or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Disgusting treatment at Louis Vuitton
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Disgusting treatment at Louis Vuitton - Page 8

post #106 of 122
Quote:
Quote:
(gorgekko @ 01 Jan. 2005, 04:14)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHV,31 Dec. 2004, 7:51
You're an egotist?
Guilty as charged.
I've always wanted to delve deeper into Rand after I read the Fountainhead. Why does she get so much flack at universities? If you mention her name in the same sentence as philosophy, you are sneered at, and no one grants her any respect as an author.
phv, at the risk of really sounding pompous, espectially after all the flack you have gotten here, I think that there are some very good reasons that Rand gets so much flack. (before I begin, let me preference this by saying that I was a rand fanatic for many years, made several of my biggest life choices by thinking about what she would have advised me, I love her books and earlier essays and short stories, and all in all have a great deal of respect for her. I have, however, grown to understand a lot of the weak points in her philosophy and personal life as I have gotten older) 1. lets start off by saying she really wasn't a very good writter. nobody can argue that she didn't have a powerful message to tell, and she was of course writting in a non-native language that she learned as an adult, but she reallly isn't a good writter, in terms of the actual language written. 2. in western academic terms, she wasn't really a philosopher, either. I took a second major in university in philosophy specifically hoping to be able to study her "philosophy", but in the same way that eastern philosophies do not really fit into the western academic concept of philosophy, neither do her teachings, for reasons that I could write several pages about. 3. her writings are very seductive to young people, in an almost dangerous way. Again, not to sound pompous, but I think that people should be very careful of the state of mind and the level of maturity of young people who read rand. for that reason, actually, I think she should be tought in a critical way in university, to help protect some people from the power of her message. 4. I would also agree that the academic life style is much more attractive to economic and political librals, and this may play a large part, as well.
post #107 of 122
there was an intersting bit on the chav lifestyle in the ny times today. I would link it, but it requires you to log in (for free)
post #108 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
there was an intersting bit on the chav lifestyle in the ny times today. I would link it, but it requires you to log in (for free)
can you copy/paste it? What's the list of LVMH holdings?
post #109 of 122
Quote:
Quote:
(globetrotter @ 01 Jan. 2005, 3:36) there was an intersting bit on the chav lifestyle in the ny times today. I would link it, but it requires you to log in (for free)
can you copy/paste it? What's the list of LVMH holdings?
sorry, its in the 2 jan sunday magazine. I get it at home. I'll try tommorrow.
post #110 of 122
LVMH Holdings: -LV (duh) -Alcohol: Moet & Hennessey (the "MH") (Dom Perignon, Moet & Chandon, Veuve Cliquot, Hennessey, Krug, Chateau de Y'quiem) -Perfumes: Dior, Guerlain, Givenchy, Acqua di Parma -Cosmetics: Sephora, Bliss, Fresh, Benefit -Fashion: Donna Karan, Christian Lacroix, Thomas Pink, Givenchy, Kenzo, Pucci, Celine, Berluti, Marc Jacobs, StefanoBi, Fendi, Loewe -Wathes: TAG Heuer, Ebel, Chaumet, Fred, Zenith -DFS duty-free chain
post #111 of 122
I think I hated all the characters in that novel equally. None of them had redeeming qualities. The obsession over physical beauty was troubling to me, considering Ayn Rand was not the most striking woman there was.
post #112 of 122
Dang--you boys and girls have been busy. I just got back from a couple weeks in Patagonia. So what the hell is all this about Vuitton anyway? Is this such a small world that's all we can focus on?
post #113 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Dang--you boys and girls have been busy. I just got back from a couple weeks in Patagonia.  So what the hell is all this about Vuitton anyway?  Is this such a small world that's all we can focus on?
Is that all we've been focussing on?
post #114 of 122
Quote:
I've always wanted to delve deeper into Rand after I read the Fountainhead. Why does she get so much flack at universities? If you mention her name in the same sentence as philosophy, you are sneered at, and no one grants her any respect as an author.
