Having an Open but Critical Mind. RE: Atlas Shrugged

MrPhyntch

New member
Nov 4, 2009
156
0
0
In Search of Username said:
I dunno, how much do you need to know about, say, Nazism? Do you have to have read Mein Kampf before you can say it's bad?
To say it's bad? No. To understand it truly and exactly what it means? Yes. And it IS important to understand that on that level. For starters, staunch capitalist conservatives are often called "Nazi's" (see: any debate involving Rush Limbaugh) despite the fact that the "Nazi" party was the "National Socialist Party." Calling Limbaugh a Nazi is like calling bin Laden a Christian. It's so hilariously wrong that you have to wonder if the person throwing the line has any idea of what they're talking about. So yeah, you can say that Nazis are bad from a cursory glance, but to start using it for other things in other contexts? Better crack open Mein Kampf (or similar book, depending on ideology), you'll be surprised at exactly what you'll learn.

And for the OP, I have a question for you: What exactly makes Free Will such an outdated concept/idea? What would the "modern" idea that should have replaced it with be? Not anything against you, but the only people I've heard say that are people who think that 1984 is a great resource to learn about how to structure government. Is there another idea I haven't heard of (besides "Destiny" or whatever, as well)?

And THEN, On topic:

As you may have inferred from the first paragraph, I feel a lot of republican/conservative people and ideologies get shut down out-of-hand without anyone caring or bothering about. Bringing up to anyone "Rush Limbaugh said this, what do you think..." get the Limbaugh/Hindenburg jokes (one's a flaming Nazi gasbag, the other's a dirigible. har har). Is it possible for people to see past the lunatics and idiots and Fox News' pandering to Grandma just for two minutes and actually THINK about our positions?

And I always try to keep an open mind, but the biggest problem with that is you will always find Bias to whatever you hear the first, the most, and the loudest. If someone passionate and charismatic tells me his position before someone else tells me theirs, I'll be more likely to side with the first guy, no matter the logic that comes in to play. If someone obviously high, smelly, and never passed the 7th grade tries to tell me his position before someone else tells me theirs, I'll be more likely to side with the latter, no matter how sound the logic of the first guy. And I feel that everyone else is the exact same way. Which is why things (such as right-wing political ideals) don't get the fair shake they deserve; someone else who more handsome and speaks better told them how stupid we are, and so automatically we're seen as the stupid ones.

I also find it hilarious that frequently, especially with politicians, pundits, and other public figures, that the more they try to convince you to have an open mind, the more closed off their mind is, and they are just trying to convert you.
 

Da Orky Man

Yeah, that's me
Apr 24, 2011
2,107
0
0
One day, I will read Atlas Shrugged, and I will finish it. Raptor Jesus knows I've tried in the past, but its overlong prose, dreary tone and general dislike of the characters have driven me away.

More on topic:
I generally try to approach things as objectively as possible, which has lead me to many conclusions, but one above all else.
95% of what you think is right, or correct, is wrong, including my own opinions. You may only be slightly off, but the vast majority of what you think about the world is likely to be wrong.
Having had this minor epiphany, I want politics to be run in a different way. Instead of having varying political parties using tactics of increasing sketchiness to temporarily convince as many people as possible that they have everything under control, that they are in the right and everyone else isn't, I want them to all go into a room and be locked inside until they come to a broad consensus of how to sort shit out. Then, we put the result into action. If it works, great. If not, then everyone should admit their mistakes, analyse where it went wrong and try again.
Eventually, hopefully, over time the 5% that individual people are broadly correct about will come to light and be shown to work the best, which will eventually evolve into a system of stuff that works roughly as its supposed to.

Of course, its highly likely that I'm wrong about all this as well, but down that paths lies wrongception, which is more than my brain can deal with at 12:30pm GMT time.
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
I've been perpetually through Atlas Shrugged for several years now. It's not because I loathe it, I love it, but it's incredibly long and life events keep getting in the way.

