/lit/ - Literature

>>11039834
I wouldn't exactly call Marx beloved by most people. Now the real question is why George Orwell is held to such a higher level than her despite both of them being able to write 3 dimensional characters and stories that strike you over the head with their morality. My guess is because Orwell's books are shorter.

>>11039882
Orwell's conclusions are basically universally accepted while Rand's are not

She wasn't subversive enough to be praised by the "intellectuals"

She advocated for 'selfishness for the individual' and Marx advocated 'selfishness for the group' if you know what I mean. People tend to view selfishness in an individual manner as aberrant and horrid, but when you commit to doing wrong for the group, it is honourable.

>>11039924
>says fuck your morals and your family structures
>not "subversive" like the do whatever you want postmodernists
Maybe she was just wrong? Boiling everything down to self-interest has it's own obvious issues.

>>11039834
because Marx was an actual philosopher

>>11040442
>selfishness for the group
nigga what

She totally did... but she never outright stated her intent in the book, only implied it (as far as I know)

>>11040442
Marx subscribed to Comte's altruism though.

>>11039834
Because her philosophy was just Capitalism with less regulations.

>>11039834
>Rand
>wanted a stateless society
I wonder if there is a critic of Rand who has ever actually read Rand. She was not an anarchist, deplored anarchism and knew that a state was absolutely necessary.

Using literature as the basis of an ideology smacks of strawmen.

>>11041579
She wrote more non fiction books than fiction you fucking donut. >>11040689
Is right, none of her critics have actually read her work

>>11040442
Marx didn't advocate for anything. This incredibly important point gets ignored. Philosophers never advocate! They observe and translate abstract thought into words. Philosophy is like poetry and music. The philosopher is an artist, a victim of his time, not an architect. He submits to his intuition. Communism isn't what Marx thought would be good for society. It's the inevitable outcome of our society.

>>11041762
Ok

>>11039834
>person
>weak generalization
>person
>weak generalization
>weak popularity generalization
>weak popularity generalization
good thread op

>>11039834
Cause she was dumb

>>11041762
He seemed pretty racist thought.

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

>>11039834
>Marx is beloved

in what fantasy world is Marx beloved?

Reminder:
Like how Marxism is meta-communism; Objectivsm is meta-capitalism and is the bar-none greatest threat the former has ever encountered.

>>11040684
Max at it again with the spooks

The fundamental assumptions of everything Marx stated have turned out to be wrong, why is he even relevant beyond being a historical curiosity?

>>11041762
>"Marx didn't advocate for anything."
>cowrites the most popular political manifesto of all time
okay

>>11039834
she was a bad writer and

>stateless society ruled by the workers
you're already living in it, dummy. it's called multinational corporations and globalism. the state is a mere formality. the top 1% of "workers" exploit the rest, the state is largely there for their protection and to support itself by drawing taxes. the workers are ruled by plutocrats, the state is not a threat except for its part in maintaining this corporate oppression.

>>11041926
Ethics are aesthetics, that and nothing more.

>when your unethical business practices cause millions to stave to death, but it's all good because nobody's property rights were impinged and the state didn't interfere with free trade

>>11039834
Rand didn't want a stateless society, or a society run by the workers. She wanted a state to maintain private property and protect human rights, and argued that capitalists (i.e. not the workers) are the only ones worth trusting with power. If she bears a resemblance to any of the Great White Males, it's Hobbes with a sprinkling of Hayek.

>>11041762
> Writes communist manifesto
> Doesn't advocate for communism

>>11043455
t. dumbass who thinks Mercantilism=Capitalism

>>11042963
Since I am 14 and have read one Noam Chomsky book I also agree with post

>>11041762
Stop it with this fucking meme already.

>>11042924
I'm sure you did your share of embarrassing shit when you were young.

>>11047386
>implying Marx was ever embarrassed of the ComMan or withdrew his advocacy of it.
In any even this notion that philosophers cannot advocate for anything and have to instead stand on some bastard centrism is a nihilistic fallacy in the first place.

>>11045759
>B...but it w...wasn't real capitalism

Edgy jewish rancid cunt.

Because you cant be an Ancap and an intellectual at the same time.

>>11047487
Or not Capitlaism in the first place. Mercantilism has a concrete definition moron, learn it.

>>11047503
For the last fucking time Rand was a minarchist LfCap not an AnCap. AnCaps are retards.

She was a novelist at best and her """philosophy""" is a joke

>>11047588
Name a philosophy that is superior to hers, and why.

>>11041864
you mean race realist

>>11039834
Because no one really understood objetivism and her novels were so long and boring to be read by most of the people. If you read Atlas Shrugged you'll notice that not only wealthy capitalists were kidnapped by Galt, he kidnapped also employees, industry workers and house wives. She also considered the state as necessary. But everyone who has only watched the movie just repeat "Ancap, Ancap" when they're asked about Rand

>>11047608
Rothbardian Anarchism is superior because it takes Rand's view of private property to its logical conclusion.
A prime example is her view on intellectual property. This is the ONLY situation in which she believes there is a right to something that is not property. The idea that the state doesn't grant copyrights is absurd when the only thing backing that right is the use of physical force.

>>11047573
>it was mercantilism, not capitalism, because I don't like the results

>>11047627
>state sponsored expansion
>not mercantilism

>>11041762
>Philosphers never advocate
>Marx was a philosopher
>Therefore Marx never advocated

Wow flawless logic.

>>11041937
OP wants to be seen as this lone wolf who fights against stacked odds. It's basic victim culture.

>Rand:
Woman, independant, minority, queen
Hated by academia

>Matx
White, cis, het, male.
Praised by academia.

Really makes you think

>>11041937
I still have to find a person that HATES Marx. At most they disagree with him

>>11047634
>shareholder owned companies trading internationally with complete autonomy from the government
>not capitalism
East India company didn't become government controlled until 1859

>>11047656
they were both jews you tard

>>11047626
Rothbard co-opted much of the original argumentation Rand posited, mostly for the express purpose of including it in his limp dick brand of Libertarianism. Which is essentially just incomplete Objectivism.
Anarchism and any notions that it can be married to capitalism is an absurdity of the same order as nihilism. Both are not even coherent in the first place. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html
>A prime example is her view on intellectual property. This is the ONLY situation in which she believes there is a right to something that is not property.
The originator of an idea possesses that idea as property. For the duration of his life in addition to an amount of time his contracts might extend to. With a limit. Rand posited "50 years thereafter". As of the information age; I'd say even shorter. Better to have it be modular and context-sensitive. Yes IP does need to be enforced, by force, but since Rand was a minarchist this provides no contradiction. LfCap>AnCap because Minarchism>Anarchism and in turn because Objective Law>Polycentric Law
Protip: we have already witnessed Rothbard's tenets in effect irl and that it is the phenomenon of competing mafia families.

>>11047772
Always look seriously at the jews other jews hate anon. And that's Rand.