It's like someone said earlier, universities are liberal preserves in every way. Any philosophy that expressely rejects their worldview won't be welcomed. I've had philosophy professors react with enormous hostility when I dared to challenge them from my perspective. Kind of made me lose respect for most of the profession. As for the lack of respect for her writing...Her novels were a mixed bag. On one hand you had decent novels like We the Living (probably her best fiction work in terms of quality) and The Fountainhead, while on the other you had the over-written Atlas Shrugged. Her non-fiction work, particularly when she deals with a single subject, is generally better because she does do a good job of explaining what can be a complicated philosophy. Someone in this thread described her philosophy as dangerous to youth but any extreme devotion to any idea is dangerous. I think Objectivism can be quite valuable to youth because it stresses rational thinking, of questioning your own beliefs. It's not enough to believe something, you have to have a good reason for believing it. Can people go overboard with it? Sure, but plenty of people have died needlessly in the name of democracy as well.
post #115 of 122
Quote:
3. her writings are very seductive to young people, in an almost dangerous way. Again, not to sound pompous, but I think that people should be very careful of the state of mind and the level of maturity of young people who read rand. for that reason, actually, I think she should be tought in a critical way in university, to help protect some people from the power of her message.
I agree with most of what you write here. Her prose is simply dreadful, and I cannot see who someone who is well-read in literature wouldn't be able to see that. As for seduction of young people, Rand is bargain-form of Nietzsche in that regard. Her greatest debt is to Kant. I'm very familiar with her work and the secondary bibliography. There's nothing really noteworthy to say, except that she's derivative (not necessarily a bad thing in itself), irrational, dated (in that quantum mechanics throws a monkey wrench into what she writes), probably an ego-manical lunatic, uncompassionate (despite the attempted justification of the reverse in Virtue of Selfishness). There's is no real cogent philosophy she holds except rabid self-interest. It's not the type of world I want to live in.
post #116 of 122
Quote:
As for the lack of respect for her writing...Her novels were a mixed bag. On one hand you had decent novels like We the Living (probably her best fiction work in terms of quality) and The Fountainhead, while on the other you had the over-written Atlas Shrugged. Her non-fiction work, particularly when she deals with a single subject, is generally better because she does do a good job of explaining what can be a complicated philosophy.
I agree with your aesthetic judgements here.  I'd add that We the Living is within a larger tradition (out of which she was coming) of little-read Russian novels in the early twentieth-century.  And anyway, Orwell and Huxley were to do it better. Edit: I'd also say that there are several tracts coming out of Revolutionary France that are similar to We the Living too. But I cannot recall many titles.
post #117 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
(globetrotter @ 01 Jan. 2005, 3:34) 3. her writings are very seductive to young people, in an almost dangerous way. Again, not to sound pompous, but I think that people should be very careful of the state of mind and the level of maturity of young people who read rand. for that reason, actually, I think she should be tought in a critical way in university, to help protect some people from the power of her message.
I agree with most of what you write here.  Her prose is simply dreadful, and I cannot see who someone who is well-read in literature wouldn't be able to see that.   As for seduction of young people, Rand is bargain-form of Nietzsche in that regard.  Her greatest debt is to Kant.  I'm very familiar with her work and the secondary bibliography.  There's nothing really noteworthy to say, except that she's derivative (not necessarily a bad thing in itself), irrational, dated (in that quantum mechanics throws a monkey wrench into what she writes), probably an ego-manical lunatic, uncompassionate (despite the attempted justification of the reverse in Virtue of Selfishness). There's is no real cogent philosophy she holds except rabid self-interest. It's not the type of world I want to live in.
I distinctly remember the Fountainhead being written in a markedly self indulgent way. Somewhat ironic as the most egotistical of art forms is the superficial point of discussion throughout the entire novel. I think people are a little too heavy handed when they call her writing "dreadful", or even the work of Dan Brown from a literary point of view. In context of great works, they are midgets, like a heavily over salted dish, and coarsly presented. However given the literary endeavours of most people in the world, I'd venture that both works are nothing short of triumps.
post #118 of 122
Quote:
Quote:
(Horace @ 02 Jan. 2005, 12:13)
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter,01 Jan. 2005, 3:34
3. her writings are very seductive to young people, in an almost dangerous way. Again, not to sound pompous, but I think that people should be very careful of the state of mind and the level of maturity of young people who read rand. for that reason, actually, I think she should be tought in a critical way in university, to help protect some people from the power of her message.
