I've read a lot of books. I think I would rate high in openness on the big five scale of personality, as well as conscientiousness. The one is predictor of liberalism and the other of conservatism. For me I think it's foolish to draw identity from your political point of view. I think lesser government and more freedoms (freedom of speech) the better, and safer, and a safeguard against revolutions like the French revolution and the Russian Revolution, but my happiness or lack thereof is not a function of my politics.

My openness and conscientiousness I'm told are not a likely combination. I think I'm also high in neuroticism. I don't know where I stand on agreeableness. I'm becoming less agreeable (not giving a shit) the older I get, but I have to be agreeable when necessary to avoid unnecessary troubles. On extroversion, I like people but I don't like mundane small talk. I sometimes do, if I feel comfortable, if people keep it neutral. I don't like answering the question "how are you" right off the bat. I'm more european in that sense. They just don't ask such questions of strangers. I don't like American extroversion culture. That said, I don't like just standing around in a group where nobody is talking and everyone else is introverted. In a world of introverts, I"m the extrovert. In a world of extroverts, I"m the introvert.

I've read a lot of types of books. I'm not a utilitarian. Not everything has to have an immediate use, but people like Kant and other philosophers, I tried to check what they were about. It seemed useless to even try, for my purposes. I got into Rand because her book blew my mind. I have still only read Fountainhead, though I started reading it a second time more carefully. I always read things the first time quickly because I'm caught up in the narrative, what happens next. Now I can soak the details better. But I have not read Atlas Shrugged. I started listening to her on youtube, and others like Yaron Brooks and Nathaniel Brandon. Her 'philosophy' is useful and practical and I agree with large parts of it. Her political philosophy as I understand it is the least important part, just an extension of the core. Reason at core, and the self as the next layer.

One guy compared to Lord of the Rings. Well well yeah I think it would be acknowledged that she wrote characters as ideal types. How often do you really meet a Roark or a Toohey. I'm sure the Keatings of the world exist. Maybe even the Tooheys, or the Wynands, maybe even the Roarks and Dominiques.

As a novel, this had me gripped- more than Les Mis, Crime and Punishment, the Great Gatsby, and others. She subsumed Nietzsche for me, which is good because as much as I liked and like him, and he lifted me out of depression in college, there were parts that troubled me. Mysticism I guess she described it as.

I'm not defensive. Well-- hey that word is a dig. My friend, a girl, told me --- I should "be defensive" more when talking to people. Ha. My mother always criticized us, telling us and my father "don't be so defensive." I thought it universally bad, and Roark hardly defends himself. There's a place for that but here I have this girl who knows me well telling me I need to be defensive. So now that freed me from a fear, so now I will be as I desire to be. I will "be defensive" if I need be. And so I didn't read Fountainhead when I was 14, I read when I was 38 and more mature in my thinking, or more established in it if you prefer, and I loved it. To idealize anything is to set yourself up for a fall, so I shant say it is perfect, but it's a best seller for a reason (social proof fallacy haha cause I also know the bible is #1). I think her Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead are the top two after the bible as the alternative to those who like the bible- the theists/collectivists/altruists, though many a bible reader and believer are selfish individualists. Still, she's the alternative for those who "just can't" - yet also just can't read Marx either- with a believing mind. I daresay the thinking man or the thinking rational atheist libertarian minded doesn't find any book to be perfect or biblical but in Rand I can see how they find the closest thing to a good system. Comparing a book and "philosophy" that preaches reason and selfishness and individualism to Scientology is bat shit silly in my not that humble opinion. Maybe there's something I don't know about what she said in her later years or whatever. I said before, virtues taken to an extreme can often become vices. Take a pandemic, covid. Besides individualism and autonomy, we need law and order kinda, but as a general day to day way of being, leave me alone, don't steal fruit of my labor, let me be me, which is an individual but a social individual and I'm happy. Governments mess with markets and I don't just mean economic markets. The mess with markets of the soul and social dynamics. Government involvement often has effects on family structures of society, on self esteem levels, etc. In general you get more of what you pay for and the primary cost is usually not my biggest concern for any program (welfare, for instance) but the side effects, which can be myriad and cascading. More single mothers possible, which can create more troubled youth. I don't know, I'm just saying, side effects can be bigger deal than the primary direct costs of a thing.