>>11039834
>How come Ayn Rand didn't catch on with intellectuals?
Because (((they))) always set up two "opposing" (really not) viewpoints for the goyim to oscillate between while not understanding who is really pulling the strings.

>>11047792
Fuck off /pol/

>>11047700
That is not mercantilism's only distinction. Capitalism and mercantilism also differ on their view on the nature of wealth. Wealth creation vs wealth extraction. Capitalism is also inseperable from individualism whereas mercantilism isn't individualist in the first place.
Capitalism is a distinctly American conception.

>>11047776
Rand's idea of government may be preferable to Rothbard's competing governing systems, if it were to not expand, which it has not, and would not. The idea that a minarchist state would statically retain its rule set and overreach neglects the history of states.
Rothbard's tenets, in the form of mafia families, are still better than the state's use of justice. There is at least some sort of oversight.

>>11047807
You're gonna have a very rude awakening when you die and find out that God is /pol/.

>>11047849
>Capitalism is a distinctly American conception.
You pushed your bait post too far with this sentence desu

>>11039834
She got her own video game in exchange, though.

>>11047656
I can explain explicitly why. Other than cultural Marxism being in-the-vogue in these institutions and the desire to simply not allow capitalism's greatest philosopher a voice among them that is.
See the entrenched government-assisted academic's motivation is one of stagnation. Rand represented a philosophic paradigm shift of a magnitude only twice before witnessed in the persons of Aristotle and John Locke. This carried very grave implications for a particular breed of academic (this is also the perogative of /lit/'s small to medium neetfag contingent). Ayn Rand's Objectivism posited conceptual integration on a level no other philosopher had before. She also coined many original logical fallacies, the term "psycho-epistemology", and was the first to identify the true nature of Altruism's evil. Including it among their (academics) other disparate half formed, half actualized "philosophies", they find it eats everything it comes into contact with. This disrupts their vested interest in keeping a fanciful salad-esque collection of philosophies to catalog away and do nothing objectively meritous with it on their own terms. Despite what these sorts of people would have to say it isn't Ayn Rand but academia as it stands that is "the joke".

The other day I had an epiphany on what to name this phenomenon: I call it "Collectathon Philosophizing"

>>11047866
If he exists I'd think god would view echoesposting as a fallacy ridden cognitive shortcut as I do.

>>11047901
>bait
We're arguing seriously here skipper. If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose the fact that they were the people who created the phrase "to make money". No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity; to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.

>>11048036
>people who created the phrase "to make money".
Randroids really are nature's brainlets:
Come, be a man. Drown thyself! drown
cats and blind puppies. I have professed me thy friend and I confess me knit to thy deserving with cables of perdurable toughness; I could never better stead thee than now.
Put money in thy purse; follow thou the wars; defeat thy favour with an usurped beard; I say, put money in thy purse. It
cannot be that Desdemona should long continue her love to the Moor,-- put money in thy purse,--nor he his to her: it was a violent commencement, and thou
shalt see an answerable sequestration:--put but money in thy purse. These Moors are changeable in their wills: fill thy purse with money:--the food that to him now is as luscious as locusts, shall be
to him shortly as bitter as coloquintida. She must change for youth: when she is sated with his body, she will find the error of her choice: she must have change, she must: therefore put money in thy purse. If thou wilt needs damn thyself, do it a more delicate way than drowning. Make all the money thou canst: if sanctimony and a frail vow betwixt an erring barbarian and a supersubtle Venetian not too hard for my wits and all the tribe of hell, thou
shalt enjoy her; therefore make money.

>>11048036
>wealth has to be created
Ah yes, that most famous of American innovations, alchemy

>>11048111
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkXI-MNSb8Q
In this video Bill is spot on. He maybe be a conservative but accidentally argues an Objectivist position.

>>11048082
>implying that quote means it in the same way and isn't opperating off mercantilist premises.

>>11048036
>>11048162
>they were the people who created the phrase "to make money"
Why must americans ruin every discourse

>>11047661
>if you don't outright hate a person they are beloved to you

>>11041848
pure sophistry.

>>11042963
>the state is a mere formality
>corporations and the 1% are the workers

>>11047931
Kek

>>11045848
Made me kek but I'm not wrong. How much influence do you personally have with Congress? How much does a 1%er?

>>11039834

A day late and a dollar short

>>11048348
Your inferiority complex isn't them ruining anything. There being anything wrong with Americans acknowledging the objective aspects of their greatness is a maymay perpetuated by Yurops and self hating Americans.

>>11048303
>dem goalposts tho

>>11041762
read bordiga you cuck, marx absolutely advocated for communism its right there in das kapital

>>11048303
I suspect this Iago as mercantilist angle is under explored in the critical literature surrounding othello. Perhaps the time is ripe for a bold student of Rand to make it clear to us plebeians

>>11049869
Fair enough, the quote does say the *words* had never been used.

>>11050002
I meant Shakespeare of course.

>>11039834

Rand tried to claim Aristotle was her only influence and that she magically created the rest herself

She's ignored because she's a moron and a phase teenagers go through. Even the top name libertarians thought she was a clown

>Artistotle only influence
>Rips off Nietzsche and Stirner in sophomoric writings
>Doesn't think maybe there are other intellectuals who have influenced the current paradigm

>>11041762
>11th thesis on feuerbach

>>11044143

>Great White Males

If you're that guilty you could always consider suicide, Anon.

>>11039834
What are you talking about? Rand didn't want a stateless society ruled by the workers at all. She said the state was absolutely necessary to enforce contracts as well as protecting both private property and individual rights.

Rand is dismissed because people want to continue wielding the power of altruism to sacrifice others on the altar of their own corruption.

>>11047998
>Collectathon Philosophizing
Nice phrase actually.

>>11039834
>Marx
>stateless society

pick one

>>11050235
Rand is dismissed because she has no theory at all, she's just just Stirner for morons

>>11050434
>Didn't even bother to read the wikipedia entry before shitposting
Is there anything the conservative braintrust can't do :^)

>>11050163
Her formulation of her own egoism was not a plagerization of them. This is merely a case a convergent evolution in the realm of ideas. Her egoism is profoundly different from both. As far Aristotle was concerned, him being her only influence was her saying that he was the only philosopher worth starting from scratch on.

>>11050401
Thanks. Highly satisfyimg lightbulb moment that was for me.

>>11050599
reading is gay, die bookfag

>>11039834
This is some HQ bait, thanks OP. You know who takes Ayn Rand seriously? The same people who made the "Left Behind" series a bestseller.

>>11047661
I hate Marx.

>>11047487
Capitalism is emergent, socialism is an absolute.

Francisco D'Anconia's Speech>John Galt's Speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ2_ZxveT6U

>>11040689
>wants a state
>hates taxes
>Probably committed tax fraud at some point
Lel

>>11050907
People who commit tax fraud are usually based though

>>11051022
Like wesley snipes

>>11047661
I hate Marx.

