race is a race of individuals with independent minds. We do create a complex society by working together, preferably in a free system (capitalism), and using our minds. This is why our society is not incredibly simple and uniform--like that of bees and ants. There is no "hive mind." We have individual minds. Some can, some can't. There are rotten apples in every barrel. Personally, I can take criticism without taking it personally. Capitalism is not an "opinion"--Objectivists hold it to be the only moral system in which men can live together. Capitalism specifically is economic freedom. There is no exploitation--if one party trading with another was exploited, it wouldn't trade! And that is what it is--a complex system of trading parties. They trade for mutual benefit. Don't you believe in religious freedom? Seperation from church and state? Then why not economic freedom--seperation from economy and state? I don't think Rand ever said anything like "altruism is evil." She stated that one should live to achieve one's own ends--i.e. one's own happiness. One should not sacrifice himself or herself for others. Altruism is only evil when it is forced (i.e. by the state, which is the opposite of freedom) or done irrationally (i.e. if I jump in front of a bus to keep it from hitting a retarded dog--that is a more extreme example). In fact, Objectivists tend to be somewhat altruistic in the way that they feel is most valuable and helpful--they try to help others help themselves, use their minds, and find happiness. I recently read that happy people naturally try to spread their happiness--and that is particularly true of Objectivists. EDIT: Fixed a spelling mistake -- author

I wouldn't be happy living in a tiny community, even if it was filled with Objectivists.

Yes and not that I know of. There probably is a way to get one, however. For official documentation before I had my driver's license, anything official-looking like my school ID card was always accepted. Of course a school ID has no merit as an identifier--they can be faked uber-easily--but that was generally accepted, even at the airport, for example. Which reinforces the point that no matter what the feds try to do, they can't stop people from getting around their rules. It is ordinary, law-abiding citizens who will be hurt--criminals will just go around whatever barriers are set up in their way.

Has to do with seperation of powers. The states were intended to act as individual states--and that is ending. Plus, I trust my state alot more than I trust the national government. In North Carolina there is no state ID--we just have driver's licenses. As far as I know. I would assume I'd have one if it existed.

Looks like I'll be needing a new home --- this idea is very scary for obvious reasons.

I haven't actually looked at the site you linked to, but from looking at the quotes----this looks pretty sickening and Mouchish to me.