I'm pretty sure the idea that life is completely deterministic, but has no purpose, is way more disturbing.
Life not having a purpose, combined with the idea of no existence after death, is incredibly comforting. Life having a purpose, and that purpose being controlled is even more comforting-again assuming no afterlife. The idea that life has a purpose, or, more significantly, that an afterlife exists, and that accomplishing that purposes determines your afterlife, is absolutely terrifying.
It also depends on what the purpose is. I mean, I'd be pretty depressed to find out that the entire purpose of my life is to eventually father children whose descendants will be background characters in a science fiction buddy cop B-movie. Not even, like, mook gang members. Just gawking bystanders whenever the cops pull out something way too wacky for normal people to handle. Of course, that's not quite as horrifying as living in a world that existed to eventually create a low quality soap opera during the eighties, and ever since the show was cancelled our universe has been utterly devoid of purpose.
Weak dude. Weak. Is N+1 an exponential expression in this instance or a linear one? I mean that if N is 4 is N+1 16 or 5?
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'wouldn't it be much worse if life *were* fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
No I don't think she was a weak author, there was an awful lot packed into both her fiction and her nonfiction, I just don't think her Objectivism is a working construct, it is a Rube Goldberg contraption with bits of capitalism and libertarianism ducted together with atheism and egotism.
You are talking about one of the most brilliant and influential philosophers who has ever lived. If we are going to have a conversation about her you are going to need to do better than this garbage. I don't even know what your talking about yet, except that you don't seem to like Ayn Rand. That is not enough to talk about. You might want to listen to that video I linked. You might have some points of contention at the end. I did.
Not a huge fan no, but I wouldn't call her weak either, I just don't think she's an author I'd point to as useful to explore if someone is starting to question if they are a theist or an atheist. Those are big enough questions to grapple with on their lonesome without dragging Objectivism into it.
ahahahaha no. There is a reason most universities don't have dedicated departments dealing with her hint: it's cause she's a trash philosopher and no one in the field takes her seriously