/lit/ - Literature

>>22110803
All philosophies inherently serve as tools for personal growth and development because philosophy encompasses the exploration of the relationship between sapient beings and reality. Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of reality, the essence of sapient beings, and the connection between the two. The purpose of philosophy is to assist individuals in finding meaning in life, formulating methods to acquire and validate knowledge in order to grasp facts, and providing guidance for one's actions and thoughts that lead to happiness, pride, and a harmonious co-existence with reality. If one's conceptualization of reality does not pertain to oneself and one's actions, it becomes mere empty rationalization that is becomes disregarded as useless over time. Consider, for instance, the waning interest in Husserl despite his past popularity. Conversely, prominent figures like the stoics and Nietzsche continue to be invoked within similar frameworks.

However, it would be a misunderstanding to categorize Ayn Rand solely as a self-help writer; for genuine self-help guidance, it is better to turn to Nathaniel Branden. Branden, intimately acquainted with Ayn Rand and her beliefs both figuratively and literally, has written numerous books on self-help that incorporate her philosophy within a broader mental framework for navigating one's consciousness and emotions.

>>16588036
Very Randpilled

>>13289344
Ayn Rand advocates master morality without having to rely on slaves, you idiot. That's the key difference. Slaves only resent their masters and nothing more. Ayn Rand is arguing that if everyone is a master, people that willingly agree to be slaves by not becoming their own master are dumb idiots. And if you exploit others, you need someone to exploit rather than rely on your own strength. If you act independently by your own strength and self-sufficiency, you always retain your own power. But if you further your power by others, your entire life is built upon the strength of others rather than yourself. The whole flaw of will to power is that if your power comes from the strength of others, it does not belong to you but to others. Your life is in the hands of others, even if it gives you power.

In the Fountainhead, this is shown with Gail Wynand, a pseudo-Nietzschean that panders to the lowest common denominator for power. It gives him great influence, but when the masses do not agree with his will, he loses everything. It's the equivalent of arguing that a thief is the true master morality because he is using his own strength to do whatever he wants. Like, yeah, sure, he is living by his own means, but he needs others to survive rather than his own strength and creativity without needing others. Also, are you honestly arguing that communists are master morality and not just slave morality thieves?

The difference between Ayn Rand and Nietzsche is that Ayn Rand valued civilization to protect and maintain independence whereas Nietzsche advocated independence even without civilization and that your will could use anything to further itself. Ayn Rand and Nietzsche both agreed that the meaning to life is to impose yourself on the world, but Ayn Rand disagreed that pursuing power for its own sake had any value. Nietzsche saw the act of creation and seeking power as equals.

>>11968239
>Ayn Rand cant give a coherent defense of individual rights.
Hahahahahahahaha

>A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life.

>>11062202
>Read Book 1 and 2 of the Republic sperg
>using Plato ever
Fucking lol

>is sophistry, she does not properly maintain sight of her own presuppositions, that humans can be rational actors and that it is one’s Self that is primary, there’s no evidence for either of these at all and they’re absolutely not self-evident to most people or utilitarian collectivism and systems that explicitly state humand are irrational retards would not prevail throughout history.
You've misunderstood that humans *can* be rational and ended up arguing that because humanity is full of people that are not rational, rationality is impossible. The fact that you are making coherent sentences is self evidence proof of rationality. Ayn Rand uses the Aristotelian law of non-contradiction as a self evident proof of the capacity for rationality.

Also, utilitarian collectivist are retards.

>nature is an irrational disintegrating hellscape
By what standard do you consider nature irrational? Are you to say that because you have not understood the causal effect of nature that is it irrational? Ayn Rand argues that nature is not a flux where a tree becomes a bird. Everything is logical in nature. Also, you assume that because we are a part of nature, and nature is irrational, we must be irrational. That is pure sophistry.

As Ayn Rand explains it:
>Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

Your premises and understanding on Ayn Rand are all wrong.

You know, one of the greatest (albeit indirect) indicators that Ayn Rand is one of the best philosophers is the number of logical fallacies she coined.

>Stolen Concept Fallacy
Attempting to undermine the concept itself by attacking the hierarchial root(s) upon which it logically depends, or using a concept while denying the validity of its roots.

>Package-Deal Fallacy
The fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value. A subset of the Composition/Division fallacies.

