/lit/ - Literature

>"I swear by my life that I shall not live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

This statement causes immense butthurt amongst social egalitarians, collectivists and other would be economic and moral thieves of the world. People who have been brutalized into believing that democracy works, countries exist or that their is inherent virtue in authority, (most notably parents or parental figures) suffer from a great emotional reaction at having the lies of their life become shattered because they've accepted them as the truth.

People who sustain themselves through positions of power and their sycophants; statists and their ivory tower intellectuals respectively, will constantly abhor Rand since the lies and emotional manipulation they put out as truth in order to control people is criticized to a degree which they cannot refute on any meaningful level. You see this with most internet critics who make refutations that are nothing more than conjecture or ad hominems.

Is language innate or learned?

Kant is full of shit. You cannot experience something without using the senses, since the only way of validating any sort of information in the material world is through sense data, with or without the aide of a machine for things which cannot be perceived by the human body alone (ex. infrared, gamma rays).

His intellectual goose chase about the noumenal realm is the only way he could justify the existence of god. His father was a clergyman so he was obviously abused into believing in the delusions of mysticism. That is the false premise he was working on, the thing he took for granted in his logical process- the existence of a deity. Since god cannot be perceived by man, is consciousness without form, all powerful and all knowing etc., there must be some way for him to exist, which is justified in Kant's thought by separating the phenomenal and the noumenal.

>talking to platonists
>ask them how plato's epistemology relates to the foundation of his metaphysics
>they pull out their copy of the nicomachean ethics
>it's not in the original greek
>laugh at them, burn my cigar stub right onto the cover of they're "book"
>still chuckling as I saunter away, I chide them: "Come debate me when you've really red philosophy, you trogloditic plebian scum
>the trailing whimpers behind me only exaggerate my humorous outbursts

>mfw people think money is evil

The value of labor is still a necessity for production, even in the age of machine production since there are still people who need to create, improve and maintain those machines.

Machines are just labor multipliers, since a sewing machine will allow a tailor to produce more in the same amount of time, his labor plus the utility of the machine creates more product. This means that the demand for clothing will be met with less labor-time of individuals, so those who might have gone into clothing production can use their labor to meet others needs that are in demand.

Labor is a necessity in the production of value, but it is not a sufficient factor of value. The natural world has plenty of value for people, even though it is not a product of human production. Nor does the production of something give it any sort of inherent value. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.