Here's the reason I love Atlas Shrugged and it's objectivist characters. I think one part of the book one of Rearden's friends tell him the reason people don't like him is that he only cares about money. Rearden looks at him dead panned and goes "But that's true! That is all I care about!" and that alone is what keeps me from hating a character like that. All the objectivity characters are honest and on the level. The more leftist characters come across as phony and only caring for the public because it's expected of them.

In the movie, part 1, Rearden is forced to sell part of his company to his friend. His friend starts feeding him bullshit like "Oh I'll sell it to you first" and Rearden tells him point blank like "Don't pull that shit. You do what's best business." And I'm sorry, but that level honesty is respectable in my eyes and endears me to the characters.

Also, c'mon, what a concept.... A world where all the captains of industry collectively go on strike. Fuck me, that's creative.
 

mfeff

New member
Nov 8, 2010
284
0
0
Ayn Rand's objectivism is an extremely challenging philosophy to work through if one is well versed in the existentialist or Zen Buddhist philosophies and traditions. I have personally known quite a few Buddhist whom adopted or struggled with many aspects of it. Objectivism is common in quite a few modern philosophical positions and talking points... specifically anarcho-capitalism... which comes to mind right off.

I think the trouble one may run into when discussing this or any other philosophy with the general public is that the general public are "generally" poorly educated landless peasants. On a personal note the biggest fault I ever found with it was directly related to practicality concerning rational behavior. The philosophy itself is a finely crafted Faberge egg... that is best viewed objectively, contained in a climate controlled room.

 
Feb 22, 2009
715
0
0
alfinchkid said:
In Search of Username said:
I dunno, how much do you need to know about, say, Nazism? Do you have to have read Mein Kampf before you can say it's bad?
To say it's bad? No. To understand it truly and exactly what it means? Yes. And it IS important to understand that on that level. For starters, staunch capitalist conservatives are often called "Nazi's" (see: any debate involving Rush Limbaugh) despite the fact that the "Nazi" party was the "National Socialist Party." Calling Limbaugh a Nazi is like calling bin Laden a Christian. It's so hilariously wrong that you have to wonder if the person throwing the line has any idea of what they're talking about. So yeah, you can say that Nazis are bad from a cursory glance, but to start using it for other things in other contexts? Better crack open Mein Kampf (or similar book, depending on ideology), you'll be surprised at exactly what you'll learn.
I'd say calling Limbaugh a Nazi is like calling Bin Laden a Christian fundamentalist; there's some truth to it in terms of the extreme nature of his beliefs but you're at the wrong end of the political/religious spectrum, if you see what I mean.

But I don't see why I can't find out all I need to know about Nazism from an article that just gives me facts about it, rather than advocating it. It is the messy combination of nationalism, socialism, and racism. What could I learn other than that from the bizarre ramblings of Mein Kampf? Why not just look it up on Wikipedia? Objectivism, similar; why read one of Rand's ridiculously over-long novels when I could just get a brief summary of the ideology online? I'm certain I won't be convinced because even a basic summary of the idea is enough to revolt me - what reason have I to read 1000 pages of her trying to convince me?

On the other hand, if someone's espousing a philosophy I agree with, I could of course still just get a quick summary from Wikipedia, but in that case I would actually want to spend a lot of time finding out everything there is to know about it, because I consider it an interesting and valid approach.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

Actually, I'd say people judge things before they read/see them nowadays because you no longer need to do that in order to get a good idea of what something's about or like. For example I've never read Twilight, but I have a pretty good idea what it's about, as in I could probably summarize the books and describe each major character if I wanted. I don't go on rants about it because I know I have no right to, but that doesn't mean I can't form an opinion of it.

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged either, I've seen the (first) film and have read several synopses of the book, and I have a firm understanding of Ayne Rand's Objectivist philosophy as well as her views on religion and feminism. To say I have no right to form an opinion of it is a little silly. Without forming opinions about books how else are we to decide what to read in the first place?

