Permit me to puke. I can not believe that this author of bodice-rippers for the pseudo-intellectual set is actually taken seriously as a "philosopher".
Not a fan of Rand, I think people are a lot more like ants then lions, pretending to be something you are not generally creates unhappy outcomes.
Certainly the corrosive effects should be taken seriously, as one would take poison in the water supply seriously. I certainly respect the right of any to hold an opinion, but do not ask me to universally respect opinions. It really depends on the opinion. Earlier, due to the OP, found out that Atlas Shrugged enjoys a circulation second only to The Bible. I kept my peace but then your comment set me off reflecting about this. What is interesting about the above fact, that an anti-intellectual civilization such as America's holds the above two books in popular esteem, is very informative: Both books promote the idea of exceptionalism and both appeal to the popular mindset. In one, the exceptional is held to a requirement of service to his lesser brethren. In the other, the lesser ones are held to be ballast and clay in service of the exceptional individual. Now it is (somewhat) easy to see why The Bible enjoys wide circulation among the many (after all what sort would not be affected by the sermons of Christ or some of the Psalms?), but the wide circulation of the other is surely worth further reflection. It is as you say. One should not pretend to be a follower of Christ anymore than one should entertain grandiose notions of heroic efforts and the upholding of the heavens on one's back.You might consider taking her seriously, she has had about 10000 times more impact on American society then any other "philosopher."
I think people are a lot more like ants then lions, pretending to be something you are not generally creates unhappy outcomes.
Discounting her significance reminds me of people who called George W Bush and idiot. Who the hell are they to call one of the most successful presidents of all time an idiot. Better to realize that people who hold very different view points from your own can be extremely dangerous and influential.
- Care to go into some detail about this? + http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=... - That does not appear to offer much detail about what you think. Should I guess that you think some topics lie outwith the bounds of philosophy? + The "set"! [ bodice-rippers for the pseudo-intellectual set. example provided] - Should I guess that you think some topics lie outwith the bounds of philosophy? + No. Behold: example of a philosophical discourse on sexuality, by M. Foucault. I also posted a Zizek video and his very deep philosophical discourse on the bodily function and pubic hair structure. If you are not willing to put in the minimal effort, you should not make demands on other people's time. Philosophy means, literally, Love for Knowledge. Ayn Rand is merely a n-th rate writer and a narcissist. To call her specious notions "philosophy" is a disservice to all the serious minds that engage in that idle preoccupation.I might read that pdf at some point but I had hoped that you could just offer a quick summary of your opinions.
I never made any demands on your time. I think that the minimal effort to find out what you think would be to read your justification of your opinions rather than a discourse on sexuality by Foucault. When I want to read Foucault I can go to a library.