So what do people hope to get from "philosophy"? What is it to them, that Rand comes up short? I'm not one for talking about the existence of things, why things exist, in a way that will get me nothing and is not provable. I like math and logic, hard as it may be to get really deep into. I like epistemology and the scientific method. I like what enhances my feeling of aliveness. Rand does this. I like getting a sense of values and psychological harmony. I take it as a given that I do not feel guilt or shame for others. Someone on next door just posted how ashamed he is sometimes as a x race man, as a man, as an American. I replied that's cause you're a collectivist. I'm not ashamed for something others do because I'm not them. If I was part of a group that did unsavory things, I still wouldn't be ashamed. I'd leave the group if necessary and possible. I'm not them, so how can I be ashamed on their behalf? I think that is disgusting and the displays people are exhibiting. Such types of collectivism apparently exist, as evidenced by what I read from this guy, straight in his own words. What else would you ascribe it to if not collectivism? I'm kind of disgusted and horrified that anyone would be like that and kind of full of pity or compassion, but how can I be ashamed. Granted your group or class may have a branding issue to deal with as a result of the behavior of some but shame? I don't think it's real. I think he thinks it's real but I think he's signalling and he's being an opportunist, through unconscious motives, because how is that shame even possible? This is a good illustration of individualism. But I still believe in the utility of groups- collective bargaining can be useful for instance. I don't know if I'm a pure capitalist. I never said I was though I see it having amazing benefits and possible downsides, but those benefits are real and I will not deny them, but heck that doesn't mean I'm 100 percent. I don't know what I think of unions but I know some unions are corrupt, like teachers unions possibly. Anyway it's reason and rational self-interest that must come first. I can see it easier perhaps to be a collectivist or non individualist by self identification if good things have always come your way, flowed to you (like they did Peter Keating), or like they maybe do young attractive women and celebrities, but they have not been so to me and I'm not asking for pity but explaining why rational selfishness works for me or at least resonates with me. I know the group theory- people feeding each other and scratching each others' back. Well you can still get that, in value exchanges (not all monetary), or ... wait for it.. 'quid pro quo' haha. I'm still social.

I guess there's an intelligentsia or something for whom nothing is sacred. I don't ask anything to be sacred but they can dismiss certain works in a few lines of code but put nothing in its place but some dry laughter. If it was laughter of joy I could understand. Nothing is perfectly perfect. We are all human and there is probably no abrahamic deity in the heavens who is perfect either, but the Fountainhead is a fine work in my eyes, for what it's worth and I fail to see how it can skew people. If I would have read it at 14 I probably would have known not to go to college just to go through the motions, doing some business and finance program, struggling for years. Perhaps it would have altered my course or I should say focused my course and saved me wasted efforts at things. It would have been necessary for my heart to be into something before I put effort, time and money into it and I would have had courage. Instead I wasted years in fear and confusion not knowing how to aim and focus my life. Could have had that effect because it has it even now. Couldn't have hurt. It's not for everyone.

I'm new to her. Finally read her book Fountainhead. LOVED it. I'm reading it again right away and giving as gift to others. I've read a lot of books in my day. Not saying I"m smart but I've read a lot of the classics - Hugo, Tolstoy, Dosteovsky, Melville, Fitzgerald, etc and a lot of Nietzsche. Her book well it kinda rises above a lot of them to me in my context. It "blew my mind" multiple times if you pardon the cliche. Since then I've been listening to her on youtube. I'm not an expert.

Sooo.... if you're not a fan, I"m interested in knowing why, so I can learn. Nobody is immune to criticism. However, part of the reason I liked it, I think, is that I had already got largely in alignment with her views on reason, the self, selfishness, etc as lessons I took from life.

If you don't like her I'd be curious to know why. We're individuals who can think for ourselves. But if you don't like her because you have low self-esteem and like to tear things down, like Ellsworth Toohey, I'm not going to value it that much (especially if you're sneaky like him). If you don't like her because she's atheist/agnostic then I'll chalk that to just religion. There has to be a reason and I might not agree with all.