I'm sure some people will read a book and still not be sure if they thought it was good or not until they get someone else's opinion of it. In general the mass opinion of things tend to be more trustworthy than one individual's thoughts.
 

Arakasi

New member
Jun 14, 2011
1,252
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
Rand wasn't a novelist, she had philosophical ideas and she expressed them poorly. Why she didn't simply scrawl them down on random scraps of paper and leave them sprawled about her house for future generations to find and then profess her genius? I don't know, because that would probably have been preferable to the pretentious twaddle she actually gave us.
You will probably disagree with this, but when asked the question of whether she was a philosopher or a novelist first she said that she'd wanted to be a novelist for a long time and did nothing but work towards that. But she said that before she could write the right story she needed the right philosophical principles.
Ayn Rand said:
Philosophical knowledge is necessary in order to define human perfection. But I do not care to stop at the definition. I want to use it, to apply it - in my work; (in my personal life, too - but the core, center and purpose of my whole life, is my work).
OlasDAlmighty said:
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
Oh, in certain situations I agree, that's why I specify 'open, but critical'. So it's more like the gates are open, but guarded heavily.
 

Arakasi

New member
Jun 14, 2011
1,252
0
0
Witty Name Here said:
This is rather ironic, I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now (currently on page 160... Over a thousand more to go!) though I have an unbridled, passionate hate against Objectivism so despite being part of the group most brainwashed by Ayn Rand's "gateway drug" to laissez-faire fanaticism, I'm pretty sure that I wont change after reading the book.
Well there really isn't much point in reading it if you go into it with that kind of mindset. I think it's better to set bias aside, and judge it on its own merits, if you find a logical flaw, a disagreement, that is more than fair.
 

synobal

New member
Jun 8, 2011
2,189
0
0
I've read Atlas shrugged, but as far as how well she manages to deliver the message of her philosophy wrapped in the shell/cloak of a good story I'd have to disagree. I think Fountainhead was much better in terms of that. Having a huge chunk of the book where the author basically has the character get up and give a speech is really low and not good writing as far as it goes.

I thought Objectivism was interesting in high school but I grew out of it, but still to this day I enjoy the Fountainhead and Anthem. However I'd not read Atlas shrugged again, it's just not very good as far as story telling goes.
 

Hoplon

Jabbering Fool
Mar 31, 2010
1,840
0
0
Arakasi said:
Why can people not manage such a simple task as to keep an open, but objective mind?
Thinking that you can be perfectly objective is as much a problem as not trying to be.

As to your question, people poo poo objectivism as a lot of the people that espouse it are using it to justify personal greed rather than doing anything to try to improve the world, which as for as i know was the point, that it was okay to be somewhat selfish if it was improving the world and the lot of the people.
 

everythingbeeps

New member
Sep 30, 2011
946
0
0
Arakasi said:
One thing I've noticed over my admittedly short time on this earth is people's capacity to reject things that they have no concept of. Their rejection primarily seems to be based upon horribly incorrect second-hand knowledge, or spurred by prior bias.
It's not a complicated book, and its philosophies are very straight forward. It's perfectly reasonable to hear about its philosophy and be opposed to the book/author on principle.

Seriously, you're toeing the line of that famous argument: "If you didn't like it, it's because you didn't understand it", which is flat wrong.
 

Arakasi

New member
Jun 14, 2011
1,252
0
0
everythingbeeps said:
Arakasi said:
One thing I've noticed over my admittedly short time on this earth is people's capacity to reject things that they have no concept of. Their rejection primarily seems to be based upon horribly incorrect second-hand knowledge, or spurred by prior bias.
It's not a complicated book, and its philosophies are very straight forward. It's perfectly reasonable to hear about its philosophy and be opposed to the book/author on principle.

