/lit/ - Literature

M-mom! I posted Derrida again! XDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDDDDDDddd

Seriously though you can learn more browsing /b/ for a day than you can reading this clowns whole bibliography

>French people salty about having to learn English and not mattering anymore channel all their "strength" to destroy civilization.

>>10125430
There he is the civilization destroyer himself. How did he do it bros? He made it look so easy. Smug frog.

>>10125430
> neo-liberals actually believe Heidegger cannot and has not be refuted

whew

>>10126547
>>10126550
>>10126565
>>10126570
>4 posts and all of them make zero sense
I miss old /lit/

>>10127060

They make sense if you've been following every other Derrida thread ever made here. Basically, those posts are all referencing posts/threads of the past. You apparently haven't been keeping up and I don't blame you

>>10127060
blame others for your ignorance

Did it in 2 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyHTEIAYQlQ

Why is he so orange?

>>10126565
He wanted to be more Lutheran than Luther and believed all of European history needed this radical Lutheranism shoved down its throat and so he published a book called Being & Time.

"I hate photography because it creates an ideal of the author and all of my work is an attempt to deconstruct that" - Jacques "Duckface" Derrida

>>10127086

virgin jordan peterson

Chad Rick Roderick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvAwoUvXNzU&t=22m5s

Giorgio Agamben criticizes him pretty heavily about the Of Grammatalogy claims of deconstructing, what Derrida calls, the metaphysics of presence [in a phallogocentric culture], through text.

>>10127124
Damn that's a cool name.

>>10127124
what are his arguments?

based derrida poster

>>10127361
You should read him if you're interested.

ahem

>>10125430
Ol' Jacques "Fuck you dad" Derrida.

The only reason you can't refute him is because his dead, m'lord.

>>10127512
cant tell if this is sarcastic

>>10125430
>Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is truthworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum.
Checkmate, non-skeptics.

>>10125430

I posit that Aristotle, John Locke, and Ayn Rand are the 3 greatest individuals to ever walk the face of the Earth. My criterion being philosophy's unique capacity to mass-influence titanic amounts of people and that it undergrids every facet of our lives. She is the formulator of what I call the first "Meta-philosophy"; Objectivism. It is a complete, integrated, closed-system.

Ayn Rand's philosophy was the strongest attack on Communism, Fascism, and Statism ever witnessed. Her indentification of rational selfishness as a moral ideal is the best summation of the actual nature of existence into a concrete whole. Cultural Marxists are terrified of Ayn Rand as she represents the American Constution completed; a rejection of the primordial evil that is Altruism that the US founding fathers lacked. The ONLY thing (or one of the few things) they lacked. Epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded, Objectivism is the greatest threat Commie and Nazi Statists have ever encountered which is why they cannot even bear to have it discussed as a philosophy. Capitalism is the only moral system ever devised. And the best. And even the kindest. The only reason there is ever any doubt about the wonders of Capitalism is because it lacked a defensible moral base at it's outset. Historically cuckservative Republicans have tried to justify it on the basis of Altruism. To which it is incompatible and, make no mistake, rest assured that Altruism is the great primordial evil of the world. Ayn Rand's arguments for why this is so are adamantine-clad and unassailable.

>>10127856
should this board have a ban for all american ip's?

>>10127404
Ok point me to where he critiques Of Grammatology

>>10127880
Assert that my "bias" for Capitalism is bad all you want, but my point stands. Address it.

>>10127901
Sorry i am a scary cultural neo marxist (also postmodern) so im terrified since its such a threat to discuss it.
Brb gonna plan to destroy the white man and tear down the west with my jew friends

faggot frenchies

>>10127921
OK you mocked me. Presumably you have some fundamental premises you are opperating from and basis you had in mind when you posted that. Present them to me.

>>10127951
This is a good read, and mainly about rand not capitalism as a whole, guy is also a libertarian as yourself
www scribd com/document/102657523/On-the-Randian-Argument-Nozick

>>10127880
Yes

>>10125430

>>10125430
I've never met an intelligent person who takes Derrida seriously. Literally only pseuds who are trying to affect something

>>10127974
Damn, Bill looks awesome

>>10127880
I say yes! I hope that the dude was kidding but just being able to type that without having a break down is degenerate enough

>>10127104
Underrated

>>10127951

no arguments to be found here friend

>>10127963
I meant in your own words but I love reading attempted criticisms o Rand to formulate prose of my own. Will read

>>10127994
Completely serious.

>>10127856
>My criterion being philosophy's unique capacity to mass-influence titanic amounts of people and that it undergrids every facet of our lives.
So Marx would be the greatest by this criteria

>She is the formulator of what I call the first "Meta-philosophy"; Objectivism. It is a complete, integrated, closed-system.
What's "meta" about that? Plato had a closed system too.

>Her indentification of rational selfishness as a moral ideal is the best summation of the actual nature of existence into a concrete whole
How?

>Cultural Marxists are terrified of Ayn Rand as she represents the American Constution completed
Define "cultural Marxist"

>Epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded, Objectivism is the greatest threat Commie and Nazi Statists have ever encountered which is why they cannot even bear to have it discussed as a philosophy
Every philosopher, not just Marxists, ignore Rand.

>Capitalism is the only moral system ever devised.
1. It's an economic system, not a moral one
2. there are lots of moral systems that have been devised

>And even the kindest
But why's that good? I thought selfishness was all that mattered

>The only reason there is ever any doubt about the wonders of Capitalism is because it lacked a defensible moral base at it's outset
Marx's critique of capitalism is not a moral one.

>To which it is incompatible and, make no mistake, rest assured that Altruism is the great primordial evil of the world. Ayn Rand's arguments for why this is so are adamantine-clad and unassailable.
Ok, provide the arguments then. I have no reason to believe this until you do.

>Derrida was descended from a long line of rabbis. He became disenchanted with the religion claiming that "Their thinking are outdated and not radical enough. What worked against the gentiles in the post will not work in the coming 21st century. It is the cultural war, rather than the economic or religious war that will ultimately matter. I wish to lay the groundwork for a complete inversion of Western values."

>>10128253

>when your society is so weak a small group of French and German academics can topple it

>>10128205
One moment anon...

the jews maN!!!!
cuLTural MARXIST ARE COMNIG THEY AV TAKEN OVER ACADEMIA !!!!!

>>10127856
Is this a copy-pasta?

>>10128253
Could you provide a source or a link? That would be great, I want to read it in context.

>attempt to criticize derrida to a derridean
>"that's not what he meant; you don't get it"

well, I guess you may call that irrefutable

>>10128253
I don't approve of Derrida but this is just retarded. Got a source, pal?

>>10128330
Dont think he actually said that

>>10127086

Peterson is king.

Daily reminder that Derrida defended and praised Heidegger, a white(tm) German Nazi.

>>10128269
is this guy honestly using over an hour to write a response defending ayn fucking rand on a imageboard

>>10128452
At least it's a discussion about philosophy rather than memes or meta-meme discussions

>>10128460
I guess your right,
seeing that he uses words like "cuckservative" and thinks ayn rand is a god says a lot about this guys meme level tho

>>10127856
>A mediocre sci-fi writer that no-one except a bunch of retarded amerilards takes seriously
>mass-influence (useless hyphen btw) titanic amounts of people

>>10128474
My use of cuckservative is different from the usual NatSoc /pol/ack.
I fundamentally like conservatives but the thing they are being "cucked" to is Altruism and Immanuel Kant

>>10128452
Nigga shush I had an errand

>>10128492
how in the fuck are conservatives getting "cucked" by kant?

>>10127880
yes + extend to all anglos

>>10128506
By opperating off all his reason destroying premises.

>>10128205
>So Marx would be the greatest by this criteria
Forgive me by "mass-influence titanic amounts of people" I should have said "for the better" after it. Marx is only valid in his diagnosis of Capitalism, his proposed solutions are shit.

>What's meta about it
Objectivism is the only complete, devoid of contradictions, system of philosophy. It regards branches of philosophy as derivative from each other. Objectivism rejects the mental practice Rand termed as the "floating abstraction" that all other modes of Philosophy commit in small or large parts.

>How?
Her ethics of Rational Self interest is directly derivative from it's parent branches of Metaphysics and Epistemology. No assertion she makes is based on whim or committed two fallcies (that she coined) that other established philosophies need to rest on, in small or large parts.
The "Context Dropping Fallacy" and the "Stolen Concept Fallacy".

>Define "cultural Marxist"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrt6msZmU7Y

>>Epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded, Objectivism is the greatest threat Commie and Nazi Statists have ever encountered which is why they cannot even bear to have it discussed as a philosophy
>Every philosopher, not just Marxists, ignore Rand.
What I had meant here is the thing being "epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded" is the American Constitution.

>1. It's an economic system, not a moral one
>2. there are lots of moral systems that have been devised
She descibes why it is both. Capitalism is not just an arbitrary economic system but a concomitant effect of man's nature and what is required by it. Certainly there have been attempts to make moral systems, but Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the only valid one. Derivative, of course, off of man's nature and the laws of material reality

>But why's that good? I thought selfishness was all that mattered
Objectively defensible kindness IS to a man of reason's self interest champ. she also destroyed the view of Selfishness as being synonymous with activities of the mindless brute and instead as the moral virtue it actually is

>Marx's critique of capitalism is not a moral one
I wasn't aware we are assessing this by Marx's standards. We aren't. His failure to incorporate a moral standard to his ideas is no concern of mind or hers. Marx was largely ignored by Rand as she preferred to focus more of her intellectual ammunition on Immanuel Kant. A far more weighty adversary and whom she completely demolishes.