To me objectivism is a simple system but powerful, most of the pieces I already got together on my own. I am not one to follow or adhere to a system in general but it's pretty simple. Reason sits at the top, and then egotism and then capitalism. She said the latter derives from the former not vice versa, so it's hard to argue against reason as the top principle (unless you are a person of faith preferring to believe in the supernatural). Your reason might not lead to egoism (individuality and rational self-interest). You might think otherwise, but the higher you go, I would feel, the more you would agree. You might think a mixed economy is better. Incidentally I am capitalist, mostly, for practical reasons, but in any system, happiness is more about the internal state- taking care of yourself, rational self interest and self esteem. To me she and the book are about far more than the economic system, which Fountainhead didn't even really touch on.

I read a bit of Nietzsche. I think he's a brilliant psychologist and he got me out of depression in my college years and later times and he has some great quotes, but Ayn Rand clarified what was wrong with him. He's sometimes mystic and irrational. Mysticism is dangerous. It could lead on the one hand to hippies and meditation, but it can equally lead to fascism and cults. So I feel like her philosophy kind of subsumed Nietzsche for me, which is a remarkable feat, but he's still amazing as a poet and writer. Not like he's irrelevant. The other philosophers, from Aristotle to whomever: Yeah as far as 'reality' is concerned, I never felt the need to probe. I'm interested in learning and growth but I never cared for 'being as such" or what have you. I'd rather learn to swing a hammer. I'm thirsty for knowledge but Kant was too hard to crack, and I didn't know if I was on safe ground. Some philosophers are pierian springs. Drink deep or else (you'll be confounded). Aristotle and them are good. I like the philosophers who created the scientific method. But I also know thinkers deeply affect society and so they should be evaluated. So I heard said by Rand that Kant had a negative influence- and maybe had a purpose for that. I mean is anything accidental with smart people? So he might be worth auditing. To me if you can't explain something simply, either you don't get it or you're trying to pull one over. Or maybe you're talking about quantum physics. Can you separate philosophy from the character who expounds it? I didn't need a guide how to live my life-- except it kinda helps to be reminded and encouraged to reason and selfishness and be inspired by fictional characters. Why wouldn't you be selfish? If selfishness makes you happy, well that's proof in itself. If it doesn't, then you do unselfish things for selfish reasons- serve the group. I believe in groups and communities, very much. I'm a social individual. I hate isolation. But I stress individual. I help myself, then maybe I can help others, if it serves me more, or if I get pleasure from it- from the act itself, not the promise of future reward unless that promise has a security interest attached.

Funny OP is asking us if he should like Ayn Rand, etc. OMG he's such a Keating! I've always been like Roark actually in life when I knew myself, when I had an opinion, but I've been like Keating as far as career because I've been clueless, without self-knowledge. I know now- engineering and building stuff, but I'm already 38, like Keating when he finally realized he was in the wrong line. So I've been like Keating but also like Roark.

So basically what is there to object to in objectivism? There are worse things. She's for reason and against mysticism, as well as group think, so that puts your feet on the ground and reduces risk of any form of cult or totalitariansm. Yes, any virtue taken too far can become a vice, but the form this vice might possibly take compared to other ideologies is not that socially dangerous. For those who think we need to serve the group, the herd, the hive and are livid when we don't-- well I don't mean to sound overly harsh or hyperbolic but I think on some level they may be parasites or parasite enablers. We can give to charity of our own choice, but government is force and intimidation and ever growing and what did the preacherman ever do for me? Some people in the current year equate capitalism for instance with fascism and reason and logic with western civilization that is white supremacy or something. These are the ridiculous ones, and also the dangerous ones. They exist, incredibly. I have no time arguing with those types. But if you're a reasonable person, I find little objectionable about objectivism and may be much good. The rest, if she said something incorrect in a footnote about Kant- well point that out, I'm interested but I'm not that concerned.

Thanks for your attention good folks. It's been my pleasure to post.