Seriously, you're toeing the line of that famous argument: "If you didn't like it, it's because you didn't understand it", which is flat wrong.
Of course it's perfectly reasonable to hear about its philosophy and be opposed to it, but what I'm saying is that most people I've seen either don't provide reasons for their dislike of it beyond some shallow quote they heard from someone else or something similar.
 

everythingbeeps

New member
Sep 30, 2011
946
0
0
Arakasi said:
everythingbeeps said:
Arakasi said:
One thing I've noticed over my admittedly short time on this earth is people's capacity to reject things that they have no concept of. Their rejection primarily seems to be based upon horribly incorrect second-hand knowledge, or spurred by prior bias.
It's not a complicated book, and its philosophies are very straight forward. It's perfectly reasonable to hear about its philosophy and be opposed to the book/author on principle.

Seriously, you're toeing the line of that famous argument: "If you didn't like it, it's because you didn't understand it", which is flat wrong.
Of course it's perfectly reasonable to hear about its philosophy and be opposed to it, but what I'm saying is that most people I've seen either don't provide reasons for their dislike of it beyond some shallow quote they heard from someone else or something similar.
I assume you're talking about "reasons beyond opposition to the book's philosophy"? That's reason enough for me. If you understand the book's message (and most people do), and are strongly opposed to that message (as many people are), that's plenty reason to dislike the book.

Now you can argue that these people don't dislike it in the same way as someone who's read it carefully and has complaints about the prose, dialogue, characters, or whatever. I dislike the fact the book even exists. I dislike the fact that people actually agree with that horseshit. I dislike the fact that people like you demand a comprehensive list of grievances before you'll accept their dislike of the book itself.
 

Kolby Jack

Come at me scrublord, I'm ripped
Apr 29, 2011
2,519
0
0
I haven't ever read Atlas Shrugged, partly because I just prefer to avoid books altogether (reading is not fun for me unless it's an exceptional book, and there aren't many of those), but also because I've read/heard many direct quotes from Ayn Rand herself, and I don't like her way of thinking, so I can safely assume I wouldn't like her books.

Frankly I don't put much stock in philosophy either. It seems like a waste of time to me.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Arakasi said:
One thing I've noticed over my admittedly short time on this earth is people's capacity to reject things that they have no concept of. Their rejection primarily seems to be based upon horribly incorrect second-hand knowledge, or spurred by prior bias.

Why can people not manage such a simple task as to keep an open, but objective mind?

Now I could be speaking about a number of things here; the preacher who tries to convert the atheist devil without ever understanding the meaning of 'atheist', the woman who writes-off a a program for its apparent childishness without ever watching the show or the man who rejects an idea without first checking the premises of his own.

As it turns out that I am speaking of the latter. Having just finished reading Atlas Shrugged I find myself quite highly satisfied with its use of logic to convince the reader of the Objectivist ideology. The reason I chose to pick up the book in the first place was that I could hear no source of information telling me that it any good, I heard nothing but unspecific negativity, and so I decided that I should judge it on its own merits instead of simply taking everyone's word for it. (Before we continue I should also note that reading it has not converted me to Objectivism.)

I'm not going to say it was a perfect book, it may have a little trouble with the almost straw-man like nature of the opposing characters, it's idealisation of the capacity of average human thought, the occasional apparent sexism (it was written in the 50's by a female author) and it having a basis in an outdated idea (free will).

So what I am going to say is that it is a brilliant book. It's use of philosophy as well as the characters and setting to promote the ideology is used to the greatest effect I can see being possible whilst remaining comprehensible, and it is the only good example of this technique that I can think of (not that I won't be searching for more).

So for every time I see a web comic telling the readers that one has terrible taste for liking a book, every time I hear a video-creator crack a joke about people yanking-off to a work he doesn't like, every time I hear someone tell me that they despise something and yet are unable to explain why, every time I hear someone tell me that something is wrong simply because it is, this my friends, is when I shall decide for myself.

I am left to conclude that for all the people who espouse the philosophy of not judging a book by its cover, few actually don't.