>Ok, provide the arguments then. I have no reason to believe this until you do.
Well I fucking hit the character limit answering this so instead I will just post this:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
Altruism is NOT a synonym to kindness or benevolence as it is popularly taken to be. Altruism opperates on the basis that self sacrifice is the only thing that can justify a man's existence.
Read Auguste Comte then Rand's dissection of him

>>10128309
My own I guess.

>>10128537
>Bill Whittle
I like you.

>>10128537
>concern of mind or hers.
*of mine or hers.

>>10127974
Get this off of my board you communist rat

>>10127901
i thought you were joking lel

>>10128537
>Marx is only valid in his diagnosis of Capitalism, his proposed solutions are shit.
Read Marx, I very much doubt you've read either Capital or the Gotahkritik, because if you had you'd understand why this statement makes no sense.

>>10129019
I have not read Gothakritik, tell me about it if you would.
I assume by "solution", that appeared to you that I meant FOR Capitalism? No. I am very much aware what Marx viewed Capitalism as Communism in it's infancy. His "solution" was (essentially) to simply help Capitalism along in it's suicide. This notion was built on contradictory premises and facts he just flat was not cognizant of and it is this what is "shit".
I phrased that in the first manner that came to mind, excuse me.

>>10125430
>>10126547

I come back after a few months and it seems derrida has become a meme.
Kami Sama arigato

>>10127856
Ayn Rand is literally Max Stirner if he were a hick, and a bad writer.

Locke is whatever, no one takes political philosophy seriously except /pol/.

Aristotle is actually really good, but you probably don't understand why.

/pol/ needs to leave

>>10129514
Max Stiner's Egoism is a nihilistic, and therefore worthless, egoism and Rand's Egoism is completely superior to his.

>Aristotle
I most certainly do understand why Aristotle is a great read.
Holes in his methodology were improved upon later. But rather than even a small indictment to him; this was merely a consequence of science and reason itself still in it's infancy. For example it isn't really Aristotle's fault that he did not know what atoms were and what that lead him to. No one did. His (now known to be absurd) assumption that mateial reality is composed to immutable ""essences"" isn't even strictly WRONG conceptually; he just didn't know what he was looking at. Aristotle is the father of critical thought and the scientific method. As initially crude as this method was in it's infancy; it's principle was adamantine-clad and Aristotle's achievement in identifing it is utterly unmatched in history. In summary the direct, measurable, observable effects that his intellectual acheivement had on the world (and the other two on my list) is an order of magnitude greater than any other.

>Locke is whatever, no one takes political philosophy seriously except /pol/
Politics is Ethics-fork branch of philosophy you little shit. Maybe it is /pol/s perogative to care about such things but that doesn't make it an indictment to it's merit for discussion.
John Locke is easier (meaning shorter) to summarize why he holds his spot on my list. John Locke is the father of political individualism philisophically and is the single most driving force that made liberty and the advent of the United States possible. Locke is essentially the founding fathers summed up into one man and their direct philosophical impetus. Locke is the man would holds the title of "Founding Grand-father of the United States."

>>10129616
>Politics is Ethics-fork
*Politics is an Ethics-fork

>>10129616
You fundamentally misunderstand Stirner if you think his egoism is nihilistic. The care, love and levity in which he describes the various ways the state and other concepts do violence to the ego is pretty much the opposite of nihilism. Everything he writes about is to further arrive at the essence of the ego, and the various complexities necessary to begin to comprehend it.

Aristotle is good because he rendered useless the entirety of the scientific method and logical positivism in itself, literally before Christ was born. The only thing scientific reasoning could ever amount to was his notion of essences.

The fact that Locke's idealism was both philosophically, practically and historically dismantled by both the post modernists and reality itself is the cruelest and funniest thing history has ever wrought. I'll spell it out for you, if you buy anti-skepticism, reality has proven he's a fraud. If you buy post modernism, he was never worth anything in the first place. He's a literal charlatan.

Philosophically, locke's human rights requires the oppression of the marginalized. Freedom and justice for all except those that fall outside of my understanding of human. He always leaves room to ignore barbarians, and who is the one who decides who is barbaric? He does.

Practically, the liberty and justice that us in the united states have enjoyed STILL relies on the marginalization of various different types of people in different nation states or within our own borders.

Historically, john locke and his contemporaries literally owned slaves. They were such hicks that they could not even conceive of the notion that black people were human, beyond their orifices.Our understanding of humanity has had to evolve so many times to exclude his notion of barbarians, his "freedom" is a meaningless concept.

You have no understanding, of these "philosophers", and your brandishing has always and still is hurting a lot of people. It's one thing to be wrong, it's another thing to be wrong and harmful.

>>10129696
>brandishing
*briganding

Don't mind me just permanently BTFOing philosophy

>>10127886
It's probably better to read Agamben: Beyond the Threshold of Deconstruction by Kevin Attell, rather than starting with L'albero del linguaggio and Stanzas, since you can write a 328 page book about it. In short, the disagreement is about Saussure's understanding of what a language is, Agamben thinks Derrida is stuck within the limits of Saussurian semiology. Meanwhile Agamben does the agambenian thing: the archaeology of knowledge, and goes all the way back to the Greeks to find out what this thing called "logos" is.

I assume you read Heidegger, since you care for Agamben and Derrida, if not read Heidegger.

As a Frog I'm willing to apologize for Sartre, Foucault, Deleuze and Bourdieu. (((Derrida))) is another story entirely.

>>10129722
this is the only correct answer.

>>10125430
That faggot Sokal BTFO'd Derrida over his lunch break, I wouldn't be hanging my hat on the french post-intelligables

>>10127880
my vote is yes

>>10129743
Not that anon, but thanks for the recommendations. I've only read the Homo Sacer series so far and completely ignored this other earlier side of Agamben. I usually avoid 2ndary lit but Attell is one of his translators so I trust you it's good.
I knew he was very critical of Derrida from the few hints in Homo Sacer but I didn't know his earlier works contain a more explicit critique.

>>10129696
Friend he was a nihilist both in his attack on any notion of systemic philosophy as such and his attack on values held by others (either of the state or other men) as impositions on the individual to be rejected at his pleasure.
Ayn Rand's view of a logically defensible system of Ethics demanded by man's nature (and Metaphysical ly derived) if he expects to live in a world among beings of the same nature is completely better. The Anarchistic world of Stirner's ideal is utterly trumped by the Minarchistic one of Rand's.
LfCap>AnCap because Minarchism>Anarchism and in turn because Objective Law>Polycentric Laws. Laws both Stirner would reject as "Spooks" and "impositions on the individual".

>Philosophically, locke's human rights requires the oppression of the marginalized.
>marginaliazed
Did you seriously just use that word in concert with "oppression"? You cannot be serious, clearly you are some flavor of relativist.
>He always leaves room to ignore barbarians, and who is the one who decides who is barbaric? He does.
An objective standard of what constitutes civilization "decides" it. Some of the man's views on slavery are dated sure but the epistemological basises he opperated from are Rock solid. Locke's now known to be be questionable stances on slavery (which he still fundamentally opposed) were simply a product of his time and not an indictment to his philosophy whatsoever.
I'd advise you to be cognizant of the difference.

>>10128253

He is clearly human, not a rabbit.

>>10127433
John "If My Grad Student's A Girl I Take Her For A Whirl" Searle

>>10125430
>Hehe, nice coherent and rational argument you've got there. Would be a shame if someone were to "deconstruct" it.
>*writes some complete nonsensical but rhetorically talented bullshit full of buzzwords that cannot even be properly defined*
>hehe, looks like I win again. Empiricists and rationalists btfo. Muh mini-narratives

Post-structuralists are responsible for pic related and should be called post-intellectualists. That would be a better description for them.

>>10130205
You're just a weak-willed brainlet. His writing is more exact than those he attacks, which is the whole shtick of his method of critique, but it obviously requires some effort to enter his philosophy, as with any original philosopher who doesn't merely regurgitate common sense. Once you're in he becomes very clear and you will see how every one of his words is carefully placed to not contradict or mislead.

American pomo pseuds are only symptomatic of the general American culture. America is a giant Disneyland, so that's the kind of philosophy you get over there.

>>10129938
Political philosophy is not regular philosophy, it's practical effects and applications are valid criticisms against the theory itself.

That's why people become booty blasted at marxism for all the people it killed. It isn't super important that it wasn't ideal marxism, why did it turn out this way is an important question to ask. Otherwise political philosophy becomes worthless, since any means it aims to maximize/strive for would fall outside its purview. Allowing history and practicality to be part of the philosophy itself is necessary for any political philosophy discussion.

Objective standard of what constitutes civilization is basically a relativistic claim, unless you posit some strange godlike figure.

I mention the slavery bit because it's just a funny detail, it's not that having slaves meant his ideas couldn't be real, it's that historically he was btfo. Also it doesn't matter what "his" beliefs were. "He" can obviously be supplanted by the notion of civilization or any concept in particular, "civilization" is what decides who gets to not be a part of civilization, this isn't anywhere near objective.

The reason you think stirner is a nihilist is the same reason you can't comprehend the notion of why Locke's hidden realization of relativism undermines his philosophy. It isn't a nihilistic to say that things outside of myself are meaningless, and it isn't nihilistic to say that human rights are derived by some sort of father figure that Locke fetishizes. This isn't relativism this has been reality, i gave you those three examples so you could hopefully realize it.