>>11040684
That quote from Stirner os actually the main plot of Atlas shrugged. It does not contrast him with her at all.

>>11051022
while this is true, its still disgusting that the land owning bourgosie who invest in the stock market and commodities markets whine endlessly about their property and right to snatch every last bit of marginal profit available in every single transaction, they bemoan the State, the thing which allows them to continuously pillage and exploit idiots, the good rational actors who behave exactly how the advertising industry and state direct them. There’s something disturbing in an ideology where the main mechanic relies on an unacknowledge assumption of controlled conditions. economics, free market capitalism, communism, humanism all do this.

>>11051048
Don't tell /lit/ that, they don't want to hear that their spookmaster has a lot in common with her

>>11051068
>right to snatch every last bit of marginal profit available in every single transaction
Name one (1) (uno) thing wrong with this

>>11051068
>bourgoise
Stopped reading right there

>>11039834
>Marx is beloved
On what fucking planet?

>>11040614

>>11047661

I HATES him

>>11051236
There is a limited amount of value in the world at any given point. When you take more than you've earned, you take it from someone else. Doing this legally just means the state condones theft.

>>11051481
>There is a limited amount of value in the world at any given point

>>11051481
>When you take more than you've earned
But making yourself more efficacious at reducing your loss of profit at the margins is earning it buddy.

>>11051481
How embarrassing

>>11051481
>>11051960
>>11052318
>>11053842
I mean lets be honest here, he's only saying that because he doesn't earn enough, and you're only responding this way because you do.

The system is self-replicating because it encourages people to act in certain ways because of positions or states of mind their career puts them in. Everyone acts a role they are supposed to espouse.

>>11039834
I honestly do think this is the one case where it is sexism. Like women are never going to be perceived as the creator of nations just children. No matter how correct she could sound. It is a function of biology.

>>11047487
>mfw all countries practicing capitalism are all peaceful and prosperous.

"real capitalism" or not it's objectively the best system for humanity.

>>11047998
This is one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever read. You deserve to be put down for writing something so stupid.

>>11054196
I'm listening

>>11054113
damn i already fapped to ebony trans blowjobs once today i dont wanna have to go again

>>11054113
This. She was no doubt disappointed by, though happy to capitalize on, the fact that a man hadn't formulated her philosophy before her. Ludwig von Mises once told her that she "is the most courageous man in America". This pleased her greatly as you can imagine.

>>11053854
I'm a homeless weeb shitposting on /lit/ off of starbucks wifi faggot. Try again.

>>11039834
Both of them are subhuman materialists. Not even an ounce of the transcendent. Unironically peasant tier thinking.

>>11047998
>Rand represented a philosophic paradigm shift of a magnitude only twice before witnessed in the persons of Aristotle and John Locke.
https://vocaroo.com/i/s0zcKwr3q17a

It's definitely not sexism. For instance, Naomi Klein's stance on Israel is readily accepted by many people on here and /his/.

Honestly, it's because she was a pseud and a terrible writer. I could tolerate her if she was only one of these.

>>11041762
>literally says WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!
>hurr durr nothing was advocated
Your IQ should be higher than freezing point before posting here

>>11054296
Honestly I'm not sure where to start.
>Cultural Marxism
Not an actual thing, just a bogeyman from /pol/

Ayn Rand wasn't a philosopher. She was an ideologue. She had a personal ideology and wrote a whole bunch of shitty fiction trying to justify it. Also, I love your idea that contemporary academic do nothing with philosophies other than "catalog" them, considering the fact that as soon as Ayn Rand needed to she started sucking off the teat of the state and forgot all about her shitty ideas. I'm being completely sincere when I say that anyone who takes Ayn Rand seriously and isn't in highschool needs to be culled from the population

>>11054523
>>Cultural Marxism
>Not an actual thing, just a bogeyman from /pol/

i used to think that too since u will never hear that term on a campus, but what they mean by cultural marxism is all the hotdog school critical theory bullshit that no longer criticized actual capitalist production but instead complaining about consumption of consumer goods, which makes sense since by that point the soviet union was falling way behind the consumption levels of the united states, so instead of saying the problem with capitalism is everyone is too poor the "cultural marxists" try to salvage marxism and save face for communism by saying everyone is too comfy, the "cultural marxism" people actually have a point

>>11054563
>boogeyman from /pol/
Bill Whittle can hardly be called /pol/ and his video is the best on the topic in existence.
Presumably you've seen it.
Marxism, having failed so spectacularly in the realm of economics, had it's followers scrambling for an explanation (ie rationalization) for why so they, and there is historical account of this fact, decided to incorpoate cultural science and social engineering into Marx's critique of capitalism and advocacy of communism. All to keep their utopian sensibilities unmarred.

>ideologue
Theres that word again. Centrists and nihilists like to throw that word around alot as of it were a grave insult. The fallacy that having an ideology to which one closely follows and subscribes is somehow a bad thing is pure sophistry. The only question is WHAT a specific ideology actually constitues and WHICH criterion one has assessed it's alleged flaws and strengths by. There is also this moronic implication you are positing that being an ideologue and being a philosopher are somehow mutually exclusive. They aren't.
She matched and exceeded all the criteria by which a philosophy may be considered a concrete and integrated phiosophic system and it is only the absurdity that the gatekeepers of stagnant mainstream academia like to argue that their consensus approval is one of these criteria is the only point Rand haters have against Objectivism.
>as soon as Ayn Rand needed to she started sucking off the teat of the state
Yawn. http://www.aynrandmyths.com/

>>11054725
Meant for >>11054523

>>11054459
>lol
No u

>>11054725
>http://www.aynrandmyths.com/
That's like linking to a scientology front site to defend L Ron Hubbard

>>11039834
Marx makes poor people’s willies tingle because they can stop being poor without stopping being lazy

>>11054523
Don’t you think that it’s funny how the only names that deserve to be on that foot are supported through lobbying government?

>>11054185
No, a mixed economy like all developed countries have is the best. Unfettered capitalism leads to people starving because they can't afford food

>>11054799
Refute a single one then. Or read previous pic related.

>>11054725
>Presumably you've seen it.
Not him but show me. Intrigued desu

>Rand
>wanted a stateless society ruled by the workers
>ruled by workers
No, she wanted it ruled by people who could claw their way to the top by stepping on other people. Marx wanted a stateless society where others cooperate instead of exploit each other.

>>11054949
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrt6msZmU7Y
Enjoy. I don't really like the term but this can fairly be called /the/ entry level 'redpill' vid.

>>11039834
>>wanted a stateless society ruled by the workers
No she didn't lol. She argued for limited government which is opposite of a stateless society because she knew that the state needed to have a monopoly on power or any dumb gang could come in and steal your shit. And anarchy isn't the solution because there will always be a bigger gang with guns.

