Objectivism is attractive to me given the current state of the world. It is empowering to internalize some of her concepts like: "money being a manifestation of ones best efforts", "action without thought is mindlessness, and thought without action is hypocritical", "celebration is for those who have earned it", etc.. Objectivism has empowered my individuality. It has helped me organize my thoughts and default to reason whenever I feel overwhelmed or exhausted.

This is me explaining a bit of what I have gained from objectivism not as a defense of it but as a statement about why I have appreciated my first foray into philosophy. I understand many of you may think of objectivism as blasphemy so please give me the next logical step in my philosophical journey. I would greatly appreciate thoughtful recommendations on texts to begin reading. — OscarTheGrouch

Objectivism is useless, especially as a starting point for a "philosophically journey", as Ayn Rand had an exceptionally naïve grasp on philosophical questions and concerns, and the shallow understanding of socio-economic conditions of Capitalism that she voraciously advocated. This is in part stemming from the fact that she wasn't well read. She likely didn't venture far from Aristotle and Nietzsche and had a poor grasp of both.

Statements like "money being a manifestation of ones best efforts", "action without thought is mindlessness, and thought without action is hypocritical", "celebration is for those who have earned it" etc. read like platitudes from a self-help book, rather than serious philosophical concepts.

I do suppose that Objectivism can sound attractive because in some ways it is reflective of the state of the world, and I mean that in a very dire sense.

Saying objectivism is useless is aggressive and dismissive. Although, I can see what you are getting at.

read like platitudes from a self-help book, rather than serious philosophical concepts.

I find this quote meaningful. It makes a lot of sense to me.

I do suppose that Objectivism can sound attractive because in some ways it is reflective of the state of the world, and I mean that in a very dire sense.

I find the state of the world is closer to the opposite of what is prescribed by Objectivism rather than reflective of it.

The approach of coddling state and incentivizing avoiding individual critical thought and reason is what I see. Two core evils of Objectivism.

A wise man once said, and keeps saying:

Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion. — Ciceronianus

:smirk:

Who talked about the ins and outs of victim blaming before her? — frank

Freddy Zarathustra e.g. resentment, slave morality, decadence ...

:up:

Am I wrong to try and understand her philosophy? — OscarTheGrouch

Not at all.

Is there no wisdom within it?

If and when, Oscar, you learn to recognize the difference between what Plato et al calls "philosophy" and "sophistry", then you will be able to judge for Ayn Rand's writings for yourself.

The approach of coddling state — OscarTheGrouch

lol just going to throw my hands up at this one

I haven’t read the formalised version of her philosophy, but I can accept what I’ve heard about it not being very good based on some of the stuff she has Roark say in The Fountainhead; but I enjoyed the literary account she gives of her beliefs in that book a lot and I think she gets people right. The vast majority are what she calls “second-handers”: people who derive themselves from others (and so the animus Rand so commonly gets makes complete sense). And I agree with her that it’s better to do things that help people, for selfish reasons, as opposed to doing things solely to help people, and poisoning yourself in the ways she depicts (i.e. Catherine learning to look down on those she helps, finding herself in competition with other helpers, and losing herself to the role fabricated for her).

Rather than throw your hands up, refute it. Throwing your hands up is no way to argue.

This seems like a place for reasoned discourse. It will help me learn about, and adjust my points of view.

It seems that within the first world sharp corners are being rounded. The results of our endeavors are minimized while personal and emotional issues are becoming a focal point. We expect that the wonderful conditions we enjoy will persist without high standards of existence.

In other words, value is being placed on how we feel about our actions and actions done onto us, versus the effects of those actions on us and the world we live in.

To reduce that a bit further: values are shifting to what seems to be rather than what is.

I am trying to explain myself. These words are rather raw.

I whole heartedly look forward to your response.

What makes Roark so attractive to some young males is that the theme of rugged individualism and the virtues of a pure meritocracy provide cover for the desire to be accepted by a particular group on the basis of what Veblen referred to as the display of conspicuous consumption. The dominance of Roark over women reflects how participation in the group translates the role of beauty. For example:

She is useless and expensive, and she is consequentially valuable as evidence of pecuniary strength. It results that at this cultural stage women take thought to alter their persons , so as to conform more nearly the requirements of the instructed taste of the time; and under the guidance of of the canon of pecuniary decency, the men find the resulting artificiality induced pathological features attractive. So, for instance, the constricted waist which has had so wide and persistent a vogue in the communities of the Western culture, and so also the deformed foot of the Chinese. Both of these are mutilations of unquestioned repulsiveness to the untrained sense. — Theory of the Leisure Class, Thorsten Veblen

The futility of the 'kept' woman finding purpose through work is not a bug but a feature for Roark, it makes the forced sex hotter as a kind of degradation of worth. Rand makes the fantasy even hotter by suggesting that such a result is secretly what is wanted.

Time for me to hit the shower....

but I can accept what I’ve heard about it not being very good based on some of the stuff she has Roark say in The Fountainhead; but I enjoyed the literary account she gives of her beliefs in that book a lot and I think she gets people right. — AJJ

You should read the lengthy speech she gives her "John Galt" character in Atlas Shrugged. If you enjoy being lectured on the "virtue" of selfishness you'll be thrilled by that seemingly endless monologue appearing at the end of the book. That novel has amusing passages, though. I particularly liked the fact that the flag of the preposterously rich and brilliant renegades she dreamed up proudly displayed a dollar sign ($).

I don’t actually like Roark, or Dominique or Wynand. I think the rape scene is perverse and I find the dialog between the three of them sickly. Henry Cameron seems to me a more poignant representation of the book’s values: sticks to himself and the purity of what he wants to contribute despite the loneliness and destitution that Roark never actually experiences.

I think the rape scene is perverse a — AJJ

Money and rough sex seemed important to Rand. There's another such scene in Atlas Shrugged. As you might expect, the woman being portrayed actually enjoyed being ravished. She apparently wanted a brave man, wanted a cave man, like in the old Joanie Sommers song about Johnny, but with more bruises involved, it seems.

I didn’t enjoy the monologues in The Fountainhead. I’ve heard Rand’s books described as pulp fiction and I expect that characterises them quite well (enjoyable for the most part but cheap at times). All the same, I think her insights into the nature of the herd and reasons why they behave and think as they do have a good amount of truth to them.

And the sex stuff, who knows. Maybe she was doing a DH Lawrence and writing out some fantasies of hers in the guise of something else.