Are these good? What should I read first?

>>9413780
>Are these good?
no

>>9413780
Shrugged provides a good start for the bonfire. Gives it a good foundation so you don't have to tend to it as often. Once it starts to die down a bit you're going to want to throw in Anthem.

Now you've only picked three books here so between Anthem and the last say 30 minutes of your evening you'll have to find some other materials to keep the fire going. Really anything will do. But when you're ready to call it quits throw on Fountainhead and relax for the rest of the night.

1,3 skip two

anthem and the fountainhead are great. AS isn't as bad as the reddit cucks who never read it say it is. once you actually take the time to appreciate her as a philosopher you really start to get more out of her work. especially on the second and third re-reads.

>>9413780
The circlejerk of hatred towards these books is just that, a circlejerk. Read them as stories, not political manifestos, that was what she intended them to be. Her plot structure is second to none, her prose is beautiful.

>>9413887
Read the Fountainhead first.

File: 1490515187694.jpg (1MB, 1920x920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x920px

>>9413780
>>9413780
Didn't like Anthem.

Really like Atlas Shrugged but it's slow and has some stupid parts like the monologue...

Fountainhead is good and easy to read, start here.

>>9413861
>"take the time to appreciate her as a philosopher"
You mean that this fucking retard couldn't even understand Immanuel Kant. She called him the most evil man in history. She is a wanna be philosopher. Your comment has made Plato and Aristotle roll in their graves.

>>9413887
Her prose is the definition of dry and uninteresting, unless you enjoy it when authors repeat the same word ("muh intransigence") three hundred times.

>>9413990
>>9414016
this poster has probably never read her work and only knows about her from what reddit has told him to hate.

To you sir I say this; i will not enter into a debate with a person of bad faith. we shall the both of us see which ideology history prefers. The speaker of the house in the most powerful country in history seems to agree with me.

File: ideology4.jpg (88KB, 666x960px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 666x960px

>>9414031
I'm not >>9413990

I know you're baiting, but honestly, how would I know she abuses the word "intransigent" if I hadn't read e.g. Atlas Shrugged? It was an absolute waste of time, and it's probably the only book I regret reading. The fact that you point to a top American politician as an acceptable example of someone who espouses your "anti-statist" philosophy should tell you exactly how well assimilated it is into circles of elite state power.

>>9414031
No you aren't entering into a debate because you don't know shit about philosophy.
"He [Kant] did not deny the validity of reason – he merely claimed that reason is “limited,” that it leads us to impossible contradictions, that everything we perceive is an illusion and that we can never perceive reality or “things as they are.” He claimed,in effect, that the things we perceive are not real because we perceive them. (p. 64, italics in original)" Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Kant's purpose, not even his results, knows this can't be correct. Hume was the skeptic and Kant was trying to answer Hume's armchair skepticism with an amendment to reason's use.

I also don't fucking care that a bunch of corporate shills agree with her 'ethics of selfishness' which is hilarious sense these right-wingnuts claim to be o'so pious and christian. I am pretty sure Jesus hates Ayn Rand.

>>9414056
Op here. I don't like Kant, he was a crybaby mangina like Karl Marx and I'm not an autistic statist either. So I guess I would like Rand more so. You haven't presented yourself as very likeable

>>9414056
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SUWK_pWrbw

>>9414102
Have at it then. I mean I didn't say whether I liked Kant or not. The point is I UNDERSTAND Kant. Not to a scholarly degree but enough to respect his incredible achievements. I mean he is on the short list for the greatest philosophers of all time, what you think of his philosophy is irrelevant.

I don't understand how he is a crybaby but whatever.

>>9414117
He's a feels philosopher, he didn't like reals philosophy cause his feelings got hurt. I like reals philosophers, like Nietzsche.

>>9414134
So is this what you do when your outclassed? Resort to unfunny memes? If so then Rand suites you perfectly ;>

>>9413834
Really good post

File: 1377012395394.png (537KB, 629x466px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 629x466px

>>9414031
>which ideology history prefers

File: 1492201272998.gif (1MB, 257x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 257x200px

>>9414134
>>9414031
>>9413861
/pol/ is the worst thing that ever happened to this senegalese sheep-herding forum
You could at least try to blend in a little bit by not accusing everyone of being a redditor cuck in every fucking post

File: 1_==-++491041320216.jpg (13KB, 303x285px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 303x285px

anthem's actually pretty good, apparently fountainhead and atlas shrugged suck. wouldnt know, haven't read.

>>9413834
My sides xD

>>9414267
Same, only have read Anthem and I liked it. It's also very short, so start from there, OP