>>11050163
lol please.
You can tell that she valued rationality whereas Nietzsche and Striner scoffed at it. Nietzsche argued master morality that takes over the tribe but is not bound by it whereas Ayn Rand argued for master morality that treats people as individuals without caring about the tribe. Gail Wynand in the Fountainhead is meant to be a representative of Nietzsche's Ubermensch that thinks he's above people but is still controlled by them because they're the source of his power.
Stirner simply created the idea of spook which Ayn Rand further developed as the anti-concept idea. Stirner also called the ego a spook which effectively makes him a nihilist. Ayn Rand considers the ego and your life to be an objective value.

The only people that think that Ayn Rand ripped off Nietzsche and Stirner are idiots who haven't read her.

>>11040689
>>11041744
What is the best/most informative rand work? I'm trying to choose which one to get my wife for her birthday.

>>11055726
Your wife is a dumbass and so are you. My girlfriend read The Republic, be like her

>>11055743
Bitter virgin incel

>>11055773
Haha you’re mad because my girlfriend likes The Republic and you cannot get your wife to even read it because she’s the one who wears the pants faggot

>>11039834
Rand didn't want a society ruled by the workers. She wanted feudalism. Didn't you read Atlas Shrugged?

>>11051960
>Infinite Resources

>>11055706
>Stirner also called the ego a spook which effectively makes him a nihilist
lol, I don't think you know what a spook is

>>11051048
The people that Rand wrote about are definitely not labourers

>>11055706
>she valued rationality whereas Nietzsche and Striner scoffed at it
Stirner is rational almost to a fault, ha basically doesn't assert that much at all.
>Spook further developed as anti-concept
These ideas don't seem very similar at all. Something being a spook is in no way a value judgement

>>11055878
>implying value = resources
>implying finite universe

>>11054799
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5YWTFW5WMw
>Taking this video seriously
>Cracked

>>11055706
>Nietzsche argued master morality
Stopped reading here.
Honestly all I need to know about Ayn Rand ive learned from her fans and the lies that they spew

>people defending this two-bit hack ITT
the only reason anyone gave a shit about what this literal retard said is that she was ready to lick boots right when they needed a Russian

>>11042912
>The fundamental assumptions of everything Marx stated have turned out to be wrong

Like what?

>>11054185
Today, all countries are practicing capitalism (even Cuba and North Korea), but most of them are hardly prosperous.

>>11056118
Today all countries are in reality practicing Mixed Economy and the degrees of the corrupting influence of statism and kleptocracy are what determines their various current states.
Every place in the world practices some aspect of Capitialism because they have no choice, if they don't want to be economically irrelevant reality forces them to practice it. It is then only the degree of their cultural corruption/cowadice/ineptitude that causes them to subvert it with a parasitical aspect of statism.

>>11056832
you’re retarded

>>11056056
t. butthurt relativist
Apparently you think admiring American's cultural and philosophic tenents as the engine of their productive excellence constitutes "bootlicking"
Stay mad.

>>11056882
*America's

>>11056835
(You)

Maybe because Marx actually knew his philosophy and economics and Rand was a meme philosopher who wrote shitty novels only an edgy teenager could stand.

>>11041762
>what is the commie manifesto

>>11056904
>for teenagers
>is cult
>not a philosopher
Keep yapping on about this talking point, it'll work eventually right?
Why don't you go watch John Oliver's video again and make yourself feel better?

>>11050639
Truth

>>11045759
Mercantipism died after the VOC introduced FIAT.

>>11050235
Rand is dismissed because she wrote a 2000 page self insert jerk off session where she got to cuck Eddie til he killed himself and fucked every Chad in the book.

>>11058428
>cuck Eddie til he killed himself
Source: your ass. Willers was neither in love with Dagny at any point nor was his fate left explicit. Presumably he simply went to Galt's Gulch or maybe he perished in the coming anarchy.

>>11056832
>Economics isn't really about relationships between global economies or allocations of resources and labor. You just do "real capitalism" to earn good boy points until the invisible hand gives you tendies.
Imagine actually believing this utopian garbage.

>>11056882
>American's cultural and philosophic tenents as the engine of their productive excellence
>Countries are moral actors with real beliefs and codes of honor
>Anime pic
Jesus fucking christ

>>11059062
>invisible hand gives you tendies.
Fuck off with the pepespeak

Objectivism has to be the single most self-defeating thought system in the realm of things that were ever thought of. Socrates would have absolutely defiled this hawkish love-obsessed maniac. She can't even reason out the things that are important to her: most conservatives would call on faith, tradition, and duty as core values but her philosophical stance boils down to justifying basic, peerless immorality. 0/10 philosopher and her books weren't even interesting to boot.

>>11059083
>A-america just got rich by chance bro!
>Countries are moral actors with real beliefs and codes of honor
>*Individuals that make up countries -can- be moral actors that opperate by common beliefs and codes of honor and set the trends of q countries
FTFY
America is the only country in the world that was founded on an idea besides so of course this seems a like non sequitur to apply to countries in general.

>>11059894
>She can't even reason out the things that are important to her: most conservatives would call on faith
>"That is not faith, that is a conviction. [...] I have no faith at all; I only hold convictions"
Why is it so easy to demolish horseshit said about Rand and Objectivism immediately?. It's almost as if no one reads her or Peikoff's nonfiction and has just seen her fallaciously summed up elsewhere.

>>11059926
The United States of America got rich by supplying both sides in the second wolrd war.
Literally the jew of nations.

>>11059926
>America is the only country in the world that was founded on an idea
Randfags covering themselves in glory yet again

>>11059953
you did not rebut them, you ignored what they said and then posted one of her insane personal definitions of her sociopathic behavior and outlook. you’re a sociopath and don’t have respect for other people so you cannot talk with them honestly. socrates would annihilate Sam Harris, would annihilate Rand, metzinger and all the other sophistic retards without blinking, all of it relies on pretending to know things you absolutely could not know and getting to the root of one’s presuppositions about the Real. She does not do this and is not concerned with this because she intends to prove something without deriving it from reason

>>11059953
What ostensibly separates faith from conviction? You must bevel your convictions within a framework of ulterior faith, and all related considerations happen thereafter when your faith is challenged or supported. I read both the fountain head and atlas shrugged when I was younger and as far as I can tell it's self-absorbed frippery and nothing else. Way to congratulate yourself though, i'm sure Rand would have patted you on the back for your lack of self awareness; the whole of your manumitted fear palpable within you. Think critically about it rather than just taking statements for granted and you'll find Rand is inconsistent at her best, and that most 'objectivists' today are only interested in her lit for the fetishistic aspects of self-sufficiency and want, and that's why nobody has added onto or addressed the shortcomings of her philosophy since, (unless you consider Tara Smith an earth-shattering thinker).

>>11060056
>muh war profiteering
WEW LAD.

