RE: Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism
July 18, 2016 at 1:49 pm
(This post was last modified: July 18, 2016 at 1:51 pm by CapnAwesome.)
(July 18, 2016 at 1:37 pm)abaris Wrote:(July 18, 2016 at 11:54 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: It's a good thing to read everything you can. It's an even better thing to read stuff written by people you disagree with.
There are certain books, so utterly boring, that I never made it over the first few chapters. Rand certainly falls into that category. Not to compare the two, but Hitler's Mein Kampf falls into the same category. That I had to read for a seminar. At least for it's largest part. But you're right, reading what you don't agree with is a good thing. I did a lot of reading on objectivism, listened to the few televised interviews Rand gave and read a few pieces on her philosophy.
Oh I agree, some books are just too boring to make it through. Atlas Shrugged is definitely a boring and repetitive slog. Mein Kampf is an excellent example, I've never made it that far because it's so poorly written. I've also skipped much of the old testament because of boredom and barely made it through the Qu'ran, which is tedious to the extreme. To be honest, Origin of species is also dull and long and boring and I've only skimmed it. Atlas Shrugged is by far the least important of those books, historically speaking. I mean if someone didn't read it because they weren't interested or found it boring that's one thing and I wouldn't fault someone for it.
I don't think that's what Maelstrom was saying though. He said it's a good thing that he's never read anything written by Rand. If you only read criticisms of something and not the source material (some of Rands essays are short and easy) then you just aren't qualified to say anything about it. It's really a celebration of your own ignorance, which unfortunately has become the norm.