----
So, here's my question: What things have you liked or disliked that you think didn't get a fair judgement? Do you try to judge without prejudice? Can one judge without prejudice?
Well the thing is that making any judgements predjudices you over time, as you grow from what you decide and experience.

The thing to understand is that most of the media, whether it, or it's supporters, have a distinct left wing bias. It's especially prominant in the domains of "geekdom" such a video game, comic, RPG forums and the specialty media that caters to them. As a result a philosophy that directly contridicts a lot of the principles of the left wing in terms of things like social welfare, or class equality is not going to be popular. Most people who dismiss "Atlas Shrugs" and the works of Ayn Rand without having read them, or truely familiarized themsevles with the subject matter, do so because they hear that they are bad from sources they generally agree with, and given the sheer amount of time it can take you to familiarize yourself with objectivism, whether it's from reading the books OR through other sources summarizing it, it's deemed to not be worth the trouble. The bottom line ultimatly being among most of it's critics is that it has to be wrong because it ultimatly argues for the right of a tiny minority to be uncaring about the plight of everyone else, something the left finds wrong on general principle no matter how that elite happens to be selected. While it's a great simplification of objectivism in a real life context it basically comes down to the arguement that if you succeed you have every right to do pretty much whatever you want to anyone else short of violence (worker exploitation, etc...) since the worthy will excel and join you regardless of whatever you do by their very nature. What's more by extending any kind of charity and not exploiting people to your fullest abillity your actually harming the people by encouraging them not to live up to their full potential. The more of an obstacle you present, the stronger society, and those who inevitably climb to the top will usually look down and realize why things had to be this way, and be grateful for the society that made them so strong in getting there. That's simplistic, but at the end of the day your left winger judges it as something they already decided to be against, saying it's pretty much a bunch of rich dudes and fat cats plotting on how to keep the everyman down, the same thing you see today, but formalized, and more creatively justified. A way for someone to be a douchebag and then argue he's actually being a humanitarian so to speak.

The point here not being to argue about objectivism, so much as to say that I sort of "get" why so many people rag on it without actually understanding it in detail. That's not an ideal state of affairs, but I understand why that happens.

Speaking for myself I tend to be more to the right wing on most issues than the left, but I do not agree with Objectivism on some general principles. One of the reas where I actually lean leftward for example is on the issue of worker's rights, and my believe in unions and things like that. I believe whole heartedly in capitalsm, but at the same time believe there does need to be limitations on it, to prevent a few greedy jerks from ruining it for everyone else (so to speak). As a theory Objectivism is interesting, but I do not think it's functional in a practical sense, nor does it really account for human nature. That said it is a step up from a lot of philsophies I have heard.
 

mfeff

New member
Nov 8, 2010
284
0
0
Devoneaux said:
mfeff said:
alfinchkid said:
In Search of Username said:
more snips
hyper snips
See the problem with Objectivism is that it fails to confront the issue that the great have power over the small, and that the already great hindering the small that seek to become great, in an effort to maintain their own greatness.
I suppose it depends on how one wants to look at it. Objectivism does address it, and has an expectation set forth as a part of it's epistemology.

Rand is addressing the failures of the implementation of the Marxist ideology -> Stalinist socialism. Under that system the "possibility" of private ownership as vehicle to manifest self interested future, (means of production a nod to the Lockean system), was impossible.

In many ways this was "alienation" of labor from the proletariat which was the very thing that Karl Marx was interested in getting away from. Rand (for my money) was offering an analysis of two very different economic systems. Eventually adopting a very Aristotelian-modified-version of oligarchy, however, linking that to civic virtue, another nod to the Apollonian. That is to say, that a civic duty was associated with personal duty and responsibility to the point of being an aesthetic in and of itself. I tended to see it as almost an expansion of the clan or city state identity to national identity. Almost like a post modern version of the arete. Not so much in the way of handouts (unless the person felt that charity was the way to go), but that the people at the top would use reason and sound judgement to select those who would also bolster up the body and politic all the way down. Probably say this was the earliest manifestations of the trickle down economic policies and the beginnings of the corporate republic/globalization initiative (user friendly term for empire).