>>11060056
>dumbass euros start another war and America steps in to end the fit of autistic children
>blames America for it everytime
>also mad at America for being so industry savvy
America makes foreign fuckups all the time but WW2 wasn't one of them. Also, Japan should be happy MacArthur shoved civilization down their throats when he wrote their constitution.

>>11060340
>>muh
I just statet a fact that contradicts what the other anon wrote. No need to get salty.

>>11060379
Who're you arguing with?

>>11041762
>philosophers have interpreted the world, now it's time to change it
what did Marx mean by that?

>>11059926
>America is the only country in the world that was founded on an idea

>>11041937
Universities

>>11060133
Explain why you think her and her system is "sociopathic" or this can and will be dismissed as a baseless smear. Ten bucks says all you will be able to come up with is that you don't LIKE her identification of selfishness as a virtue.
>Socrates would annihilate Rand
K. How? Posit this alleged argumentation yourself instead of just imagining it exists in your head.
>She does not do this and is not concerned with this because she intends to prove something without deriving it from reason
Deriving things from reason is her only criterion for the true you lying shit. It's her entire epistemology. Tell me honestly: how much of her have you actually read?
>Atlas and Fountainhead
Oh. That explains a lot. So none of her nonfiction
>and that's why nobody has added onto it
Who are Leonard Peikoff, Harry Binswagner, Onkar Ghate

>>11058857
Didn't his train break down in the middle of the desert and he refused the only ride out he was likely to get because 'hurr durr i owe loyalty to this magnificent engine design and so its more valuable than my life even tho that's in direct contradiction with the value system my character is supposedly subscribed to'?

Pretty sure he died bud.

>>11060541
He very well might have. But Ayn Rand deliberately leaves Eddie's fate unresolved. His friends may rescue him and take him to the valley, where he deserves to be, but it's also possible that Dagny and Francisco will be unable to find him in the desert and he'll die. Eddie's dependence on the strikers is a final example of the relationship between the common man and the creative geniuses. When the great minds are free to act upon their thoughts, they create abundance and the common man flourishes. However, when geniuses are enslaved, they're unable to generate prosperity, and the common man suffers as a result. Eddie Willers — the moral best of every man — understands this truth. His moral status lies in his veneration of the mind.

>>11060143
Ostensibily? Conceptual integration.
"Faith” designates blind acceptance of a certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof.
Convinction does not necessarily mean truth of what of one is convinced, but it does mean a method of cognintion where the criteria one bases one beleifs on are either hard-verifiable or warranted without contradiction to what one has hard-verified.

>>11047792
This phenomenon is known as the "kosher sandwich."

A jew pretending to be white takes position on left side, another jew pretending to be white takes a position on the right side, then they argue for positions that are both good for jews. This is essentially all the news is these days, and one of the many reasons why these jews have to be purged.

>>11060745
Always looks to the jews others jews hate for the truth.

>>11062025
Bad strategy, and looking to any jew for the truth is a mistake, since jewish culture has a flimsy to nonexistent relationship with it. Bobby Fischer jews who spill the beans are rare, and even right-seeming jews like Gilad Atzmon will only go so far.

>>11050235
>tfw Socrates debunked "rational self-interest" 2500 years ago but retards still peddle it

>>11059926
>America getting rich had nothing to do with its natural resources and being the only industrial country un-ravaged from World War 2.

>>11039834
I don't know why liberals don't like Ayn Rand since she's basically as close as you can get to a transexual intellectual, and in the 50's no less. Shame that when you take away the femininity and beauty of a women and replace it with a shallow facade of intellectual masculinity all you get is an ugly ass jewess screaming about her right to be a dick.

>>11062058
>Ayn Rand
>jewish culture

>>11062144
>The pursuit of money is not Juden culture

>>11060379
MacArthur is a fascist and American elites built up the Nazis and Soviets to restructure Europe you stupid fucking slave

>>11060533
Read Book 1 and 2 of the Republic sperg
>how is it sociopathic
it encourages opportunism and socializing negative externalities
>deriving things from reason
is sophistry, she does not properly maintain sight of her own presuppositions, that humans can be rational actors and that it is one’s Self that is primary, there’s no evidence for either of these at all and they’re absolutely not self-evident to most people or utilitarian collectivism and systems that explicitly state humand are irrational retards would not prevail throughout history. She’s a con artist and you’re a feeb halfwit for falling victim to YT scholar tier philosophy you fucking pleb
>i don’t like it
I’ve read GM without wincing even once, she’s a weakling, ugly, weak souls, extremely unsteady reason, unbelievable lack of artfulness or wit, incredibly parasitical. No, its nothing to do with that kind of nebbish quibbling about selfishness, she’s reprehensible and encourahes systematic stupidity in maleficent, indeed self-interested, and totally psychotic oligarchs who overwhelmingly fund institutes that cater to their vested interests.

Lets say i grant one part of your retarded teleology and epistemology, all reason is driven by self interest thus reason is of self interest and so the most honest and consistent reason is consciously aware of this and structured around it; nature is an irrational disintegrating hellscape; we are Nature; there is no reason not to assume that just because all reason is from self interest, and the “best” reason, whatever that’s worth, is oriented towards thie “self evident” (its not at all; or everyone would know it) that it actually WORKS and is also what all of the technological advancement on earth was from and is what science is about and that this is tied to free market capitalist growth AND that this can overcome entropy and hard limits on cognitive capacity and computing. Remember, i am granting your idiot axioms to show you, you should not even want them to hold.

You stupid subhuman

>>11062085
Socrates didn't debunk anything.

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

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

Also, utilitarian collectivist are retards.

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

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

Your premises and understanding on Ayn Rand are all wrong.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law

>>11060643
>When the great minds are free to act upon their thoughts, they create abundance and the common man flourishes
Topkek. If you sense a contradiction, check your premises Randroid

>>11039834
Can someone make a Summa of this thread pls?

>>11062613
>dumb americans read shitty novels and even worse non fiction by shitty writer
>because they've read nothing else they think shitty writer is good
>come on /lit/ to spam shitty writer and get rekt by anyone who's read two books

>>11062630
>read hundreds of books
>unable to correct understand a bad author and continues to misinterpret her

>>11062781
Tell me about Ayn Rand, friend.

>>11062784
A=A
Rand was very bad at writing novels.
People who like good novels don't like her novels, because her novels are bad. It's in the rational self interest of those who like good novels to avoid Ayn Rand. If you sense a contradiction, check your premises.

>>11062794
>"rational self interest"
>wow how did she come up with such a revolutionary concept
poor aristotle

>>11062794
Well... It's in my rational self interest to avoid all of her works?

>>11062808
As you would the devil

>>11062808
I love how the advice is to never read her instead of point by point argumentatively destroy her. Which is why the miniscule amount of attempts are fallacy ridden misinterpretations of her works.