Just because something is relativistic does not mean it is meaningless. You should read some berkeley if you want a metaphysical system that can be understood as subjective.

The fact that you get booty blasted at terms like oppression and marginalization explain why it is the year of our lord 2017 and you still think Locke is relevant.

>>10130671
Wrong. Political philosophical does not mean writing manifestos but studying politics as an object of theory. Marxism is a critical theory ("critique" in Kantian methodological sense) whose object of study is capitalism in particular and history of relations of production in general, whereas communism is a political project. The two are absolutely not the same, as any philosophy or sociology professor will tell you.

petition to ban everyone with 10 or more posts on /pol/

>>10127090
He's "french", AKA an algerian jew

>>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

>>10127880
pls ban anglosphere

>>10127974
Is that Bill from Ted and Bills excellent adventure?

>>10129830
>Sokal
top kek. Sokal is the actual charlatan who has no background in philosophy.

>>10131309
>background in philosophy
Not him but this is an irrelevant qualifier.

>>10131379
How so?
>never studied philosophy
>imagine my shock when I don't understand these works which presuppose knowledge of philosophy
>therefore it must be all bullshit
It's like someone without background in science opening a scientific journal and proclaiming that journal is incomprehensible posturing.

>>10131428
Never studied philosophy *in an official capacity. If you can prove your breakout genius and prove your grasp of the topic of your observation this is an entirely sufficient alternative to the oft-repeated notion of peer review.

I know fuckall about this Sokal person so don't take this as a defense of him.

>>10129830
>That faggot Sokal BTFO'd Derrida over his lunch break
Wow, this is embarrassing. Sokal deliberately omits Derrida from Fashionable Nonsense because he couldn't find any of the offences in his work that he went looking for. This is said explicitly in the introduction.

>>10127836
Doguei love cofe

>>10131467
>>10129830

>>10131274
> 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.

>since any means it aims to maximize/strive for would fall outside its purview.

But you have to, to understand why they are separate. Your political philosophy cannot be used to validate or instantiate your ethics (parents as you say) metaphysics or epistemological (grandparents). On an epistemological level, things must be logically possible before they are naturally possible and that's the reason those philosophies flow that way. Politics has to have some ethical axiom to strive towards otherwise its meaningless, any attempts at an unbiased goal basically defaults to a utilitarian view, and the utilitarian view to be absolute (which is to say gives us information about ethics) necessitates a knowable true positivism (i.e. science can give us meaningful information about the world), which no one (because of descarte and hume, not because of foucault as you probably believe) over the age of 14 and some philosophical understanding actually believes in.

>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.

This is super unimportant to me, i'm not a marxist, the reason I bring it up is to show how practical and historical effects are valid criticisms against a political philosophy (which are the attacks I use against locke) . However, the fact that you went on a sperg spree about it should make you aware of your own biases and how conditioned you are to be defensive about political philosophy.

>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.
The only way you can reach this conclusion is through a relativistic understanding of how the self is understood, if everything outside the self is a spook, then nothing can poison the self. The only way to render it "nihilistic" in effect is to say that the self cannot be understood without external objective reality, and since none of us have a window into that (because of skepticism) then you reach nihilism.

>Any "metaphysical system" that purports to embody subjective identity I patently reject. Existence is an objective absolute
So you're not going to read people who categorically disagree with you (and not on an axiomatic level to see how they disagree with you). Locke would be a sad boi.

>>10127880
Yes. Pls start a meta.

>One guy likes Ayn Rand and multiple people start calling for Murica to get banned from /lit/
Lighten up Commies. I'll be your friend autistic Rand bro.

>>10131497
>The only way you can reach this conclusion is through a relativistic understanding of how the self is understood
'Understood by him' I'm sure you mean. And this is what wrecks the whole (well that's not fair he's decent-tier) of his Egoism; that HIS is relativistic in effect.

>This is super unimportant to me, i'm not a marxist, the reason I bring it up is to show how practical and historical effects are valid criticisms against a political philosophy
Very well, acknowledged. Also knowing that you do not specifically align with Marx gives me useful information on how to formulate my future prose.

>it should make you aware of your own biases and how conditioned you are to be defensive about political philosophy.
All of my "biases" are objectively defensible as far as I can manage it else I wouldn't hold them. So I intend to continue to be "defensive" about them. Defensiveness as such is no indictment, unjustifiable defensiveness is. So this then necessarily leads us to ask; in which manner and respect was it not justifiable? Show me.
People of your particular epistemolgical bent like to use the word "conditioned" alot when describing human behavior and means of cognition. I heavily reccomend you read about Rand's particular view on man's conceptual faculty.
This quote should give you cause to reconsider:
>"Observe with what passionate consistency the mystics of muscle are striving to make you forget that a concept such as ‘Mind’ has ever existed. Observe the twists of undefined verbiage, the words with rubber meanings, the terms left floating in midstream, by means of which they try to get around the recognition of the concept of ‘thinking.’ Your consciousness, they tell you, consists of ‘reflexes,’ ‘reactions,’ ‘experiences,’ ‘urges,’ and ‘drives’—and refuse to identify the means by which they acquired that knowledge, to identify the act they are performing when they tell it or the act you are performing when you listen. Words have the power to ‘condition' you, they say and refuse to identify the reason why words have the power to change your—blank-out. A student reading a book understands it through a process of—blank-out. A scientist working on an invention is engaged in the activity of—blank-out. A psychologist helping a neurotic to solve a problem and untangle a conflict, does it by means of—blank-out. An industrialist—blank-out—there is no such person. A factory is a ‘natural resource,’ like a tree, a rock or a mud puddle."

>So you're not going to read people who categorically disagree with you.
I never said that. I find Max Stirner, Plato, and Immanuel Kant ect to be fantastic reads and great mental exercise if only to better arm oneself to wreck the whole of their shoddy structures. Max Stirner is actually the most defensible of the 3 and I find his world view to be iron-clad IF I rhetorically accept his axioms and premises. Which I, in fact, do not.

>>10131834
Thanks

go to bed andrew

>>10131858
>'Understood by him' I'm sure you mean. And this is what wrecks the whole (well that's not fair he's decent-tier) of his Egoism; that HIS is relativistic in effect.

I don't see how. Care to elaborate?

>>10131982
Sure. Don't forget to address the rest of my previous post too.
With Stirner his prose is filled with sweeping indictments of society, morality, and even civilization itself. Rand and Stirner were both very controversial but in Rand's case she would wax iconoclastic only in areas which warranted it and no further. Stirner was widely iconoclastic often for the sake of being iconoclastic. Stirner does not strongly derive his epistemology from metaphysics (Man's nature causal from the facts of material reality). Stirner evacuates epistemology of its objects, namely the
ideas, of which he shows the "historical and psychological roots". Something Objectivism would never do; that is an inherently nihilistic mental act.
Don't get me wrong; when I read Stirner I get a sort of vicseral pleasure from what is there. Decent tier like I said. I'd like him more still if he had the wisdom to discover Capitalism's true worth. A wisdom he lacked.
Rand rests her entire philosophy on ONLY one axiom in Metaphysics: that existence exists. That reality is an objective absolute and that man's nature is derived from it. All else proceeded from here concluding in LfCapitalism.
Striner can be observed to rest upon an axiom IN ETHICS that morality is neccessarily a constraint and impostition of which he takes as undesirable as given. A floating abstraction.

Honestly at the end of the day the most fundamental difference between Rand and Stirner is the the latter held convinction in the idea that Might makes Right whereas Rand held convinction in the same but with the principle that Might be subordinated to Right rationally and directly derived from the fact of man's existence.
When the day comes we upload our minds into the internet and enjoy indestructibility and immortality in it; THEN I will hard-convert to Stirnerism. That's what would be required in a world of Stirner's Anarchist ideal.
Spookposting has it's visceral charm but Rand completely trumps him.

>>10127880
Nigger we're already slow as fuck

>>10129616
>Rand's philosophy worth more just because I like it more
>being this spooked out

Rand's objectivism is metaphysically errenous while Stirner's Ego is p sound when it doesn't try to achieve reductionism. You get this misshapen belief where you are ideologically motivated to act in accordance to your one whims, the obvious action out of "self-intrest," not realizing every action is out of self-interest, no matter how it appears. It takes the self benefit as an objective fixed state, god figure in different clothes, and demands the fluid ego follow its bidding because, like you said, "it's the good" the graceful the not sinful the morally superior thing to do.

>>10133129
>Rand's objectivism is metaphysically errenous
What error?
>ideologically motivated to act in accordance to your one whims
Seriously, read some Ayn Rand. She differentiates and attacks the notion of "whim worship" (as she puts it) as separate from rational self interest/virtuous selfishness.

I assume you're formulating your reply to >>10132436 so just append your response to this at the end if you care to.

>>10127856
What are your thoughts on Aquinas and the religious conclusion of Aristotles metaphysics?

Also is Stefan Molyneux an Orthodox Randian?

>>10133332
>rational self interest
As something irrational? You make out good and bad distinctions by trying differentiate between what is better or more virtuous, in turn denying every act is out of self interest and virtuousby itself in a way.

