Hooker I’d like to point out that most independant and original thinkers are for the most part not accepted by the mainstream. What does that prove other than Rand thinking outside conventional philosophy? We all know how well so called bastions of higher learning teach confomoity of thought. Perhaps if you read any of her works you would know that. I’m guessing you haven’t.
Dyno13 before basing your judgment of Rand on what “they say” you might be wise to form your own opinion, lest you become a “second hander” and follow the herd.
I don’t quite understand why everybody is jumping down Hooker’s throat on this one. I agree with him: Ayn Rand is pretty much passed over in contemporary philosophy. I think many of Hooker’s critics in this thread have failed to realize that while Rand’s philosophy may be perfect for the hardcore weightlifter, it is simply not taken seriously in philosophical academia. If I said I wanted to get down to 6% bodyfat and to do so, I plan on eating 4000 calories above maintenance, I’d get flamed. Why? Because my methods don’t match my goals. Same situation here. If you want a philosophy that will put you in the appropriate mindset to get hyoooge, then read Rand. On the other hand, if you want to join the philosophical conversation, you have a lot of reading ahead of you, but you’d probably have to start with Derrida. But IMHO, if you want real philosophy, pick up some Wittgenstein.
Nate I think you are overstating matters. Nobody is jumping down hookers’ throat. I for one find it very interesting that anyone on this forum, that is dedicated to us those of us that pursue and activity outside the mainstream, would be critical of someone(Rand) that did the same thing. Perhaps she would have been more accepted had she had the letters PhD after her name. Expressing viewpoints or concepts outside the norm does not mean a lack of validity. If that were the we’d all be dumdass musclebound gorillas with ruined kidneys from all that protein and creatine.
I suppose I did throw the issue out of proportion. Nevertheless, I think some people are overly anxious to support figures who rebel against the mainstream. That is, (and this isn’t aimed at you) don’t support Rand just because she is in “philosophical exile,” support her because you agree with her ideas. (Interestingly enough, I think that last statement is rather apropos for this post 
I’ll be honest, I’ve been slightly influenced by Rand, but if I were Howard Roark, I’d hate myself for being such an asshole.
Musashi. ‘Path Notes of an American Ninja Master’ by Glenn Morris. Don’t be fooled by the title, the book is about philosophy and the potential of human body. The author speaks from his own experience.
Awaken the Giant Within and Unlimited Power by Anthony Robbins. Persuasion Engineering by Richard Bandler. Think and Grow Rich by Napolean Hill. Any Trump book. U2: At the End of The World.
bah bah bah Do I hear sheep?? Of course colleges and the like don’t recognize Rand. If you ever developed a thought on your own you would know Ayn thinks even less of them. I don’t want to argue philosophy but I wouldn’t steer anyone away from reading Ayn Rand, as you will be much more perceptive, understanding and wise for doing so. And the “just a feminist” comment is the best. Do you know anything about her??? Russian born in early 1900’s are you kidding me? Her mastery of the english language is sickening? Chances are she is “just a feminist” out of the need to survive. And if ever there where a philosophy that went hand in hand with the iron game it is Rand’s Objectivism.
Old Man and the Sea. Anything by Andrew Vachss, and Henry Rollins. Absolutely hardcore, take no prisoners, in your face styles.
Ayn Rand as well, it works for me anyway.
Definately Fountainhead. I’ve tried to read Atlas Shrugged at least twice and just can’t finish it. I never understood Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. For a good and entertaining book…The Alienist by Caleb Carr.
I would think most of the posters in this thread would be able to tell the difference between hooker’s post and dynosaur’s post. I’m not going to defend dynosaur, but I will defend hooker, primarily because I think his viewpoint is being unfairly conflated with dynosaur’s. All hooker said is that it is nearly impossible to find a college course featuring Ayn Rand. Would someone please explain to me how this statement reflects a sheep mentality?? IT DOESN’T!!! Maybe people need to remember that liking Ayn Rand does not make you a “better” weightlifter than someone who doesn’t like Ayn Rand. And moreover, are you telling me that if someone doesn’t like Ayn Rand, they’re a “second-hander??” If that doesn’t reek of hypocrisy I don’t know what does.
also keep in mind ayn rand thought that people should develop their own philosophical guide and that if they did they would likely come back to agreeance with objectivism… also i think her novels are amazing cant take that from her, but when she would just write papers on thoughts and what not she was just to quick to blow off other philosophers thoughts and views, i think it was a bit far for her to think that her works are the top and that we should blame all our society’s problems on every philosopher ahead of her save for aristotle…i think rands novels are great but other than that i find her a little ehhhhh, but hey read fountainhead or atlas shrugged and you have no choice but to get fired up and motivated
To shit, I wasnt being a second hander that is just what I have heard. I have yet to form my own opinion about her. To Renegade, I dont know thing one about her except for the fact that she is dead and she was fucking hideously ugly, I saw a picture of her on the Discovery channel. Until then I am ignorant of any characteristics about her, but now I know she was from Russia and she was a great writer of the English language. Thanks for that little bit Renegade.
Nate, yes some will support a person or cause because it is rebellious, even if they don’t totally agree with either. Call it the “Fuck the Machine” attitude I guess. Not very sensible for sure. On the same but opposing line, not very wise to reject something just because it’s rebellious. Hooker and Dyno both expressed their opinions based on the opinions of others. Dyno even says “I’ve heard”. That’s what a secondhander does, parrots the opinions or viewpoints of others. Yes you could say the same about those that agree with and espouse Rands views. Except that most that do so have read her and formed their own opinions. From my reading of their posts neither have even looked at one of her books. While I agree with and like her ideas I would hesitate to call myself an Objectavist. I take what I like from her ideas and those of others to form a basis for my own life philosophy. Not liking Rand does not make one a secondhander, not liking her or anyone else because someone else doesn’t, does. Both also objected to Rand not because of any one idea or viewpoint of hers, but because she had a non-mainstream viewpoint as if having a non-conformist idea implies a lack of validity. The sheep reference I thought was clear, you know, the establishment, non of the major learning centers teach it so it must not be worth while. “My father voted for party X, I’ll vote for party X” type thing. Dyno was more blatant in this regard with his “they say” type post. He clearly knows nothing of Rand(not that there’s any thing wrong with that) but yet says not to bother with her. A feminist? Not even close, a strong woman for sure. Also not that being a feminist implies that one’s ideas have no merit. I’m surprised one of the women here didn’t call him on that. I agree Roark was certainly a wee bit of asshole at times, but aren’t we all? Yes even me
Objectivist see the world in either black or white. The perfect example. Go to the gym Throw 8 wheels on a bar lay down on the bench un rack it. Now how many different things can now happen?? You might bench the weight easily. You might have a max of 185 so the 405 falls and caves in your chest. You might dump the weights off the ends of the bar, saving yourself. Or you might re rack the bar and not even try it. Well to the objectivist. There are only 2 options. Either you benched the weight or you did’nt. The rest are just useless details either ya did, or ya did not. The most true words i ever heard spoken were said to me by an old prison gaurd back when i worked as a prison gaurd myself. We were standing in the middle of the weight pile one night and he just turns and looks at me and says. " Ya know, this is it. This is the only thing in the world you can trust. Men, animals, women, they all lie to you at some point.“But this” ( as he turns he picks up a forty five pound dumbell, looks at it.) “The steel, The steel never lies, 45 pounds now will still be 45 pounds a hundred years from now” To this day i think this is the most profound thing any man has ever said to me.
Bravo Two Zero by Andy McNab.
I suppose I wasn’t clear in my last post. I am not interested in, nor am I going to defend, Dynosaur’s post. My point is that it is faulty logic to label hooker a sheep/second-hander based on his post. Read his post again. Go ahead, do it now, I’ll wait Hooker is making two points in this post: 1) He likes the philosophy of Bertrand Russell. 2) Ayn Rand is virtually ignored by academia. Now, shitdisturber said: “Hooker and Dyno both expressed their opinions based on the opinions of others.” No, hooker did no such thing. Try and find an academic paper or college course devoted to Rand. It’s nearly impossible to do so. That is not an opinion. That is how things are. Shitdisturber then wrote: “[hooker and dynosaur] also objected to Rand not because of any one idea or viewpoint of hers, but because she had a non-mainstream viewpoint as if having a non-conformist idea implies a lack of validity.” Again, dyno did this, but hooker did not. Hooker has formed his own opinion about what philosophy is: Bertrand Russell. To assume that this is a second-hand opinion just because he makes mention of Rand’s mainstream obscurity is wrong.
Nate Hooker stated Russell is philosophy ,Rand is not. Agreed that is his opnion. Not to be nitpicking but he made more than mention of Rands’ lack of academic standing. His whole post except the last sentence was this issue. Again stateing Rands lack of acceptance by philosphy departments is not Hookers’ opinion, it’s someone elses’ opinion, as if it is proof of the correctness of his. My point being that because a university does not teach or endorse Rand does not imply her concepts and writings have no value, which is Hookers opinion. The fact that one states that personX or institutionX shares the same opinion as they do, is only that. It’s not proof or anything. Not so long ago almost eveyone thought the world was flat. I guess I just found his post to be a bit arrogant as if he is the one to determine what is philosophy and what isn’t.
Let me take up hooker’s burden here for a second. Ayn Rand isn’t bad because she isn’t featured in any college philosophy courses; rather, she isn’t featured in any college philosophy courses because she is a bad philosopher and her work in the field is of no significance.
The Bourne Identity (nothing like the movie), The Bourne Supremacy, and The Bourne Ultimatum.
Bravo to whoever mentioned Mark Helprin. He’s phenomenal. Geek Love by Katherine Dunn is a novel that creates the most complete, disturbing world I have ever imagined, so I recommend it. As far as Rand goes, she is popular because she created a paradigm that is easy to understand. Is it in your own rational self-interest? Yes? Do it. No? Don’t do it. Rand is not taught in college because it only takes about thirty seconds to grasp. Personally, I have gotten over my Ayn Rand phase. While her basic premise was good, most of her proponents have forgotten the meaning of rational self interest. People cite objectivism as a reason to build a polluting power plant that makes the owner rich, looking past the fact that pollution is in nobody’s RATIONAL self-interest.