/lit/ - Literature

>>11736178
There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.
The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man’s consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, “intuitions,” or whims, and that it is merely an “arbitrary postulate” or an “emotional commitment.”
The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man’s consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man’s consciousness, independent of reality.

The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or “concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of “value” from “purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man’s actions from reason.

>>11360751
Ayn Rand discovered that the realtionship between philosophic systems is not a dichotomy, as was previously believed, but a trichotomy. Between the Intrinsic/Subjective/Objective schools of thought. She discovered that the subjectivists were in fact calling the dichotomy subjective/objective but were erroneously replacing and supplanting the objective concept with intrinsicism and railing against that. Positing Subjectivism answers it.
She discovered that the very concept of "objective" had not been defined properly before her and proceded to indentify original logical fallacies of her own that captured the essence of their (past philosophers) folly.
As hard as it is to wrap your head around a Capitalism-absolutist naming their new iconoclastic system of philosophy "Objectivism" and as strongly as you vagely FEEL this is the product of mean right wing arrogance; the name of her philosophy is completely warranted and perfectly caputures her contribution to philosophic history.
You have clearly never read a WORD of Rand's nonfiction and are instead regurgitating these same tired talking points you have heard summed up elsewhere and bleated ineffectually on r/philosophy.
>her philosophy "closed system", perfect and in no need for alteration or augmentation
But not of addition. Objectivism as such is foundational and fully calls for being *built upon* but damn right not "augmented". Objectivism as such is complete. Yet-to-be-formulated "Meta-objectivism" on the other hand...
>A.) Her writings are really king of shit
You say this because on some level you detect that she is methodically undercutting the obscurantist style of idealistic quasi-nihilism that has gripped the west since the 19th century. And take her style of straight language as uncouth and distastful to your german-idealist-influenced aesthetic sensibilities. I suspect these things don't exist explicitly in your mind and are instead have been integrated haphazardly. Rand aesthetics of Romantic Realism violently lash out to you you feel.
>B.) Rand was a very nasty person
Nice argument blowhard.
>C.) Her "philosophy" is laughably simplistic and lacks nuance
Wrong. You say "simplistic" but what her creed actually is *pay attention now*: structurally deliberate. Do not conflate a design of straight language with lack of nuance.
>D.) Her "ethics" teach people it's okay to be a selfish cunt and it becomes very easy to understand why she is the intellectual of choice for edgy 16-year-old middle-class white boys everywhere.
A. Nice regurgitated ad hom and B. Rand indentfied too that the word selfishness (in popular usage) was erroneously defined. Literally read the opening paragraphs of "The Virtue of Selfishness".
I'll post it.
https://archive.org/stream/AynRandTheVirtueOfSelfishness/Ayn_Rand-The_Virtue_of_Selfishness_djvu.txt

Friendly reminder to improve the quality of our discussions.