Huh?

[forsyth]

Ayn Rand's novels are supposed to idealize the individualist who can accomplish all these great things without the interference of the Ebil State!

And so to illustrate this, she chooses professions like architect, and railroad magnate, which require the concerted labor of hundreds, thousands of other people to accomplish anything. These are supposed to be the people who are better than society? They can't do anything without society! None of their accomplishments could happen without the work of many other people, and the regulations involved in a society.

So I'm confused what the point's supposed to be.

Comments

[kalifla.livejournal.com]

WELCOME TO LOLJECTIVISM.

Keep your paws and hands and tentacles and lower limbs inside the car at all times.

[vanmojo.livejournal.com]

The point -- as far as any of the Objectivist-Masters-of-the-Universe-types can seem to make out -- is that if an individual can rise above through talent and hard work, then that person is also morally required to exploit anyone they need to accomplish their vision.

Any notion of "society" is merely a construct used to muster the necessary resources to serve the ends of the Übermensch who, is of course, entitled by the laws of nature, lord over the underlings. And if they can't hack it, then screw 'em.

It's not even libertarianism, it's this weird kind of despotic, solipsistic nihlism. And no, it's not really a coherent world view from any kind of true philosophical sense.

mojo sends

[kalifla.livejournal.com]

From what I read of the wiki, it's actually more like being libertine but with a lot more pretense.