Rand has always struck me as someone that valued hard work and self discipline. Unfortunately I think she underestimated the irrational aspect of human kind, was woefully unaware of "monkey sphere", and gave human beings way to much credit when it came to playing fair and a propensity for being lazy.

The simple fact is that we live in a world where you only move up IF AND ONLY IF someone else somewhere lets you. I can think of no situation where, directly or indirectly this is not the case. This is also why Social Darwinism was incorrect, since the entire philosophy doesn't address the idea that someone is poor because someone else might be keeping him there.
Not sure if this is a sentiment that I am able to sign off on.


There are plenty of opportunities off the grid. As I mentioned before... anarcho-capitalism.



Social Darwinism is an interesting cat.

The assumption is that someone has the might and power to actually "keep" another person in check and beat down within the market system is just a little weak sauce.



The breakdown comes in when advancement is stymied intentionally to maintain the status quo, or the illusion of it.

I certainly cannot speak for the rest of the world but there are tons of opportunities to advance oneself within the US, even if one is of meager means. I fault the Objectivist standpoint, specifically Rand's assertion that companies would actually play fair. Period. The use of asymmetrical warfare, corporate espionage, keiretsu, leveraging positions of holdings/speculation, unfair and predatory lending practices, rigging of games, casino wall-street; as not being in the spirit of the civic advancement as a gauge of social virtue.

Technically, it is not a fault of the objectivist position, it is a fault of people not living up to it's rigorous standards. It's an applied personal philosophy more than it is a social model.

I think the idea was clearly that free markets would "tech up" to provide better and cheaper products to the populace under a linear competition model rather than socialize and limit the creative gene that is associated with socialistic systems.

That is to say that the profit motif would drive ingenuity. It often does.

This is where government comes into play. The ultimate purpose of the government (as it applies to America) is to protect and maintain the rights and freedoms of the citizenry.
Not really. From where does these rights derive? Where does the government derive it's authority?

This is why we have laws like Minimum wage(which could stand to be higher) and child labor laws, because when we didn't, the working class were readily exploited.
Not really.

History shows that without government interference, the great will exploit and control the small.The ultimate implications of Ayn Rand's belief, that the great have a right to control the weak and small is something i'd expect to hear from the personal writings of a totalitarian leader, not an "enlightened" author.
There is a lot wrong with these statements. You have used the word "right" several times, not really sure Rand actually said that, tossing the burden o' proof on you to source. The "great" usually don't bother trying to control the weak, the weak, being weak, are more "funneled" into roles (in deterministic fashion) for which they serve the best and or find their comfortable level of achievement.

Another word here I am going to have some issues with is "enlightened", really need you to define what you mean by that exactly. The way that you use it is as a pejorative, implying that she did not/does not measure up to you notion of the term.

I simply mentioned, and will elaborate, the serious (western) Buddhist practitioners found Objectivism and Ayn Rand's dissertations to be especially difficult to work through as they relate to the philosophies of the contemporary religious practice.

I tend to note that Rand's philosophy being post modern, being heavily influenced by Kant, Kirk, and certainly Fredrick Nietzsche... as well as Heidegger, Husserl, Schopenhauer... as well as others are similar to modern Buddhist lay positions and postulates. Considering it is of historical significance that those philosophers were greatly influence by the religion, for many the combined efforts and dialog often solves some of their issues although the continental philosophies also create new ones.


It's a lot like what this guy has to say. As far as the Dharma is concerned Rand has some issues... but she is worth serious consideration... under glass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt

Couple issues I had with Rand:

She was somewhat naive when it came to human reason, that is the human critter operates from an irrational very subjective viewpoint (failure to develop a reflexive self checking objective practice).