>>10133564
He is the closest anyone ever got to logically proving the validity of God's existence. His methodology was phenomenal and even though he failed I see him as supremely admirable. To say nothing of his other acheivements.
I actually have an interesting stance/notion on this matter you may find interesting. It is a book I plan to write in the Aquinian style. In short it sounds of a weak sort of agnostic atheism Rand would chide me for. Objectively speaking she'd be right, but it is a rhetorical tool I use she might find interesting. It is a sort of rhetorical Christian apologism I call "Atheism Minus". Believe it or not I actually attend church every Sunday and Bible study when my pastor has crafted his chosen curriculum (not currently). For my own, selfish, intellectual benefit of course. My atheism is known and my tiny congregation actually likes my input. Of which I keep sparse and unintrusive. The pastor is Orthodox/non-denominational.

I have been known to say such things as:
>"Whatever that mindless, automatically happy automaton (in all his celestial heroin-high) was in the Garden of Eden; he was not Man as such and I do not envy him. He may have been free from pain but the inventive and productive faculties were obviously impossible to him. God obviously didn't like this either."
>"If God exists I posit that he is a supremely selfish God and I love him for it. Occupying a universe alone or even surrounded by tinker-toy automatons was existentially horrfiying to him."

>Also is Stefan Molyneux an Orthodox Randian?
No. A fan of her for sure but no. I marginally like the man (I often cannot abide is bloated overlong style of video) but Molymeme is a damn AnCap. He even tried, and failed, to "rebutt" Rand's dissection of Anarchism once. Observe the comment section. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My2sLnHpyG4

>>10133676
>As something irrational.
To what are you referring? I can make no sense out of this post.

>>10133956
As opposed*

>>10133896
>I actually have an interesting stance/notion on this matter you may find interesting. It is a book I plan to write in the Aquinian style. In short it sounds of a weak sort of agnostic atheism Rand would chide me for.

That is something I would appreciate because as you know Aquinas or Aristotle being correct in this manner would require a radical reoganising of priorities.

Likewise its fairly technical and falls into the ugly territory of being something that I cannot disprove yet simultaneously do not find to be convincing enough to fully adopt (made worse by the lack of literature and hyper partisanship)

>. The pastor is Orthodox/non-denominational.

Given your respect of Aquinas and Aristotle why not a Catholic Church ?

>"If God exists I posit that he is a supremely selfish God and I love him for it.

That sounds just like Stirner. Although he was more of a right "is" fellow than a Might is right chap.

Have you got any opinions or views on Hume?

>A fan of her for sure but no. I marginally like the man

is that a common problem with Randians - slipping into the ancap pill?

>>10134024
Ah. "As opposed to something irrational" Now the post makes sense.

>>10132436
That essence exists is a much more shaky axiom than the idea that the self exists.

So it seems on that ground alone rand has more work to do, to prove why her system trumps stirnerism.

But the interview from your image proves him as a complete hack more than anything else

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2j578jTBCY

>>10131858
>So you're not going to read people who categorically disagree with you.

I said to read Berkeley because he is a philosopher with the exact opposite conclusion of objectivism.

>it should make you aware of your own biases and how conditioned you are to be defensive about political philosophy.

>"Observe with what passionate consistency the mystics of muscle are striving to make you forget that a concept such as ‘Mind’ has ever existed. Observe the twists of undefined verbiage, the words with rubber meanings, the terms left floating in midstream, by means of which they try to get around the recognition of the concept of ‘thinking.’ Your consciousness, they tell you, consists of ‘reflexes,’ ‘reactions,’ ‘experiences,’ ‘urges,’ and ‘drives’—and refuse to identify the means by which they acquired that knowledge, to identify the act they are performing when they tell it or the act you are performing when you listen. Words have the power to ‘condition' you, they say and refuse to identify the reason why words have the power to change your—blank-out. A student reading a book understands it through a process of—blank-out. A scientist working on an invention is engaged in the activity of—blank-out. A psychologist helping a neurotic to solve a problem and untangle a conflict, does it by means of—blank-out. An industrialist—blank-out—there is no such person. A factory is a ‘natural resource,’ like a tree, a rock or a mud puddle."

So, I'm actually a dualist so I definitely believe that physical processes have to also effect your mind. And that your mind has to consent to being poisoned. The reason I believe this but also believe that certain words have conditioned you (as in you, not general words).

Is because I think all of the things that the lefitsts say "poision your mind", have the power to do so because they can be viewed as logical. It just depends on what axioms you start from. Our emotions can always be rationally explained, and finding contradictions in our emotional states doesn't even necessarily mean that our axioms are contradicted. To me it's fruitless to argue about why people believe certain things, it can be done, but it's more the role of art than philosophy. The history of the world is laden with individuals who speak in the same manner that you do, and there are so many reasons they can be corrupted. That's why I think the only fruitful philosophical discussion is one that exists without experience to corrupt it. And from my point of view, the only defensible axiom is that a self exists because denying that means denying logic itself.

When you say "objectively" defensible, I would say starting from my axioms, but the axiom "essence" exists is something that needs to be proven, it needs to connect different instances of the same essence, and if you say that each person has its own essence, that's basically stirnerism.

>>10135117
This

bump

>>10135117
But he's right
Americans are dumb

>>10135117
How does this "prove him a complete hack"? He's not even discussing any of the major tenants of his philosophy.

>>10135835
>>10135117

You people are actually monkeys, you're mad at him for pointing out something that /lit/ (probably american) does all the time, which is say, tell me about the peterson, what does he say?

As if other people exist to help you understand yourself. It's literally the history of the united states. Seen in the treatment of native americans and slaves and cinema itself as he is literally pointing out.

>>10136661
Could you elaborate =p

>>10136672

Hell yeah, what our boi Derrida is saying here is that it's kind of an abusive thing to go up to someone and simply tell them to wax poetic. It's like saying to someone ok monkey perform for me. Ok Schopenhaur tell me about the will to live. Ok Stirner tell me about the ego.

This is a pretty aggressive act, that americans have internalized as normal. Of course this behavior doesn't have to be something we should change but it isn't something we should examine and recognize as true. Sometimes people invite this behavior, and so it doesn't have to be bad, it's just pointing something out that might seem natural as something kind of weird on further examination (pretty much all of deconstruction lol).

Some types get really really mad at this assertion because they conflate this term abusive as something that has to be morally wrong. Furthermore it kind of implies that other people don't exist to merely tell us concepts about the world, which is something that is a bit of an inditement against the attitude of the reader (which is what phil and lit types do a lot). When you read literature or philosophy in some sense you're asking the author to perform. It's an interesting thing to think about.

On the native american, slave thing, we kind of started as a country that demands that people prove to them that you're human. Prove to me that native americans deserve to exist. Prove to me that mexicans deserve to exist. Prove to me that black people should be human. Even our capitalism, the free market is kind of a way of saying, prove to me that you deserve to exist. It's just an abusive thing to say, it's kind of funny that we have internalized it as normal.

It's an interesting critique on american culture. That's why it should be funny, it doesn't necessarily have to be bad.

>>10136796
So basically 75%+ of the discussions on 4chan fall into this category. No wonder they hate him.

It's essentially a question for the lazy and stupid.

>>10135204 [p1]
Not "essence exists"; existence exists.
The best (rather only valid) axioms are ones you have to use in the attempt to deny them. And it is this breed of axiom that Rand only used.

>I said to read Berkeley because he is a philosopher with the exact opposite conclusion of objectivism.
I confess I haven't read much o Berkeley but I did see Leonard Peikoff (Rand's intellectual heir) dismantle him. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUo37wPD7sqYwPA_1zmktP1Oqzxonlkpr
I cannot fathom what I witnessed left out or misrepresented anything Berkeley said so I just add him to the long list of philosophies/phillisophic modes of thought that Objectivism has "eaten", as I like to call it.

>So, I'm actually a dualist
An offshoot of mystic, in effect
>Our emotions can always be rationally explained, and finding contradictions in our emotional states doesn't even necessarily mean that our axioms are contradicted.
Understand that all emotions are are concomitant effects to the degree and manner to which we have programed of conciousness OR to what degree we have failed that leaving our subconscious to program it at random.

>The history of the world is laden with individuals who speak in the same manner that you do, and there are so many reasons they can be corrupted.
This is supremely freaking vague. Corruption as per what? And what "manner" in which do I (Objectivist) speak that is a parallel to those from history that you allude to?

>>10135204 [p2]
>And from my point of view, the only defensible axiom is that a self exists
That isn't an axiom you should start from friend.
Rand provided a perfect (THE only) axiom to start from and rebuttal to your notion:
"Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness. Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two, existence and consciousness, are axioms you cannot escape. These two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that IT exists and that you KNOW IT. Existence is Identity, consciousness is Identification."

An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.
My challange to all other existing philisophic systems is that Metaphysics is the only branch of philisophy in which an axiom may rest. If a Philosophy possesses one in any other branch; it goes straight to the trash.

>>10136796
>t's like saying to someone ok monkey perform for me

Isnt that reading a bit too much into things and assume a derogatory intent? Asking a philosopher questions like that seems no different than asking a doctor on how to manage a cold or a preist on what Gods law on X is.

>>10137089
[p1]

Line By Line
> "Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

Someone cannot exist without consciousness isn't patently obvious she'll need to prove this.

The claim that consciousness is the only faculty that perceives existence isn't the same as if I perceive something it exists. The first is obvious but that isn't what she said, "consciousness being the faculty that perceives that which exists" should instead be: consciousness being the faculty that perceives that which COULD exist. Using "which" instead of "could" implies that if your consciousness perceives something it exists. This is where you get the bizzare idea that something needs to exist in some objective sense. If you posit the "could" definition her arguments suddenly don't make sense.