>>11063227
>point by point argumentatively destroy her.
Her prose is workmanlike and uninspired. Big problem when the novel is 1200 pages long
Her characters are thinly drawn. Rarely do they act like people would, instead they act they way Rand thinks her hypothetical 'great minds' would act. They don't talk like people, they just spout political rhetoric at each other. Her characters get into arguments that are so one sided they are like the 'I am silly' MS Paint cartoon.
She has no idea how to structure a novel. AS makes all its points in the first 200 pages, then inexplicably continues for another thousand.
Her heroes are so perfect, and her antagonists so incompetent there is never any narrative tension. Even comic books know the villains need to be the equals of the heroes.
It's possible to combine politics with a good novel, great talents like Dickens, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky even Orwell have managed it because they are great writers. Rand is a mediocrity who fails at it.
As a novelist she isn't even second rate, as second rate novelists usually have a gripping plot to make up for the bad prose and weak characters. Rand doesn't even manage that. It's worse than shit, it's boring. Life is too short to read her when there are so many good books out there

>>11041762
you know what is a manifesto, right?

>>11062358
Good post

>>11041926
You pic is one of the most retarded ive seen in years

>>11064262
Metaphysics is the standard by which one assesses their ethics and then politics as true and corresponding to reality, it's opperants, and the 'meta' involved with best dealing with it.
>"The branch of philosophy that studies existence is metaphysics. Metaphysics identifies the nature of the universe as a whole. It tells men what kind of world they live in, and whether there is a supernatural dimension beyond it. It tells men whether they live in a world of solid entities, natural laws, absolute facts, or in a world of illusory fragments, unpredictable miracles, and ceaseless flux. It tells men whether the things they perceive by their senses and mind form a comprehensible reality, with which they can deal, or some kind of unreal appearance, which leaves them staring and helpless".
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/metaphysical_value-judgments.html

>>11041762
he literally said he didn't want to be called a philosopher for exactly this reason

>>11041579
Using false histography is worse than using fiction as you are being openly dishonest. Marx did that all the time

>>11047503
Huerta de Soto is nominated to the nobel prize of economics year in and year out and he is the most autistic anacap in the world

>>11062358
>Fucking lol
Ok illiterate nigger, why did you ask me then?
>You've misunderstood that humans *can* be rational and ended up arguing that because humanity is full of people that are not rational, rationality is impossible
No the idea is that no one is rational and that rational is just language games, like soul or god or moral or demand/supply, it doesn't exist and is just barking that makes people feel good and sells products. It has no validity. You're bewitched by propaganda terms
>The fact that you are making coherent sentences is self evidence proof of rationality
No its not, all it suggests is that you have a low iq and are not capable of seeing that nearly all non-mathematical communication is idotic nigger behavior, literally dogs sniffing assholes. I have not said anything of value, you understand it, THAT DOES NOT MEAN ITS RATIONAL, just because something seems to make sense does not mean that it does, and just because something seems not to make sense does not mean its not a higher order of thought than the one we're using and even that needn't actually be rational. Rationality does not exist, its just a word for effectiveness, there is nothing else going on, and there are other methods for creating strong effects than being rational, like being totally irrational and using that to organize people, or using a method that is broken and based on retarded logic (like Ptolemaic astronomy) which still yields good results.
>Ayn Rand uses the Aristotelian law of non-contradiction as a self evident proof of the capacity for rationality
Aristotle is a retard and so are you for thinking that simply stating "the law of non-contradiction means that im right" and that Aristotle isn't playing languge games. He's notorious for begging the question and not actually being as rigorous with his own presuppositions as he is with his opponents you massive fucking pseud half-wit.
>Also, utilitarian collectivist are retards.
Evidently they are successful retards since they absolutely dominate other systems
>By what standard do you consider nature irrational?
It has no mind and is ruled by entropic forces and creates excess near constantly, and seems to be incomplete
> Are you to say that because you have not understood the causal effect of nature that is it irrational?
There is no such thing at all pseud
>Ayn Rand argues that nature is not a flux where a tree becomes a bird
She doesn't understand how entropy works, there is no such thing as natural laws, it was the exact same chaos that she's being incredulous about that miraculously produced birds from phytoplankton and cyanobacteria in the first place
> Everything is logical in nature
No, its not, if it was everything would have an explanation, but every single field has ten thousand illogical phenomena that cannot be explained using our logic, and it only in a general sense appears that way because everything you can think about is framed roughly along what you CALL logic

>>11051481
>There is a limited amount of value in the world at any given point
Anon you are a moron. There might be a limited value but human activity is not even the tip of the iceberg. Most of earth resources are useless for us

>>11063362
>Only tackles Altas Shrugged, and the prose of such at that.
I meant 'argumentatively destroy' the points of her philosophy itself but ok; back to this later.

>Her characters are thinly drawn. Rarely do they act like people would
A. Her expressly stated purpose was to present the concept of an ideal man and juxtapose this with men who are the product of civilization in collapse.
B. In romantic realism, characters are presented purposefully as archetypes. I understand why this is disliked by some but this is purely a matter of opinion. Rand's prose is sufficient; not cream of the crop, but hardly less than second rate. I even had an eye roll moment myself when I said out loud to myself "jesus Rand this James Taggart fucker is a goddamn cartoon". Later I realized however that while the machinations of the characters are lacking the kind of balance found elsewhere in literature, this is perfectly fine and in fact wholly necessary because of the dynamic the world is opperating by and that Taggart as a man was simply that pathetic. One has to be cognizant of the setting. This is an America long since being on it's last legs and is in the stages of late Babylon and Rome.
C. Quote related https://pastebin.com/nMmznuG6
>AS makes all its points in the first 200 pages, then inexplicably continues for another thousand.
The mystery of who John Galt is, the motor, and what the machinations of villians will lead the world to are hardly addressed in the first 200 pages anon.
I was particularly engaged when the story introduced Midas Muligan and the fact that Hugh Axton was working as diner chef without explaining yet WHY.
>Her heroes are so perfect, and her antagonists so incompetent there is never any narrative tension
The villians are actually supremely efficacious at one thing: manipulation of men. Narrative tension is still present from the power those villians weild. Dagny and Rearden are hardly perfect anyway Dagny doesn't grasp the underlying meta with what is going on with the world and Rearden can't even handle the bullshit his mother pulls on him competently.
A 50/50 power struggle between the heros and villians is common and blasie. How refreshing would it be for Batman to simply slap the Joker upside the head and explain to him he's just a manchild and kittle more? Authors don't do this because this makes for a short story, but every fan reading it vaguely knows that there is something the Batman elshould be telling the Joker but doesn't. Hell if I weren't an abysmal writer I'd do it.

*So the one thing one should do with Atlas when attemping to philosophically dismantle Rand is address John Galt's speech. I never see this done. Otherwise address her nonfiction. Philosophy: Who Needs It and The Virtue of Selfishness in particular.

