Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 100 posts

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#51

Post by gwenhwyfaer »

pg wrote: post #35
wyday wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see. In all your arguments it is talent as judged by you. Therefore you are the arbiter of talent? Can we just end this thread here before we get to the inevitable anticlimactic conclusion that people differ in opinion?

I think you're misunderstanding him. He's simply pointing out that you said something false: that popularity is evidence that someone is a good writer.

That, and that when it was pointed out, his response was a non sequitur in the purest sense. Anyone who claims the mantle of rationality ought to have a better grasp of basic logic than that.

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#52

Post by [deleted] »

zach wrote: post #41
pg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I advised myself to skip them, and I'm happy so far with that advice.

Me too. Having detested Catcher in the Rye and Slaughterhouse Five as a teen, I stopped reading books that seemed to only be popular within the context of being a teenager. It was definitely a good move.

[deleted]

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#53

Post by paul »

robg wrote: post #22
paul wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I am never reading again." -- police officer Barbrady, South Park (1998) I made it about 1/3 of the way into The Fountainhead but got bored and lost interest. Self-interest is ok, but I'm not going to make i…

Not a huge Rand fan but I just thought it was an interesting take on why business folks have adopted her. The philosophy works well with architecture because of "classical" limitations and the power of the individual to evoke change in the modern world. That's a message that any startupper needs even as you're certainly right - we need to iterate with customers in mind. But then, that's our sector. Imagine those craz…

Yes, clearly we sometimes need to push what is "normal" and create things that people don't yet know they want, but we should be pragmatic about it. For example, Esperanto may be a more "rational" and well designed language, but I'm going to keep using English because that's what works for me. The early cars were "horseless carriages" because that was easier to build and easier for people to relate to, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The notion that "I know exactly what people need and my ideas are all rational and brilliant while other's are stupid and irrational" is just so arrogant and wrong, but it seemed to be the main point of the Fountainhead (based on the 1/3 of the book that I read 10 years ago...)

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#54

Post by wyday »

gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #51
pg wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're misunderstanding him. He's simply pointing out that you said something false: that popularity is evidence that someone is a good writer.

That, and that when it was pointed out, his response was a non sequitur in the purest sense. Anyone who claims the mantle of rationality ought to have a better grasp of basic logic than that.

When I wrote: "OK. And because of this Rand isn't?"

I meant to write: "OK. And because of this Rand isn't a good writer?".

It's not a non sequitur, just a typo.

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#55

Post by SwellJoe »

zach wrote: post #41
pg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I advised myself to skip them, and I'm happy so far with that advice.

Me too. Having detested Catcher in the Rye and Slaughterhouse Five as a teen, I stopped reading books that seemed to only be popular within the context of being a teenager. It was definitely a good move.

Whoah, you're weird. Salinger and Vonnegut are Good (with a capital G).

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#56

Post by pg »

paul wrote: post #53
robg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a huge Rand fan but I just thought it was an interesting take on why business folks have adopted her. The philosophy works well with architecture because of "classical" limitations and the power of the individual to evoke change in the modern world. That's a message that any startupper needs even as you're certainly right - we need to iterate with customers in mind. But then, that's our sector. Imagine those craz…

Yes, clearly we sometimes need to push what is "normal" and create things that people don't yet know they want, but we should be pragmatic about it. For example, Esperanto may be a more "rational" and well designed language, but I'm going to keep using English because that's what works for me. The early cars were "horseless carriages" because that was easier to build and easier for people to relate to, and there's no…

I don't think early car manufacturers deliberately made cars look like horseless carriages because they'd be familiar or easy to build. I think it was more because it was the only kind of vehicle they could imagine.

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#57

Post by SwellJoe »

gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #23
SwellJoe wrote: post #6

All the Ayn Rand you'll ever need is in Anthem. Much shorter than Atlas Shrugged, and better literature to boot. I'm a long-time fan, after finding one of her books at a flea market when I was a kid (bought it coincidentally at the same time as Walden Two, a socialist manifesto by B.F. Skinner...one was delightfully rational and rang true while the other's greatest feat of intellectual brilliance was the use of glass…

I'd have to nominate 'We, The Living' as the best thing she ever wrote, on the grounds of both authenticity and quality. Everything after that was solipsistic pulp polemic, but I do retain a soft spot for WTL. But 'Anthem' was ripped off from 'We' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_%28novel%29 ) and can't hold a candle to either 'Brave New World' before or '1984' after; its only use is the same as that of 'The Communi…

Yes, "We" is also wonderful, though I don't see that "Anthem" was a ripoff...it's just another take on the same idea, which many others have taken a stab at over the years. And Brave New World and 1984 are completely different from the former to, and from each other. I love dystopian fiction, so I've read tons of it. My current favorite writer in the genre is Margaret Atwood ("Handmaid's Tale" and "Oryx and Crake"). So I guess if you don't really enjoy reading speculative fiction with a gloomy outlook on the future, maybe you only need to read one of them (probably 1984, since it's the one everybody knows), but otherwise, they're all a lot of fun.

"We, the Living", I didn't care for. The language is stilted (even more than Atlas and Fountainhead). It was her first real writing in English, and it shows. I never recommend WTL to folks who don't already like Ayn Rand, and most of the folks I know who've started it never finished it. I did, but I would never re-read it. (I've re-read Fountainhead and Atlas, minus the Galt speech, a couple of times, and Anthem at least four or five times.)

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#58

Post by gwenhwyfaer »

wyday wrote: post #54
gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That, and that when it was pointed out, his response was a non sequitur in the purest sense. Anyone who claims the mantle of rationality ought to have a better grasp of basic logic than that.

When I wrote: "OK. And because of this Rand isn't?" I meant to write: "OK. And because of this Rand isn't a good writer?". It's not a non sequitur, just a typo.

Yes, it is a non sequitur, in that it doesn't follow from the given premises. All that does follow is that one can't determine whether she's a good writer just because she's popular.

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#59

Post by wyday »

gwenhwyfaer wrote: post #58
wyday wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I wrote: "OK. And because of this Rand isn't?" I meant to write: "OK. And because of this Rand isn't a good writer?". It's not a non sequitur, just a typo.

Yes, it is a non sequitur, in that it doesn't follow from the given premises. All that does follow is that one can't determine whether she's a good writer just because she's popular.

The statement (or at least the fixed one) does follow from the given premise. Just because you disagree with the premise (that popularity might be evidence of quality) doesn't make it non sequitur.

To save myself from repeating the same argument as the few threads above this, I'll just link to it:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=54920

Re: Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism

#60

Post by [deleted] »

SwellJoe wrote: post #6

All the Ayn Rand you'll ever need is in Anthem. Much shorter than Atlas Shrugged, and better literature to boot. I'm a long-time fan, after finding one of her books at a flea market when I was a kid (bought it coincidentally at the same time as Walden Two, a socialist manifesto by B.F. Skinner...one was delightfully rational and rang true while the other's greatest feat of intellectual brilliance was the use of glass…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN