2007-11-25 05:10:49 · 9 answers · asked by ? 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
ms. rand was a philosophical giant,if you consider her a fascist ,or a sociopath ,then that begs the question of what were people like alan greenspan doing as her associates,and the list of PhD.'s in her society reads like a who's who of philosophy.,while she and i disagree about the existence of god ,her philosophy of life has been an inspiration to myself and millions of others for generations.the quintessential anti communist\socialist she was actually living in russia when the revolution occurred,after her fathers business was nationalized she fled to find freedom in america on a visitors visa and never looked back.
i know that ms. rands standing on religion is opposed to my own but her vision of man as a hero ,one that can achieve any goal that one sets his mind to is still an inspiration to all that seek the achievement of the american dream.there are many that she
has influenced in her lifetime of promoting capitalism .guess the answer is religious none, philosophical ,well if you like the idea that the dollar in your pocket has objective value then you can thank peoole like ms. rand who have provided the intellectual ammunition to stave off the socialist onslaught for the last 50 years or so.
2007-11-25 11:40:36 · answer #1 · answered by joe c 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ayn Rand appeals to small minded people who wish the world was black and white like a romance novel. It also appeals to people who like to see themselves as the perfection of human existence and others as inferior. They're called Fascists.
As for religion, she was an atheist, so I would guess there is no religious appeal.
2007-11-25 05:16:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The religious appeal is that she's an atheist. Any other appeal -- negative appeal, actually -- including the philosophical, is that she's a fascist.
2007-11-25 05:17:18 · answer #3 · answered by hatzipappicharalambopolous 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I can't possibly imagine. She's heralded as some kind of objectivist prophet, but I personally find her politics short-sighted and her writing nearly unreadable. Citadel was horrid. I made it through about the first 600 pages of Atlas Shrugged before finally giving up in disgust.
2007-11-25 05:15:48 · answer #4 · answered by marbledog 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
no you're able to desire to settle for that they do no longer look to be incapable, except they have not have been given any choose to get out of the container they see themselves in. all of us comprehend some human beings heavily isn't great, yet basically Simon Cowell is rude--or truthful--adequate to declare so. The characterization of Keating is actual. He did see greatness, in Roark, and knew what that greatness grew to become into. He did no longer see it in himself. yet Toohey isn't what you signify. Toohey knew what greatness grew to become into, and set approximately destroying greatness, on objective, turning out to be nicely-time-honored interior the approach. As evil is going, he grew to become into great, and he knew it. His greatness grew to become into no longer virtuous interior the traditional experience of the word. He grew to become into evil. He drove his niece into turning out to be a woman Peter Keating, while she could desire to have definitely grow to be some thing that delighted her. whats up STRAT: She's suitable related to the Fountainhead; you're suitable approximately Atlas Shrugged. And the reason Willers grew to become into no longer admitted into Galt's Gulch grew to become into because of the fact interior the top, what did he do? He did the comparable as all the others did; he did what the hippies at Woodstock did while they chanted for rain--Willers screamed on the forces that have been previous his administration, screamed on the forces of nature to restoration his practice, why oh why did this could desire to ensue and now what is going to ensue to me? interior the top, the bum who instructed Dagny the tale of the vehicle production unit had extra dignity than Willers.
2016-10-09 11:12:55 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't get it either. I can see the appeal of libertarianism, but objectivism isn't based on anything rational as far as I can see, and certainly does not logically follow from libertarianism.
2007-11-25 05:14:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
She appeals to selfishness. Social Darwinism is the same philosophy used by the Nazis to justify what they did.
2007-11-25 05:14:31 · answer #7 · answered by Ranto 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Plenty, if you're a freaking sociopath like Rand herself must have been.
2007-11-25 05:19:04 · answer #8 · answered by nobody important 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
None as far as I can tell.
2007-11-25 05:14:21 · answer #9 · answered by kriosalysia 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