She demonstrated gross neglect in calculating limits of materials, resources, and capability. (she often lived in fantasy land when she discussed future technologies)

She failed to address the solid work that Marx did undertake as it related to conflict theory, for her every human issue had a logical (oft times linear) solution. Ignoring her own underlying emotional tensions as they related to others. She seemed to have a hard time seeing the peasant for what it was... a peasant. (That is I often thought she wanted to peasant to rise up, in a Marxist fashion, and "want more" for themselves... angry that they didn't, rather they just sat around "asking" for their share.)

I tend to find her more of a Romantic at heart... disappointed by people at every turn.

It's late... sorry for run on sentences and shit...
 

Watcheroftrends

New member
Jan 5, 2009
208
0
0
I think the problem lies in people believing that their personal conclusions are universal truths rather than subjective interpretations. Honestly, I don't mind if people hold certain values or ways of thinking despite large amounts of contradictory "evidence". I only get frustrated when they try to influence the lives of others with an "I know best" attitude.

I mean, there are a lot of issues that have grey answers, especially when it comes to morality. No amount of thinking and research will have you reach the "perfect" conclusion. If you spend too long examining these issues, someone who is outspoken and feels strongly a certain way will simply "overpower" you. They'll be the ones who get their way while you're struggling to even establish what it is you are arguing for.

It's an awfully difficult balancing act. Even if it were true that those of us who are more "intelligent" are actually coming up with more "correct" answers to these dilemmas, the simple truth is that people tend to operate in a black and white world where those who speak louder are right.

Even if it were also true that it would be to our benefit as a race to establish a more critical view of reality, I think you'll agree that it's a herculean task to try to change the world. Personally, I have tried to simply avoid these arguments and try to enjoy life as it comes. I think it's a lot more peaceful to try to perceive reality as though it were simply a work of art that is out of my control rather than trying to carve out any sort of conclusions based on the limited capabilities of my own mind.

I know that probably sounds contradictory. The best way I can describe it is that inward control seems to be much more powerful than outward. By having the inward control, I can be simultaneously frustrated that people are trying to influence my life while still acknowledging that they're just working with the tools they were given and that they are largely operating out of the "fear" that someone else will do the same to them if they do not.
 

Arakasi

New member
Jun 14, 2011
1,252
0
0
everythingbeeps said:
Arakasi said:
everythingbeeps said:
Arakasi said:
One thing I've noticed over my admittedly short time on this earth is people's capacity to reject things that they have no concept of. Their rejection primarily seems to be based upon horribly incorrect second-hand knowledge, or spurred by prior bias.
It's not a complicated book, and its philosophies are very straight forward. It's perfectly reasonable to hear about its philosophy and be opposed to the book/author on principle.

Seriously, you're toeing the line of that famous argument: "If you didn't like it, it's because you didn't understand it", which is flat wrong.
Of course it's perfectly reasonable to hear about its philosophy and be opposed to it, but what I'm saying is that most people I've seen either don't provide reasons for their dislike of it beyond some shallow quote they heard from someone else or something similar.
I assume you're talking about "reasons beyond opposition to the book's philosophy"? That's reason enough for me. If you understand the book's message (and most people do), and are strongly opposed to that message (as many people are), that's plenty reason to dislike the book.

Now you can argue that these people don't dislike it in the same way as someone who's read it carefully and has complaints about the prose, dialogue, characters, or whatever. I dislike the fact the book even exists. I dislike the fact that people actually agree with that horseshit. I dislike the fact that people like you demand a comprehensive list of grievances before you'll accept their dislike of the book itself.
I am most certainly not talking about "reasons beyond opposition to the book's philosophy". What I am talking about is understanding the book's philosophy properly first before you call it horseshit. People tend to hear, secondhand, the message that greed is good and reject it without any context or reasoning as to why whatsoever.

However with this last paragraph you have proven to be the very kind of person I made this thread about, and as such you are not worth talking to or arguing with until you change your attitude.