Just because I can't perceive something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This seems like a pretty uncontroversial claim unless you are a Berkelian idealist. But that implies that for things to remain in existence something must always be perceiving it, which is the very definition of subjectivism. Furthermore, my consciousness can lie to me, i can perceive things that don't exist in "reality". Perhaps because they exist in my mind they exist in some form, but this doesn't show why you need to have consciousness if you exist. It still hasn't shown that essences need to exist.

>If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms.


So if nothing except my consciousness exists it seems like I can be conscious of my self? Consciousness needs existence to make sense but existence doesn't need consciousness to be a coherent concept.

> A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something.

This is exactly where her argument becomes babble. Even If you use the "which" definition, A consciousness with nothing that exists except itself can still presumably perceive itself. It isn't a contradiction to say something suddenly was conscious one day. This is because of the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), which says that for things to exist there must be a sufficient reason for it to exist. Using this principle we can say that consciousness one day existed the only reason being that there has to be a sufficient reason, even if we can't know the reason it doesn't mean the reason doesn't exist.

If you deny the PSR then you're saying that things don't have sufficient reasons to exist which is possible, but then how do you get the intuition that objective reality needs to exist if creation itself doesn't need a sufficient reason. That's an aside but either way denying the PSR doesn't really help any of her arguments.

>>10137458

[p2]

> If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

Not sure why this has to be the case, is she saying that if you are being tricked by an evil demon (descarte's example) then you aren't "truly" conscious? But that seems patently false, something needs to be being tricked, furthermore being lied to by my senses doesn't mean the thing itself doesn't exist, it might just exist in a different way then I see it.

If by "does not exist" she means does not exist in any "real" sense not just a delusion, then this also seems patently false. The simple brain in a vat thought expirement seems pretty obvious here, I am my brain and someone is prodding it to imagine me seeing certain concepts. In this case i am still conscious in any meaningful sense, it's just the external world I am perceiving doesn't actually exist.

> Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two, existence and consciousness, are axioms you cannot escape.

What is sleep in her view? I exist but i'm not really conscious, unless she believes sleeping is not being in existence, which is fine. But this is a metaphysical view she seems to have snuck in. In reality we are still only sure of one axiom that existence exists, we can't take for granted that consciousness and existence are one and the same.

>These two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end.

fluff line

>Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that IT exists and that you KNOW IT.
This is pretty meaningless, I can imagine the idea of a unicorn, that doesn't mean it exists. A unicorn isn't a contradiction. Unless she means when I perceive something it exists, which would be her begging the question.

Existence is Identity, consciousness is Identification."
This doesn't really mean anything, existence is identity sure but consciousness can still be faulty in identification, she hasn't shown why that isn't the case. Maybe consciousness is the process of identifying other things? But things can exist without a consciousness to perceive it, unless you are a Berkeley idealist, which says that things only exist if something is there to perceive it.

TLDR:

She sneaks in the view that you need to be conscious in order to exist. She also sneaks in the idea that if my consciousness perceives something it must exist, in reality. (which is her conclusion, which is the literal definition of begging the question)

>>10136411
>How does this "prove him a complete hack"?

Are you asking me to elaborate? This is why i hate americans

>>10136796
>i'm a teacher and students are actually asking me questions about a subject i'm meant to know a lot about and teach them about

How abusive

>>10125430
Jewish Middle Eastern Mediterranean mystic who rehashed Sufism for hapless hipster Eurofags.

>>10129969
LOL. This is true.

John "If you don't lick it you can beat it as my research assistant" Searle.

>>10126570
Which refutation of Heidegger do you recommend?

>>10127880
Obviously.

>>10127433
Oh you mean

John '“American imperialism? Oh boy, that sounds great, honey! Let’s go to bed and do that right now!” Searle

>>10137697
>>10137102
That's kind of why I said it isn't necessarily a bad thing, but people aren't their professions, and something can be said with the confidence with which you say a thing like that.

People will never be what their value is to me, even though I as a stirnerian egoist view people only in relation to what they can do for me, which is to say they aren't real until I love them, I still recognize that other people will never view it that way. It's about recognizing people's humanity, that they will never be exactly what they are worth to you, even if you can never feel that way, recognizing that the underlying human exists is part of what sentience is.

Also

>i'm a teacher and students are actually asking me questions about a subject i'm meant to know a lot about and teach them about

One, I think just the fact that you used the word I'm a teacher is kind of indicitive of a very american way of viewing a profession. A profession isn't who you are, that should be patently obvious. You'd have to be some capitalist obsessed hick (which most of us americans are subconsciously) to actually believe this. The fact that it bothers you that a professor would want you to ask them a question in a more tender way, shows how much of a dick you are.

Second, There is a difference between saying so I was reading this of yours and your concept on this is X but I can also imagine this Y what are you thoughts on that? And Saying tell me about your views on this concept. It's more annoying and lazy than it is abusive, but it can be viewed as abusive.

I know you have autism so you probably wouldn't understand, but there is a difference in the way you say words and how they interact when are written down.

>>10137460
Consciousness doesn't need to be able to identify existence as too see it as "identified" within itself, but it still works with an identity that does exist. If nothing exists, consciousness wouldn't be able to function, no matter in what form it does, and by function I mean appear as soon as it starts to function.

>>10137776
, as in to see it as

>>10128537
The sad part is you seem like you actually read a lot of philosophy.
>And-if gap
>Deriving natural values from world without concrete evidence (no, "human nature" is not an acceptable answer)
>Redefining words like selfishness and altruism to twist up your cause instead of just being etymologically correct
>penis curse

I think it's reading 1000+ pages of drivel that makes her followers so inclined to write their own diatribes. Like spewing their own insanity is the only they can account for reading that huge waste of time.

>>10127880
ouais

>>10125430
who raped?

>>10139808
John Searle raped. All derrida did was to ask his qt grad students to have an affair with his 15 year old son and make him a man, which they did willingly. John “if you’re speaking you’re not sucking” Searoe went rampging through his grad students, foreign exchange students, undergrads, and junior female faculty;-).

John “My Intention Is Your Sensation” Searle.

>>10139862
John “Chinese Room is my pickup line” Searle.

John “Social Ontology is Kinky” Searle

>>10139867
John “If you wanna make it in philosophy you gotta get down and dirty” Searle

>>10139885
John “you wanna be a prof, let me cum in you hard” Searle

>>10139888
John “imma leave that obscure pussy in glistening clarity” Searle

>>10139891
John “if i intend to have fun i’m not doing any harm” Searle

>>10139895
Searle “if you wanna troll french philisophers in my department you gotta pay the toll” Searle

>>10139903
Buuump.

>>10125430
Derrida?
Seriously?

>>10140904
Refute him.

>command+f
>stirner
>26 matches
very nice

>>10141738
Half of those are me saying Rand>Stirner but yeah

>>10139862
>All derrida did was to ask his qt grad students to have an affair with his 15 year old son and make him a man, which they did willingly.
What? Source?

pic related

>>10127974
>she even looked like shit in the 70s

>>10127124
you sir are correct - agamben did in fact engage critically with Derrida's thought more than once or twice. want a cookie, clever boy?

>>10128309
It is now.

Bump

>>10127086
obligatory post

>>10142032
Here's a image for your effort, as I similarly agree that Rand > Stirner.

>>10143487
No desires are rational. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either dishonest with themself or a nincompoop.

Saying they must be justified rationally is a great disserve lack of respect for them.

>>10127880
As an american I second this. I need an intervention to stop me from coming here.

>>10143499
Just because desires are irrational doesn't mean following through with them serves your self-interest. Telling yourself that there's nothing you can do and that you're at the mercy of your own desires is your own limits, nothing more.
But of course, I would be dishonest if I said that anyone has absolute control over their desires, something people that follow Ayn Rand philosophies have trouble with, as they ultimately advocate the suppression of emotions for pure rationality, which only makes emotions bubble up over time.
Nietzsche's criticism of the will denying nature any sense of control is realized fully with Ayn Rand's life and philosophies.

>>10143487
Saved.
Rand's "anti-concept" is basically a similar notion to Stirner's "spook" exepct more concrete

>>10143487
>rationality
Not defined, not defended. Sorry! You're not objective!

>>10143584
>words are not defined
lol

>>10127098

Sounds fun.

>>10143584
Here you go buddy boo http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rationality.html

>>10142224
What is the point of this post?

John "fetch me a slam swine so I might toss before her a necklace of pearl" Searle

>>10137776
>doesn't need to be able to identify existence as too see it as "identified" within itself, but it still works with an identity that does exist. If nothing

You still haven't explained why existence needs consciousness to be a coherent concept.

> If nothing exists, consciousness wouldn't be able to function, no matter in what form it does, and by function I mean appear as soon as it starts to function.

No one has argued that without existence consciousness wouldn't make sense. You're babbling just like rand would, making points that only sound poignant to someone with an iq under 85 and the philosophical understanding of a 5 year old, just like rand would.

John "i'll give your girl a chocolate swirl" Searle

Reminder that the Schrodingers Cat experiment conclusion is fucking retarded

>>10145385
Why?

>>10146003
Because pseuds use it as "proof" that the material reality is relative and nonobjective and as "proof" for the primacy of conciousness.
It isn't that our conciousness does fuckall when we measure the nature of quantum mechanics or subatomic particles, but the fact that said measurement involves bombarding the subject with particles to even make observation of it possible.

