/lit/ - Literature

>>16383875
I hesitate to post a video but seeing as it's robust perfectly in /lit/ spirit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6gV1MUSXMg
Assessment of philosophic systems and the clear straight-language outlining of essential differences and irreducile primaries must necessarily be deliberate.

>>11040687
>just
No, LfCap is simply the implementation of the Politics branch of her philosophy. Pic related
>"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."
>>11040689
This. LfCap>AnCap because Minarchism>Anarchism and in turn because Objective Law>Polycentric Law

>>11019387
Ayn Rand is the philosopher's philosopher. Insofar as she blew all preceeding philosophic systems the fuck out at least.
She coined the term "psycho-epistemology" and slew of original logical fallacies and was first philosopher to discover the importance of non-contradictory integration throughout the entire tree of philosophy, pic related.
People threw tantrums over her taking their altruist, subjectivist and mystic toys away. And still are. Most of their tactics consist of conflating her system with lolbertarianism and the absurdity that is AnCapism.

Reminder that Objectivism is literally the common sense philosophy just with the metaphysical and epistemological why of it all explained.
Common Sense+Meta=Objectivism
Remember this.

>>10210486
She discusses Philosophy as a base first and foremost and politics as the Ethics-fork branch of philosophy that it is. By "political bent" I mean one of topical politics such as is /pol/s purview.

>>10169846
>Philosophy
>not belonging on /lit/
This is just an excuse to tell discussion of pro-capitalist literature to fuck off to /pol/.
How about no?

>>10149699
This.
Politics is branch of philisophy too. As long as we discuss it as an ethics-fork brach of philosophy we still remain solidly in /lit/ territory and not /pol/

>>10130671
A. You don't get to compartmentalize and discard a branch of philosophy because it isn't as fundamental it's parent branch of Ethics and it's grandparent branches of Metaphysics and Epistemology.
B. Locke wasn't just "hurr a political philosopher full stop". My criterion for having him second on my list of "3 greatest people" is that his intellectual acheivement for the time was an acheivement of great magnitude and the was the direct impetus to Thomas Jefferson and company.
C. I know full well improvements to his liberalism was improved upon later to render him """irrelevant""". But this would be like trashing Aristotle for believing in "immutable essences" because he didn't know what atoms were or his criterion for wisdom being simply what the wise noble men of his time choose to do.

>It isn't super important that it wasn't ideal marxism, why did it turn out this way is an important question to ask.
Please I'm all ears: I'd love to hear you wax apologist about Marxism. Marxism was observed to so trash economically that they divorced it from it after WW1 and married it instead to Cultural science. Blanking out the realization that it is Marxism itself they should have trashed.

>since any means it aims to maximize/strive for would fall outside its purview.
So you assert. I accuse of you committing the fallacy of the false distinction. What pray tell is this purview inherent to the nature of politics and why do "aims" fall outside it?

>Objective standard of what constitutes civilization is basically a relativistic claim
Objectivism rejects this notion. All modern first world nation's have and objectively definable and discernable set of distinctions that spearte it from the rest of the world. And America has an Objective set of distinctions that separate it from every other first world country.

>it's that historically he was btfo
The only manner in which this may be done is to rupture and hard-refutes his fundamental premises and present a better demonstrably superior explaination for the root issue involve. Locke's core premises are unassailable. I can then only assume you take then extent to which the flaws he DID possess were improved upon later as him "being btfo". If after hearing your explation of a flaw he possess, he is then immediately soft-converted to agreement; this isn't being "btfo" by any stretch.

>It isn't a nihilistic to say that things outside of myself are meaningless
You can't be serious.
I am not calling Stirner a nihilist, he isn't. I am calling his Egoism nihilistic in effect. 'In effect' no matter his intention. Flaws in a philosophers prose may lead to unintended conclusions of his meaning and basic premises. And this is what I accuse of him and Stirnerites. Nihilistic Egoism.

>You should read some berkeley if you want a metaphysical system that can be understood as subjective.
Any "metaphysical system" that purports to embody subjective identity I patently reject. Existence is an objective absolute