>>11063362
>Only tackles Altas Shrugged, and the prose of such at that.
I meant 'argumentatively destroy' the points of her philosophy itself but ok; back to this *later.

>Her characters are thinly drawn. Rarely do they act like people would
A. Her expressly stated purpose was to present the concept of an ideal man and juxtapose this with men who are the product of civilization in collapse.
B. In romantic realism, characters are presented purposefully as archetypes. I understand why this is disliked by some but this is purely a matter of opinion. Rand's prose is sufficient; not cream of the crop, but hardly less than second rate. I even had an eye roll moment myself when I said out loud to myself "jesus Rand this James Taggart fucker is a goddamn cartoon". Later I realized however that while the machinations of the characters are lacking the kind of balance found elsewhere in literature, this is perfectly fine and in fact wholly necessary because of the dynamic the world is opperating by and that Taggart as a man was simply that pathetic. One has to be cognizant of the setting. This is an America long since being on it's last legs and is in the stages of late Babylon and Rome.
C. Quote related https://pastebin.com/nMmznuG6

>AS makes all its points in the first 200 pages, then inexplicably continues for another thousand.
The mystery of who John Galt is, the motor, why d'Anconia has seemily turned betrayer, and what the machinations of villians will lead the world to are hardly addressed in the first 200 pages anon.
I was particularly engaged when the story introduced Midas Muligan and the fact that Hugh Axton was working as diner chef without explaining yet WHY.
>Her heroes are so perfect, and her antagonists so incompetent there is never any narrative tension
The villians are actually supremely efficacious at one thing: manipulation of men. Narrative tension is still present from the power those villians weild. Dagny and Rearden are hardly perfect anyway Dagny doesn't grasp the underlying meta with what is going on with the world and Rearden can't even handle the bullshit his mother pulls on him competently.
A 50/50 power struggle between the heros and villians is common and blasie. How refreshing would it be for Batman to simply slap the Joker upside the head and explain to him he's just a manchild and kittle more? Authors don't do this because this makes for a short story, but every fan reading it vaguely knows that there is something the Batman elshould be telling the Joker but doesn't. Hell if I weren't an abysmal writer I'd do it.

*So the one thing one should do with Atlas when attemping to philosophically dismantle Rand is address John Galt's speech. I never see this done. Otherwise address her nonfiction. Philosophy: Who Needs It and The Virtue of Selfishness in particular.

>>11039834
>Recognizes human selfishness
So far so good
>Makes moral judgements
Well there's your problem right there

Rand doesn't want a stateless society ruled by the workers, she wants a stateless society ruled by the people who make industry possible, who she claims through her novels are always the workers.

In Rand's view, we should all willingly surrender our self determination and wealth in honor if we can't make industry possible through our own conception.

She doesn't want society ruled by the workers or wealth to be distributed mainly to the workers. Her view actually centers human activity on labor, and she is concerned mainly with the creation of conditions which produce more wealth.

Marx, by contrast, wants wealth distributed to the workers because they are the ones that create even if they don't design. He puts more value on the time and effort.

His social conception also doesn't center labor. Marx thinks once we organize labor it will free up time for things other than the creation of new kinds of wealth.

>>11039834
I like Rand.

Scratch that. I love/hate Rand. Her writing style can be hard to stomach, and the 40 page rant at the end of Atlas is abominable, but most of her ideas are spot on, and she is a virtual prophetess.

>>11040602
>she was just wrong

Are you blind or did you just not read Atlas Shrugged? She was right about basically everything. If she were alive today I think she would be surprised just how right she was.

>>11064332
is...ought...

Rand is an apologia for greey selfish behavior
People who aren't retarded see that humans are selfish and instead of fucking indulging it like some sort of autist they realize maybe they should try and overcome the natural state of man and transcend into a being of compassion.
Also she's a hack who couldn't even interpret Kant correctly. She also claimed her only influence was Aristotle but that is a fucking lie cause you can't not be influenced by the thinkers that helped make the society you come from.
Americans got hype on her cause she was just like let's make the inverse of communism during the cold war/red scare.
She's a fucking meme for edgy libertarian 16 year olds who think they have found "the truth" when in reality objectivism is so fucking subjective by nature.
Skip her and read Stirner if you're really trying to get into egoism.
If you wanna be woke just skip Egoism in general and get into other, more fulfilling things.

>>11039834
>wanted a stateless society
Rand hated anarchists.

>>11064851
I can understand not particularly liking her prose but John Galt's Speech is my favorite part of the book. Pehaps it's better taken stand-alone, but then people miss out on the context of the world's coming collapse.

>>11064674
Nigga if you think Rand is a proper novelist on the same level as joyce or Tolstoy them present your case and /lit/ will year you an asshole.
If you think she's a proper philosopher then show it. And quoting aristotle isn't good enough. Western philosophy moved on from home hundreds of years ago. How does she know what the self is, or what is really? Or what is the good?

>>11065293
>Same level as joyce or tolstoy
>Rand's prose is sufficient; not cream of the crop, but hardly less than second rate.
I obviously don't think that nor ever implied it.

>>11065293
And I made my case btw >>11047998 >>11041990

"A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws."

Woah man Ayn Rand totally wanted a stateless society!!!

>>11065291
Galt’s speech is great imo because it acts as the greatest middle finger in fiction. I also feel the length is appropriate since it’s the final speech before the end of the world. If it was a one page speech, it wouldn’t be as grandiose or remembered. I believe that because her villains felt like caricature, people couldn’t believe that the sort of collectivist people were real. It when you realize that these people do exist that the speech makes perfect sense.

>>11065093
Lol no she isn’t. She shits on people randomly becoming greedy by stepping over others for power are selfless idiots that do not have an ego. They only want power so that others can like them which is ultimately selfless.

Rand really came off as a bitch in her interviews, The Daily Show did a segment on he for some reason and showed a clip of her just being a cunt. That's probably why everyone hates her but Atlas Shrugged was really good even though I never finished it, I could really appreciate what she was going for.

>>11064420
>just because something seems to make sense doesn’t mean it does
Fucking lol do you even listen to yourself? If there are no contradictions then it is rational. But since everything is language game I guess you cannot be reasoned or argued. Nor can I ever understand you it seems.

Scholars love her, but not academics... She's very well-received if you look in the right places... Marx also invented a way of thinking, but was proven wrong, which is why he is beloved by scholars too because of the influence of his thought. Plato, Pascal, and Einstein were proven wrong as well, doesn't make them any less significant

>>11066291
>I judge people based on the Daily Show
Hahahaha

>>11065291
It is terrible literary technique. At that point, Galt is just a megaphone for Rand to scream through.

>>11065293
>Western philosophy has moved on he says
>proceeds to engage in Platonic rhetoric

Come on, kiddo. Are you even trying?

if i download this audiobook what will i be in for?

>>11066589
who villainous parasite here?