>>10146035
So it's not the conclusion of the experiment that is retarded, it's the conclusion pseuds to get to by using it. Got it.

>>10146035
>So it's not the conclusion of the experiment that is retarded, it's the conclusion pseuds get to by using it. Got it.

>>10146066
I suppose I did mean to say that

>>10146035
its partly that the traditional physical representation of the atom is wrong anyway, well, its a simplified more intuitive way of looking at it, but thats a big part of why ppl struggle with weirder ideas

>>10146865
True.
I tried explaining to my ""nerdy"" normie friend that time travel will never actually be possible because you can't travel through something that doesn't exist, and he looked at me like my hair was on fire.

>>10125430

>>10125430
>Too bad to teach in France
>Went to America...

>>10143480
>you can't criticize postmodernism because the only people that can criticize philosophical frameworks as spooks can only be postmodernists!
kys. I have never heard anything in particular that post modernists bitch about. Chances are, he already covered their shitty ideology

>>10147546
Fuck Kant.

>>10147546
This is the only true answer

>>10135117
the context makes OP's pic even more funnier

>>10130205
>Hehe, nice incoherent and irrational philosopher you've got there. Would be a shame if someone were to "use valid arguing like guilt by association" against him.

>>10136796
>>10137767

Yes, but can't we say more on what Derrida is doing here?

What is the point of the elaboration? The student is presented with their professor's thoughts on such and such.. As presented these thoughts are 'not enough' for the student. The student needs 'more' to be able to grasp the meaning of the professor's thoughts. With the call for elaboration they ask for more, but the professor can't ever provide more of what they have said in the way the student requires. The professor can start yelling the previously said perhaps, and the loudness will make 'more' of the thoughts. The professor can repeat the thoughts endlessly and thus make 'more' of the thoughts. But this is not what the student is looking for. The professor can only offer something else to provide in the student's need. Truly Other words that rephrase the thought are needed.

Imagine we ask someone to help 'shine a light' on a work of art and they actually take a flashlight and shine on the work of art. It's obvious that this is not our intention and yet it is literally what we asked of them to do. The imagery of our question hides the proces in which something new, something else, something different is put next to the work, very much instead of the work itself having more to it than we previously were aware of.

>>10127856
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA *breathes in* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH objectivism is a failed philosophy in every regard

>>10149495
By merits of it being rendered unpopular, which is the only way it can be said that it "failed"? Only the weak of mind purport that that is a valid criterion to assess a philisophic system by.
I posit that Objectivism is the [end-all be-all Philosophy] which is why I like to call it the first ever proper formulated "Metaphilosophy".
Objectivism is the great unassailable defense of Capitalism and my challange to you is that I can outcompete any arguments you levy at [this] assertion.

>>10149913
>I posit that Objectivism is the [end-all be-all Philosophy] which is why I like to call it the first ever proper formulated "Metaphilosophy".

Everyone has shown you why you are wrong. You need to leave. Your intellectual dishonesty is only dwarfed by your lack of empathy and aesthetic sense, you will never amount to anything.

To this day no one can minus the Aquinas

>>10125430

pic related
it's my dog

>>10151042

forgot pic

>>10151046

fuck off I'm not sharing a pic of my dog with this site

>>10151050

but you said

Even commies love him.

>>10151061

fine, here you go

>>10151068

that's not my dog get lost

>>10150719
So you assert. Back it up instead of vaguely gesturing to "everyone" saying that they agree with you. Do it in your own words faggot.
Trash her arguments.
Undercut her premises.
Rupture her conclusions.
Embarrass me for subscribing to her philosophy.
Go on.

>"The highest tribute to Ayn Rand is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual’s rights to freedom of action, speech, and association. Self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others’ ends. How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas and say, ”...and that’s what I reject”?

>>10150719
>empathy
Implying productivity is antithetical to empathy. The facts are
1. Your empathy objectively irrelevant to others
2. Your freedom to sympathize and perform charity depends on your level of productivity.
>and aesthetic sense
Sense like those sticklers to bastardized tradition in the fountainhead?

>>10152025
>productivity
It's not about empathy being productive, I was saying that not only are you a worthless human being, you're not even decent enough to be empathetic. It's better to be worthless but at least try to have some imagination.

>>10151357

see
>>10137458
>>10137460

>>10150987
>potential can't do anything
But a rose seed ("potential rose") can do grow into a rose flower ("actual rose"). That's it's whole purpose. This is retarded.

>>10127109
Rick transcended the virgin/chad dichotomy; he was just a mature, intelligent lecturer who loved to inform those who were willing to learn. If he and Peterson were to somehow cross paths, I can imagine him conceding that, sometimes, one needs to speak aphoristically rather than give a point-by-point refutation of their intellectual opponents. He would not be so cynical as to presume Peterson was deliberately misreading the postmodernists, but he would point out the problems with characterizing an entire field as silly or nihilistic without making an effort to understand them. Then they would have a light intellectual discussion about Nietzsche and psychoanalysis

>>10127976
>affect
Found the psued

>>10152812
Oh you. My browser ate the almost 3000 character reply I had typed out and it crushed my will for a while. Sorry. Taking another shot.

>>10152805
I'm someone else. I interjected because I saw that you covet your empathy, but to put it bluntly in a way consistent with the theme of the thread, if empathy is all you have, then you are objectively worthless. Empathy isn't a matter of decency either, and decency is a vague and ambiguous term in any case.

>>10125430
With a gimmick maybe

>>10153102
I fucking hate when that happens to me. Makes me want to piss on my own corpse.

>>10153923
Well, unless you have autism you recognize that empathy is a concept, it doesn't have to be true. I'm merely saying that beyond being a worthless human being, you don't even embody a concept that could make you useful to other people.
Obviously as an egoist empathy is worthless to me, however, under the same egoist framework the individual in question will never amount to anything,
as they don't have the philosophical wherewithal to be relevant, and they don't have the aesthetic wherewithal to ever be relevant. So assuming that by some trauma of the mind, or some other delusion they change their views and cease being an egoist
(because by the egoist view point, in so far as they care about themselves, they'll never be worth anything)
any other epistemology/metaphysics leading to moral philosophy is probably going to value empathy, essentially making them less than worthless no matter the moral/aesthetic philosophy they believe in. I'm sorry for not spelling it out, I thought this leap of logic would be intuitive.

It's more of a rhetorical device than anything.

>>10128253

>>10157071
This

>>10125430

Now that the dust has settled ... why did he say 'Viola' ?

>>10157914
If you watch the vid it's pretty obvious, he's talking to the interviewer about how americans demand that people perform for them. So after explaining his point he cheekily ends with viola.

He's just memeing.

>>10157914
Him being pleased with the gimmick he employed.

>>10127856
Piss poor b8

>>10126547
>bibliography
anon...

>>10147494

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMdPLxbuc8Q

>>10158403
Who dis? And what does it mean for you to post him at me?

>>10159365
the "time doesn't exist lol" guy

>>10157978
Fully serious actually.

>>10125430
Hobbes.

>>10127856
>Altruism is a primordial evil
wat

>>10125430

>>10160498
Understand that Altruism is not a synonym to kindness or benevolence as it is popularly taken to be. For example taking the bullet for your friend is not Altruism (depending on your motivation for it) because it opperates on the basis that self sacrifice is the only thing that can justify a man's existence. What is actually happening is that that friends life is a value to you, and life without the friend and/or the notion that you would have to live with the knowledge that you did not do your best to save him, might make life unbearable for you. And you are not presenting yourself as a sacrifice, but rather paying forward a risk of *potential* cost to your life to buy the entirely selfish desire to continue to exist in a world with that value (your friend) alive and well. Even more important, however, is that if your life really is taken in the act, the designation of "sacrifice" only occurs post-action. In the moments of the action itself; what is happening is that you are making a decision to stop the harm to your value that is happening in front of you, adrenaline temporarily pushing out the notion of it's potential price from your mind. And even if you are cognizant of the price in-the-moment, the principle remains the same.
Altruism on the other hand demands that sacrifice be the criterion of assessment afterwards and be the initial motivator before and during the act. Rand argues that it isn't that your life would be better if it opperated by her morality, but that it already does and mental health is acheived when you make yourself cognizant of this fact. And not instead regarding things in terms of life-hating or anti-conceptual philosophies. Altruism being the former. Apologists for it in response claim that it is justified because in a world with it as a motivator the desire to save the friend is a concomitant effect of the morality. As long as everyone opperates by it, so much good will is being presented everywhere that the world is better off as a direct result. This is also wrong; what actually occurs is that nihlism is viewed romantically, people become embroiled in pathological cynicism (viewing it as a mental strength), and deep down start seeing their fellows in two disgraceful lights. For those under them they feel resentment (it's aspect guilt) because they think they are morally defrauding them. For those above them they also feel resentment (it's aspect envy) because they think they are being morally defrauded.

Give this a read:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html

>>10160730
People misunderstand the basic difference between being empathic and nice, which Ayn Rand didn't see anything wrong with, and being selfless to the point of self sacrifice. The weird thing is that people know that pure selflessness is wrong and impossible, yet too many people preach it. It's such a collectivist mindset.
And the obvious retort is always
>huurrrr humanity needed tribes to survive and we still do!

I might not agree with her politically about capitalism but she's right on the money in that regard. Even Nietzsche agrees on that point.

>>10160730
So pretty much what you are saying is that any philosophy that commands altruism is evil? Sure. But many good things forced turn evil, that doesn't make all those good things inherently evil, nevermind primordially evil. Do you believe all altruistic acts are evil, given a "free" society?