>Floating Abstraction Fallacy
When concepts are detached from existents, concepts that a person takes over from other men without knowing what specific units the concepts denote.

>Frozen Abstraction Fallacy (Context Dropping Fallacy)
Substituting some one particular concrete for the wider abstract class to which it belongs. To tear an idea from its context and treat it as though it were a self-sufficient, independent item.

>Reification of Zero Fallacy
Regarding "nothing" as a thing, as a special, different kind of existent.

>Rewriting Reality Fallacy (likely not particularly hers)
Attempting to alter the metaphysically given.

>>10108822
>Ayn Rand is Nietzsche lite
Why do you think Ayn Rand hated Nietzsche? For exactly the reasons you describe. He was fine promoting individualism only in so far as to control the masses.
Ayn Rand was against slavery and tyranny. She even wrote a Nietzschean character that ruled over the collective. The problem is that it only further perpetuate slave morality that will eventually seek to bring down the individuals ruling over them.

>>9995435
I agree. Up until around 300 pages or so, it's actually a good thriller. I often recommend people to just drop it at the part where Dagny leaves her company to save it. It's a good ending reflecting her philosophy as everyone is mediocre.
The middle of the book until the Galt speech is so boooring. Like goddamn. And when you finally meet the legendary John Galt, it's such a boring disappointment that it's insulting. He's so vanilla that you feel nothing. Everything is just so bad.

And as for the epic speech, I think too many people give it some slack because of its length, but ultimately, it's the 'final speech' before the end of the world. You don't give a two minute speech to end the world. You make a grandiose 3 hour GO FUCK YOURSELF to everything that sucks.
And ultimately, I would argue that her views are accurate to describe people that the internet would view as 'SJW' that are collectively focused on progress and ignore all values for power. If you imagine Ayn Rand talking down to those sorts of people, it make the speech more enjoyable. In my view, a lot of people dislike the speech because they can't imagine how such 'parasites' could exist to the degree she describes, but I feel she was right on the money, and it's mainly the reason why she should be read.

However, the problem with her philosophy is that it's too 'mind over matter' master morality to the point where it denies nature and emotions being of any worth. Because of that, her overall body of work falls very short, despite how right she may be in different areas.
The Fountainhead is her best work imo.

>>9996643
You can only ignore someone before their influence is the foundation by which you stand.
I've read most of her work, not because I agree with it, but because it encapsulates the American myth of meritocracy.

>>8881504
Saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong, pleb.

>>8762034
No, I'm being serious. I can't remember where I read this but Milton Friedman said something along the lines that thoughts cannot be private property and that Roark should have gone to jail because he wasn't innocent. He might have been right morally to see his art being perverted but it wasn't his art. He helped create it but it wasn't understand his name, he still broke the law by destroying private property.

I think Ayn Rand wanted that ending believing the public would eventually side with her and her philosophy if they ever got a chance to hear it. I dunno, maybe it would have shown true conviction and a refusal to compromise if he went to prison but then Toohey would have gotten his wish and I don't think Ayn Rand would've liked the idea that her Ubermensch ended up in prison. She wanted to end on a positive optimistic end that her philosophy will be found correct in the future even though the world kept being corrupted by Toohey.

As an ending, having the public moved by his speech works, but it weakened her message concerning private property as you said.

>>8661856
>doesn't exist
Hilarious.

>>8651126
That's incorrect.
Happiness is the goal, rational self interest is the means to obtain that goal (the bridge).
>Virtue is not an end in itself. Virtue is not its own reward or sacrificial fodder for the reward of evil. Life is the reward of virtue—and happiness is the goal and the reward of life.

How in the world can rational self interest be the goal? That's beyond stupid and points more to a misunderstand of Ayn Rand from you than anything else.

>My morality is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living.

>>8419137
>He needs to
>he must do X
He doesn't need to do anything. If you want him to read Hypershere, then pay him for the collective good of /lit/. Do the selfless act of throwing away ~ 750$ worth of hours working to collect that amount to pay him so that the group known as /lit/ can collectively enjoy without having to have done anything.

And if keeping your mouth shut was always an answer, why didn't Kant give that answer in the original scenario?
Oh right, because it's his duty to always tell the truth. His duty to not think at all and potentially put his son at risk.