I’ve read several books in the Objectivists library, including Atlas shrugged, the fountainhead, and the virtue of selfishness.
For a certain kind of person, I do think they have value in showing a different ethical/moral framework. To wit, if you have been raised on the principal that you must always sacrifice your own happiness for others, then Onjectivist philosophy is quite novel and can actually be helpful in moving towards a more self-actualized thought mode.
For most others, however, it can turn you into a raging a-hole.
In terms of how tenable the overall principles are in practice, just remember that Rand herself went on social security.
I think about those who like American Psycho or Breaking Bad, and even see themselves as those characters, unaware that those characters were assholes and emulating them makes you a bad person.
Where others see how f’d up the system is and these two are pushing the limits of what’s acceptable.
Not really people who see themselves as those characters (except the terminally delusional) but people who just idolize those characters because they appear cool or witty or have agency, despite being terrible humans.
I wouldn’t say I respected Walter as a protagonist…he’s quite clearly an anti-hero.
But I will say that I hated Skyler the first time around. Second time, though, it was like she’s the only rational person in the whole show. Especially towards the end.
Yyyyyup. He’s kind of got it all. The outsized toxic masculinity, the focus on self improvement, a self centric sense of superiority, money and the power to commit cathartic violence. There are people who look at that toonish parody of a miserable violent financial bro and instead of seeing horror they see a life goal.
Some people are held at bay from becoming a Bateman not by empathy but by potential curtailment of freedoms if they get caught.
In terms of how tenable the overall principles are in practice, just remember that Rand herself went on social security.
That’s often raised against her, but there’s really no contradiction. She lived in society™ and worked within its rules. Communists don’t give up their beliefs when they (have to) go to work in privately owned companies either, and in the same way there’s no contradiction there.
I’m also wondering whether she went on social security because she had to or because of just reclaiming back part of what should have remained hers (by her philosophy)? Her books sold millions while she was alive, and she did paid lectures until 1981 (and died in 1982).
I’ve read several books in the Objectivists library, including Atlas shrugged, the fountainhead, and the virtue of selfishness.
For a certain kind of person, I do think they have value in showing a different ethical/moral framework. To wit, if you have been raised on the principal that you must always sacrifice your own happiness for others, then Onjectivist philosophy is quite novel and can actually be helpful in moving towards a more self-actualized thought mode.
For most others, however, it can turn you into a raging a-hole.
In terms of how tenable the overall principles are in practice, just remember that Rand herself went on social security.
I really like this take.
I think about those who like American Psycho or Breaking Bad, and even see themselves as those characters, unaware that those characters were assholes and emulating them makes you a bad person.
Where others see how f’d up the system is and these two are pushing the limits of what’s acceptable.
I mean, are there people who see themselves as Patrick Bateman? Walter white is a bit of a stretch too, but Bateman.
Not really people who see themselves as those characters (except the terminally delusional) but people who just idolize those characters because they appear cool or witty or have agency, despite being terrible humans.
I wouldn’t say I respected Walter as a protagonist…he’s quite clearly an anti-hero.
But I will say that I hated Skyler the first time around. Second time, though, it was like she’s the only rational person in the whole show. Especially towards the end.
Welcome to the fabulous world of the edgelords!
Yyyyyup. He’s kind of got it all. The outsized toxic masculinity, the focus on self improvement, a self centric sense of superiority, money and the power to commit cathartic violence. There are people who look at that toonish parody of a miserable violent financial bro and instead of seeing horror they see a life goal.
Some people are held at bay from becoming a Bateman not by empathy but by potential curtailment of freedoms if they get caught.
That’s often raised against her, but there’s really no contradiction. She lived in society™ and worked within its rules. Communists don’t give up their beliefs when they (have to) go to work in privately owned companies either, and in the same way there’s no contradiction there.
I’m also wondering whether she went on social security because she had to or because of just reclaiming back part of what should have remained hers (by her philosophy)? Her books sold millions while she was alive, and she did paid lectures until 1981 (and died in 1982).