>>10161409
>>10160730

It's just as you said nietchsze says everything you need on altruism and it's importance in self completion and understanding. Rand is unnecessary, it's kind of weird that people care about her when she says nothing new. Encompassed entirely by nietschze, schoupenhaur, locke, and stirner.

>>10161546
Any philosophy that says you should kill yourself for others is evil.

>>10161556
Saying it's unnecessary doesn't make her wrong. It's a bullshit dismissal of people that don't want her philosophy spread.

>>10161556
Nietzsche doesn't say everything you need on altruism. He is as critical as Ayn Rand, regarding the herd as holding down the potential of the great, but Ayn Rand saw the progress after his death in subsequent philosophies after Kant. She examines altruism in a more direct manner by claiming it is anti life and anti reality.

>>10161557
I disagree with that, but that wasn't my question.

>>10161560

If you desire to be taken seriously as a philosopher you need to say things that are categorically different, otherwise you are merely a writer to be judged by your prose.

And unless you have catcher in the rye tier aesthetic sense you understand that her writing is sophomoric at best. She slips in way too many of her warped experiences and resentments to be taken seriously as a writer.

>>10161577
Oh, and who cares about 'wanting to be taken seriously'? Do you get a medal for it? There's a reason she never cared for that sort of thing. Instead of judging what she said, you're content with just dismissing her as 'something other people said, just don't read it' as a way to ignore everything. You're not arguing what she said to be incorrect or wrong. It's the reason you're so content with wanting her to be judged by her prose, so that you can immediately say that she's pulpy (which is absolutely was) to further deny her any relevancy.

>>10161588
>udged by her prose, so that you can immediately say that she's pulpy (which is absolutely was) to further deny her any relevancy.

Huh? The reason the categorically different stuff is important is because of ockham's razor, you need to be efficient in your writing to be worth anything as a philosopher. Efficiency being defined as saying something either more clearly or differently. If you merely just say cringy platitudes saying nothing of value then you're wasting people's time.

The reason ockahm's razor matters is because if you deny it you basically have to become a post structuralist, because explanations with more contributing factors can be considered equivalent in so far as they have the same explanatory power.

Since rand is obviously not a post structuralist, she needs to judge herself by ockham's razor. And if you do judge her in that manner then you recognize that she's not very important in the history of ideas.

>>10161604
Uh huh, still dismissing her instead by saying nothing.

>>10132771
No way this board is too fast

>>10161611
I made an argument with 2 premises and a conclusion, you're beyond idiotic. I'll spell it out for you even though you obviously are more taken with shitty prose and incoherent argumentation.

1. Ockham's razor makes rand's arguments unnecessary. (I define Ockham's razor since I don't expect you to understand)

2. Rand needs ockham's razor in order to validate any of her philosophy as important.

3. Thus, Either rand denies ockham's razor she's worthless, if she accepts it none of her arguments are unnecessary.

>>10161626
>Either rand denies ockham's razor she's worthless
Hilarious.

>>10161556
>when she says nothing new
Her formulation of ethical Egoism and rational selfishness was something the world had never seen before. She was also the first to purport the notion that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is metaphysically, epistemically, AND ethically derived from Man's nature and the facts of material reality.
She coined the term "psycho-epistemology" and the "Context Dropping" and "Stolen Concept" fallacies.

Rand pretty much dissected Nietzsche like a frog and hard refuted him. Yet people claim she plagiarized him and/or mistake her flat-superior Egoism for his.
Observe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6gV1MUSXMg

>>10161730
The honest difference between Nietzsche and Ayn Rand is that Nietzsche believed in going beyond master-slave morality by not being constrained with anything, including civilization, while Ayn Rand believed in master morality without exploiting or relying on others.
In a very obvious sense, Ayn Rand's philosophy is pure Apollonian while Nietzsche is a mixture of Apollonian and Dionysian, heavily skewed on Dionysian.
Everything about Ayn Rand is focused on this one aspect. She even has a speech about this duality, although the topic discussed is rather wrong and uninteresting.

In the Fountainhead for example, there's a Nietzschean character that is similar to Ayn Rand's hero, but without any foundation, that seeks to rule over the masses, like the Ubermensch. Despite Ayn Rand acknowledging that her views and Nietzsche are similar in many ways, the fact that she advocates to never use or exploit others is what differentiates herself from everyone else.

>>10161409
Watch the video, she addresses the Principles of Apollo/Dionysius in it, and why they are floating abrasctions. Such things cannot apply to her if they, as she argues, are not valid in the first place.
>In the Fountainhead for example, there's a Nietzschean character that is similar to Ayn Rand's hero, but without any foundation
In the video Rand identifies the comparison of her characters to 'Nietzchean' archetypes as, quote, "an equivocation on the word 'superior'"
Gail Wynand is not a man that has no Nietzschean 'foundation'* but rather a man who is content with contradicting his standards and has no will to live by them.

*(note by that I do not mean foundation to mean a foundation of Nietzschean Philosophy but of Nietzsche's particular view of the concept of a foundation itself)

>>10161896
Meant for >>10161773

>>10161896
>Such things cannot apply to her if they, as she argues, are not valid in the first place.
I disagree.

https://soundcloud.com/aynrandinstitute/apollo-and-dionysus?in=aynrandinstitute/sets/apollo-and-dionysus

>>10161903
>New Rand stuff I haven't heard
Nice.
I've read Nietzsche but apparently me not reading "Verse of Tragedy" is a crime.

>>10125430
My grandmother, she is literally never wrong about anything

>>10161933
It's rather uninteresting unfortunately.

>>10125430
But the only reason can't refute him is because he did not put forward any claims. His philosophy is exhibitive, not assertive. Deconstruction just exhibits the inability of logocentric texts to achieve presence by showing how they never achieve semiosis and by introducing alien terms within the system that they can't handle (différance, mark, trace, arche-writing, hymen, supplement, spacing, pharmakon, etc.) He acknowledges that anything he says assertively can be deconstructed.

>>10161955
It forces me to state a minor "I stand corrected" though

>>10161955
>>10161980
To clarify, the overall topic is uninteresting, but, at the beginning of her lecture, Ayn Rand does clarify and admits that Nietzsche's Apollon-Dionysus duality is the basic conflict. Unfortunately, she doesn't take the extra step by declaring that her philosophy is, at its core, Apollonian.

In that sense, when Ayn Rand says 'Nietzsche is my complete opposite', this is what she means. His Ubermensch is skewed towards Dionysian while her Hero is skewed towards Apollonian. A being of purse passions, without rationality, that jumps between being logical and insane, against a being of pure will, unfazed and unmoving.

I mean, logic, free will, the purpose of existing is to create; all of these are Apollonian concepts of imposing the will onto nature. Nietzsche's criticism of Socrates, that he is pure will, denying nature, is reflected on Ayn Rand's life and philosophy. Her inability to control her emotions is what lead to her falling with Nathaniel. For example, Ayn Rand argued that the purpose of life is to find happiness and that love is to be found in your hierarchy of values. Yet when her lover found someone in which he felt a greater sense of happiness, a value higher than herself, she lost her shit. She went against her own philosophy regarding happiness and her emotions got the better of her.

It's honestly the core problem with Ayn Rand and advocating pure Apollonian. People might meme and not get what she preaches by just laughing or ignoring her, but this is essentially the core issue most Objectivist cannot fix. They are so stuck in 'the mind controls nature, we cannot be influenced in any manner' that when their rationality is clouded, they become blind.

On a rational sense, Ayn Rand is mostly correct on nearly philosophical proposition regarding the will, altruism etc but by detaching herself from emotions and refusing to admit that desires can supersede the will, her philosophy remains flawed. I've spoken to a few Objectivist on that topic and they all argue that it's nothing, so long as you just don't let your emotions get the better of you, it doesn't matter, but I just see them as dismissing the issue.

Wittgenstein refuted all of the puny faggots in this thread. Even Searle is just pre-Wittgensteinean garbage.

Oh, and don't bother fucking with ontology: this guy's got it covered.

>>10162065
Searle is an ordinary language philosopher you fucking idiot

>>10162079
Of course Searle was after Wittgenstein, you fucking moron. You didn't understand what I meant by "pre-Wittgensteinean", but that's to be expected by someone like you. He's pre-Wittgensteinean in the sense that Sarte is pre-Heideggerian for still having a "Cartesian" ontology: they completely missed the point of their predecessors' work.

>>10162088
*Sartre.

Nearly all of the so-called "ordinary language philosophy" that has been done since Wittgenstein is just more of the same shitty cataloging that Wittgenstein sought so hard to avoid. They don't even grasp the implications of the very first topic he covers: naming.

>>10162065
don't mind me I'm just refuting the puny faggot Wittgenstein

>>10162097
>They don't even grasp the implications of the very first topic he covers: naming.
They don't need to since he was wrong about it

Wittgenstein was a pretty good philosopher for his time but his work doesn't really stand up to what we know now about language and the brain

>>10162106
>positivism

>>10162115
>"muh science"

lol @ your feeble attempt to cobble together a chimera from your shitty understanding of philosophy of mind and cogsci

>>10162106
>POSITIVISM
L M A O

>>10162106
>positivism
are you fucking kidding me

>>10162125
the only reason you like Wittgenstein is because you have autism like he did and his shitty simplistic view of human communication seems deep to you

>>10125430
>Positivism
is this guy for real?

