/lit/ - Literature

>>16828408
>what are primitive terms?
>what are axioms?
>what are rules of inference?

>>14965262
Answer my questions

>>14944578
Not an argument

>>14811119
triggered

>>14585871

>>10571339
Not an argument!

>>10337954
>ad hominem

>>10134530

>>10110331
>go read a book not Wikipedia!

>>10097180

>>9837641
Oh, I completely agree that anyone using the book as a """refutation""" of socialism is pants-on-head retarded. My point is that it's not a totally dysfunctional work of art. Rand and Randians just don't understand what's good about her work.

The whole Objectivist actually has all kinds of baked-in arguments for socialism, if you also bring in some basic outside premises.
>Objectivists believe that they should enter voluntary contracts which fall in with their rational self-interest.
>Amortized risk is in one's rational self-interest.
>Socialism (of the non-state-controlled variety) is a voluntary contract which amortizes risk.
>Therefore Objectivists should be Socialists.
If we rope in the Social Contract, we can even advocate for state-sponsored socialism, since the Social Contract establishes that the presence of government is, in some sense, "agreed to" by the citizen.

Objectivism itself is apolitical. Rand just slapped her politics on top of it and nobody bothered to return to her framework to show how it might shake out with alternative premises.

Digressions about politics aside, Shrugged is a fine book. It features some compelling characters, occasional bursts of tight prose, and some fantastic insights about false altruism. It just doesn't work as a pro-capitalist argument, which is all anybody ever talks about it as. If we decouple our interpretation from Rand's politics, we see that there's plenty of coherent richness in her novel.

>tl;dr — Atlas Shrugged is not an argument.

>>9409579
Why should we have to point out to you that capitalism is hierarchy and generally a shitty way to run an economy? If you want to see your "decentralised" capitalism in effect, look at Chile, where it was put to work. Huge unemployment rates and shitty conditions that were only helped through state subsidies by big daddy USA.

>>9407699
>he so far up his own ass with his pointless pseudointellectual rhetoric style that he mistakes deliberately obfuscatory hyper-verbose word salad for an actual argument

>>9335281
>read something about aesthetics
>not something I disagree with though, that's scholastic garbage
>also, analysis art is portentous filler when you do it

>>9335769
>you have to be a feminist to understand something a feminist says

wew lads

>>9316267
>>>not an argument
>>not an argument
>not an argument

>>9202500

>>9199779
checkmate libtard

>>9180446
>>9180460
>>9180478

>>9179272

Yeah, can you imagine that there's actually people on /lit/ who think that Stalinism isn't communism? Bet they think that communism hasn't been tried either lmao

>>9079264

>>8913229

>>8911366

>>8905061
It really is.