I agree with most of what you write here.  Her prose is simply dreadful, and I cannot see who someone who is well-read in literature wouldn't be able to see that.   As for seduction of young people, Rand is bargain-form of Nietzsche in that regard.  Her greatest debt is to Kant.  I'm very familiar with her work and the secondary bibliography.  There's nothing really noteworthy to say, except that she's derivative (not necessarily a bad thing in itself), irrational, dated (in that quantum mechanics throws a monkey wrench into what she writes), probably an ego-manical lunatic, uncompassionate (despite the attempted justification of the reverse in Virtue of Selfishness). There's is no real cogent philosophy she holds except rabid self-interest. It's not the type of world I want to live in.
I distinctly remember the Fountainhead being written in a markedly self indulgent way. Somewhat ironic as the most egotistical of art forms is the superficial point of discussion throughout the entire novel. I think people are a little too heavy handed when they call her writing "dreadful", or even the work of Dan Brown from a literary point of view. In context of great works, they are midgets, like a heavily over salted dish, and coarsly presented. However given the literary endeavours of most people in the world, I'd venture that both works are nothing short of triumps.
That's like saying that the majority of people who try to build a car in their garage fail. And so we should consider the Yugo to have been a triumph of automotive engineering. As for Fountainhead, I don't understand your point. But I don't think Rand took herself anything but seriously.
post #119 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
(PHV @ 02 Jan. 2005, 12:34)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horace,02 Jan. 2005, 12:13
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter,01 Jan. 2005, 3:34
3. her writings are very seductive to young people, in an almost dangerous way. Again, not to sound pompous, but I think that people should be very careful of the state of mind and the level of maturity of young people who read rand. for that reason, actually, I think she should be tought in a critical way in university, to help protect some people from the power of her message.
I agree with most of what you write here.  Her prose is simply dreadful, and I cannot see who someone who is well-read in literature wouldn't be able to see that.   As for seduction of young people, Rand is bargain-form of Nietzsche in that regard.  Her greatest debt is to Kant.  I'm very familiar with her work and the secondary bibliography.  There's nothing really noteworthy to say, except that she's derivative (not necessarily a bad thing in itself), irrational, dated (in that quantum mechanics throws a monkey wrench into what she writes), probably an ego-manical lunatic, uncompassionate (despite the attempted justification of the reverse in Virtue of Selfishness). There's is no real cogent philosophy she holds except rabid self-interest. It's not the type of world I want to live in.
I distinctly remember the Fountainhead being written in a markedly self indulgent way. Somewhat ironic as the most egotistical of art forms is the superficial point of discussion throughout the entire novel. I think people are a little too heavy handed when they call her writing "dreadful", or even the work of Dan Brown from a literary point of view. In context of great works, they are midgets, like a heavily over salted dish, and coarsly presented. However given the literary endeavours of most people in the world, I'd venture that both works are nothing short of triumps.
That's like saying that the majority of people who try to build a car in their garage fail.  And so we should consider the Yugo to have been a triumph of automotive engineering. As for Fountainhead, I don't understand your point.  But I don't think Rand took herself anything but seriously.
My point is that her agenda, or philosophy was so brashly presented without any sort of tact or nuance. Obviously the book is going to be a platform for her beliefs, but the point is that the characters seemed so absolute and self indulgent (from Rand's point of view).
post #120 of 122
Horace, Just because you don't want to live in a world based on her beliefs, that does not make her irrational or a lunatic. Such name calling without substance doesn't make for a cogent argument, as it simply becomes a "I'm right, you're wrong" vs. "no, I'm right, and you're wrong" discussion (e.g, "I believe the repudiation of her beliefs to be irrational"). Further, many of her purported weaknesses you point to (rapid self-interest, lack of compassion) she would likely own up to and be proud of, and thus aren't weaknesses or criticisms, but merely reflect a difference in personal views of morality.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Disgusting treatment at Louis Vuitton