>>10162106
>positivism
LOL

>>10162131
>u have autism LOL
Glad to know we still have geniuses gracing our presence on /lit/.

>>10162143
"dude what if I can finally get laid if I study the language-game of flirting enough" - you

>>10162131
>autism
oh shit Wittgenstein's been refuted now

I personally believe that all of philosophy throughout the ages is filled with autistic people trying to understand what it means to be human because they lack that innate understanding.

>>10162147
You appear to have a pretty shitty understanding of Wittgenstein. What a suprise!

>bositivism
loool >>10162106 BTFO amirite goys??

>>10162153
dude you can't say things like that because of the beetle thingy

>>10162027
>>10162027
>Ayn Rand does clarify and admits that Nietzsche's Apollon-Dionysus duality is the basic conflict. Unfortunately, she doesn't take the extra step by declaring that her philosophy is, at its core, Apollonian.
That is not what she is doing. Clearly she is using A&D as a allegorical lens though which to assess events and recognizing the simple validity of doing such a thing. This does not mean she views them as 'basic' which is to mean fundamental and something that undergirds a given notion. Rand still rejects the notion of the Principle of Apollo and Dionysius.
I said I stand corrected because the principles are valid (unlike I perviously said) but are not a sufficent criterion on which to build one's premises off of, as Nietzsche did.
Her use of A&D allegorically in the soundcloud you posted is NOT same as the *Principle* of A&D I posted.
>Unfortunately, she doesn't take the extra step by declaring that her philosophy is, at its core, Apollonian.
She need not state it because it is implictly clear that, yes, through a Nietzschean allegorical lens her Philosophy may be assessed a Apollonian; but classifying it as such would imply that she accepts the basic premise of the principle as it relates to epistemology. Which she does not.

>In that sense, when Ayn Rand says 'Nietzsche is my complete opposite', this is what she means
Wrong. The distinction is her fundamental primacy of existence vs his fundamental primacy of conciousness. That is what she means.

>your last 3 paragraphs
While I am disappointed with her actions in this facet of her personal life; her hypocrisy is not an indictment to Objectivism whatsoever. "The sins of a philosopher do not a philosophy disprove" -t. whoever said that.
If you have seen an Objectivist wax apologist about these things they shouldn't, I agree. I can simply call her "dipshit" for it and continue with my opinion of her as one of the greatest people to ever live unmarred.

>>10162167
Still not refuted. :-)

>>10162152
This might lead one to then question what it would look like when one get's it right.

>>10162180
The thing about late Wittgenstein is he goes around explaining how words are used socially and then acts like that's all there is to explain.

You know what I mean when I say the word "consciousness" (you'll probably act like you don't, but that's beside the point), even though it doesn't work at all in his framework. The private language argument actually works AGAINST what he's arguing for, as it demonstrates the inadequacy of his view of language.

He's only striking at the surface of philosophy, and doesn't come to terms with what's beneath it.

>>10162236
>he goes around explaining how words are used socially

The hallmark of most philosophical criticism is shitty readings of a philosopher. This is true here.

> The private language argument actually works AGAINST what he's arguing for, as it demonstrates the inadequacy of his view of language.

Oh, and vague claims like this.

>>10162297
"your wrong lol"

k.

>>10162297
shitty readings and vague claims are all wittgenstein did

if you look at his "solution" to russell's paradox it's obvious what a dumbfuck he is

>>10162300
You didn't say anything substantial. Vaguely citing an argument and making a random assertion based on it is just hand-waving.

>>10162305
>shitty readings and vague claims are all wittgenstein did

>obviously never read PI

>>10162370
>>obviously never read PI
>1. pick up your copy of PI
>2. look closer

>>10162367
You know what I mean when I talk about consciousness, or what it's like to look at the color red. This shouldn't happen in Wittgenstein's view.

It's really funny that you're holding me to a higher standard than Wittgenstein himself since he never really supported any of his arguments or his assertions

>>10162383
Anyways:

Kierkegaard said Hegel would have been the greatest thinker who ever lived if only he had regarded his system as a thought-experiment. Instead he took himself seriously to have reached the truth, and so rendered himself comical.

Replace "Hegel" with "Wittgenstein" and you have the truth about him

>>10157914
cause he raped them cucks

>>10162377
>"look and ull just see"

WOW WE HAVE SOME GREAT PHILOSOPHERS IN THIS THREAD

> u know what i mean

WOW WITTGENSTEIN REFUTED RIGHT THERE WOAH

>>10162389
That's quite true of early W :-)

>>10162383

Vague critiques of epistemology do not an argument make.

How would you guys rank the philosophers mentioned itt thus far?

>>10163830
Ayn Rand >*

>>10163874
Seconded

What about philosophers who are so dense and confusing you can never be certain about their truth or falseness without devoting your life to them?

>>10163967
One need simply identify their fallacies and contradictory premises and trashing them comes quickly enough. No philospher is unassailable through sheer pseud. Immanuel Kant comes close though.

>>10164008
"contradictory phrases" doesn't cut it. you need to identify serious contradictions *within* their system, and not just seemingly-opposed statements. context, audience, and even method can all necessitate the use of contradiction (often just apparent)

people really need to stop half-assing the LNC

>>10164061
>you need to identify serious contradictions *within* their system
Which is why I said contradictory premises and not phrases, that's what I'm doing.

>>10161604
>If you merely just say cringy platitudes saying nothing of value then you're wasting people's time.

>>10161626
>Ockham's razor makes rand's arguments unnecessary
How?

>>10164388
>it just does stop thinking

>>10164292
that's still not a strict enough qualification

Ayn Rand has a great philosophy for a non ethno state multi cultural melting pot

>>10164460
>multiculturalism
>Rand
Non ethno state sure. But she most assuredly was a proponent of American Uniculturalism.
From reading her extensively I know she was a race realist.
She never cared to go deeply into race realism but I am indirectly sure she would agree with this:
There are essentially 3 basic kinds of White (or any race) advocacy with only the last of the 3 being valid:
White Supremacism
White Nationalism
White Preservationism
The first is an example of anti-conceptual Tribalism and the second is one of pseudo-nationalist Mysticism.

>>10127880
yes please

>>10165749
She might have been a race realist but vehemently argued that racism is a collectivist mentality and that you should always judge a person as an individual.
>if a person is a part of X group at birth is irrelevant, can they do the job
Hell, she even argued that men and women can perform equally in the workplace so long as they put in the same effort.

>>10127856
>Ayn Rand's philosophy was the strongest attack on Communism, Fascism, and Statism ever witnessed.

even anarchists are better lmao

>>10165784
>>10165784
>Collectivist mentality
A Tribalist one more specifically, actually.
>Hell, she even argued that men and women can perform equally in the workplace so long as they put in the same effort.
This does not mean she believes the capability to put in that effort exists equally between the genders.
If that were true she would not have been so vehemently against the idea of a woman president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vANA3AGs4Dg

From John Galt's speech.
>Random females with causeless incomes flitter on trips around the globe and return to deliver the message that the backward peoples of the world demand a higher standard of living. Demand, of whom? Blank-out.

>>10166008
>A Tribalist one more specifically, actually.
Same difference?

>If that were true she would not have been so vehemently against the idea of a woman president.
I think it's mostly that she admires the Apollonian strength of men. Camille Paglia argues the same way on the greatness of men.

But again, it's fine to judge collectives as a whole so long as it doesn't cloud your judgement about individuals. Like, you might think generally, blacks have low IQs and are dumb, but if a smart one wants to work and has the qualifications, you shouldn't let that generality cloud your judgment, because if you're truly selfish, you won't care.

>>10166075
They're different words for a reason.

>But again, it's fine to judge collectives as a whole so long as it doesn't cloud your judgement about individuals. Like, you might think generally, blacks have low IQs and are dumb, but if a smart one wants to work and has the qualifications, you shouldn't let that generality cloud your judgment, because if you're truly selfish, you won't care.
No contention here. 1:1 what I or Rand might say.
>Apollonian
Are you the guy I replied to here >>10162176 ?
What's your response? We're at bump limit so if you want to make a part 2 to this thread; please do so. I have another itt who needs a response, so if you don't want to make it; I will.

>>10165817
Rand pretty much ruptured anarchism and any notions that it could be married to Capitalism in TVoS

>>10166183
Yeah, I am that guy.
I don't really have a response because I agree with everything you've said. I wrote a post but then my computer shut down and I lost the entire thing.

I only disagree a bit with the last paragraph because while I do absolutely agree with you that people should separate the philosopher from the philosophy, that part of her life is something that needs to be improved on Objectivism philosophy. It is annoying whenever people bring up the later parts of her life as a dismissal of her entire body of work, but the problem that emotions can get the better of you, and supersede your rationality is something I think Objectivist need to examine more. But because I agree that the philosophy is purely Apollonian, it might never happen.

I wouldn't mind talking to you in another thread, this was rather fun. It's been awhile since I talked to someone that didn't just shit on Ayn Rand.

>>10166293
>supersede your rationality is something I think Objectivist need to examine more.
You're damn right. Which is why the title of one of the ten books I want to write is named "Meme and Meta"
Start a new thread. I got an errand.

>>10166471
By any curiosity, is your name Charles?

>>10166518
Nope

>>10166571
Ah, ok. I know this Objectivist guy called Charles, I thought you might be him.

>>10166592
Ah

>>10152895
only through interaction with the "actual" water and nutrients that are provided to it.

Keep trying anon.

>>10167146
Therefore water is god? This is not getting better, anon.