>>11066571
Isn't that all her novels though?

>>11065293
>How does she know what the self is
By properly defining it.

Ayn Rand on the self:
>A man’s self is his mind—the faculty that perceives reality, forms judgments, chooses values.

>what is really?
I have no clue 'what is really' so I'll assume you mean 'what is reality?'

Ayn Rand on reality:
>Reality is that which exists; the unreal does not exist; the unreal is merely that negation of existence which is the content of a human consciousness when it attempts to abandon reason.

>Or what is the good?

Ayn Rand on the good:
>The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or “concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of “value” from “purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man’s actions from reason.


Instead of asking how she knows X, why don't you find out what she said on X and finding a contradiction?

>>11066597
Parasitism is the ultimate in self interest.

>>11040689
Yeah, the amount of people who don't get this is ridiculous.

>>11067221
Alot of objectivists don't get that either so you can't blame those not indoctrinated in Ayntology to get it as well.

>>11056109
The labor theory of value...?

>>11067120
>How does she know
Sorry, no closer to an answer I see. He didn't ask what her positions were, he probably already knew them, and asked how she came to know they were correct.
I'll give you an easier one. Show me how she is an influential thinker. I could explain how Wittgenstein, Arendt or Foucault are influential 20th century philosophers, who moved philosophy forward and influenced generations after them. Can you do the same for Rand? You won't be able to, because no other serious thinker has ever considered her worth anything. She only taken seriously by babbies who've not read anything else.

>>11067255
thats not entirely untrue though, if you look at things that cost the most its because they cant be automated, healthcare costs are ridiculous because it requires the labor of a guy with an md, colleges costs go sky high because it requires the labor of a guy with a phd, a pair of jeans from walmart cost 15 bucks cuz its made in a sweatshop on big ass machines that dont require educated labor to operate. the labor theory of value doesnt explain "price" necessarily, but its absolutely true labor creates all "value"

>>11064332
>It tells men whether they live in a world of solid entities, natural laws, absolute facts, or in a world of illusory fragments, unpredictable miracles, and ceaseless flux.
This is not how Aristotle defined Metaphysics.

It seems a lot of people just take metaphysics to mean 'reality is what it is hurr'. Metaphysics is really just a way to categorize, and look at, existential teleology. i.e. it is a way to perceive from where we came and why at the same time, and identify the why and where of our actions as well.

It is very close to physics, and also ethics at the same time, this much is true. But the entire study of metaphysics never implies that your thoughts impact reality. It implies your actions do. And this is the distinction. As a matter of fact, Aristotle understands thought to function on three different sources: from artistic understanding, from natural/scientific understanding, or just automatic thought patterns in themselves. When you set to understand, you see things naturally. When you are set to perform, you see things artistically. And then in the interstices of action, you will receive automatic thoughts, from the spiritual/psychological processes of your mind.

Ayn Rand, on the other hand, probably much like Nietzsche or some other willful existentialist, views reality as being objectively defined from your mind. Which isn't metaphysics, it's just retardation. We call this stupid, blatantly dumb, idiotic, bottom of the barrel philosophy.

>>11067276
>he probably already knew them
Unlikely or else he wouldn't ask.

>asked how she came to know they were correct.
They looking at reality and defining it until it held no contradictions?
She came to know that that they were correct by looking at reality, defining the terms and argued that her conclusions held no contradictions.
If you think that her terms are wrong, then show a contradiction. The fact that you have to go full mysticism about 'how can you know anything' is very telling. How can Ayn Rand 'know anything' for sure? Who can? Who am I to know? Who is John Galt? etc etc. This is literally what she rants against.

>Show me how she is an influential thinker.
What are the qualifications for being influential? Is the fact that she's well read a qualifier? Of course not, as you point out in your next sentence.

>because no other serious thinker has ever considered her worth anything.
Heh, Zizek would disagree with you on that. I find it funny that you consider being an influential thinker to be someone that is taken seriously by serious thinker.

Rather funny that you rely on other people to tell you whether someone is important rather than their ideas standing on their own merit. You weirdly need a stamp of approval by an authority to deem something 'serious'.

>>11067290
>the labor theory of value is why wages are so expensive for healthcare industry
I don't even feel like going through a conversation with you.

I mean, I'll discuss metaphysics or something, but you don't have enough information on how economics works, that's something you have to kind of read about.

>>11067098
I've only read Atlas. While there is an element of it throughout the novel it is bearable up until that moment, in lieu of how relevant her insights have proven to be, but I just barely managed to trudge my way through John Galt's rant.

>>11067120
She should have read Kierkegaard's "The Sickness Unto Death." His definition was more comprehensive (and has proven more modern, in spite of it's Platonic and Christian roots).

>>11067396
That doesn't disprove what she said as wrong or having any contradiction.

>>11067404
No, it doesn't, but you don't seem to realize why or that it renders her definition absolutely irrelevant.

>>11067420
>you don't seem to realize why or that it renders her definition absolutely irrelevant.
You don't seem properly argue how someone else giving a definition of something makes another person's definition irrelevant.

>>11067404
Also, for a person who "credits no philosopher save Aristotle," she certainly seems to think in Cartesian dualities, Platonic hierarchies, and Kantian views of cognition.

Don't get me wrong, I like Rand, but she isn't above criticism (God knows her literary technique isn't).

very bad thread
shame on all of you
and me

>>11067420
Also, being irrelevant doesn't make it wrong.

>>11067428
That's because, my friend, I wasn't presenting an argument. I don't intend to. Kierkegaard presented it. Read it and give some thought if you wish to climb a step higher. I don't care either way.

>>11067437
If you don't care then kindly fuck off.

>>11067435
For the second time, I never said it was wrong. If it is irrelevant what does it matter if it's wrong? Relevance is the first measure of merit.

>>11067441
Merit is inconsequential to the argument, again, fuck off.

>>11067439
No u.

>>11067445
No it isn't, brainlet. You need to study more philosophy and logic, and do a lot less fanboying.

Let me ask you this: if you come into a conversation and make a completely irrelevant statement, will anyone care whether or not it is true?

No. They won't.

In this case, the conversation is philosophy - the subconversation being the self. Rand entered this conversation, which has been going on for millennia, and made a completely irrelevant statement. This is why no one cares what she has to say on the subject.

Get it now, fanboy?

>>11067457
>if you come into a conversation and make a completely irrelevant statement, will anyone care whether or not it is true?
Yes moron. Whether it's true or not depends on whether there's a contradiction. Whether anyone cares is up to each person if they think there is validity in what is being said. Being relevant depends on how it reflects reality.

Anyone can say anything and whether it's true depends on how accurate it is to reality. Just because this conversation has been going on for a millennia doesn't mean that Ayn Rand is precluded from it simply because you say she should be. Hell, this 'argument' isn't even about the history of philosophy other than your annoying butting in about Kierkegaard.

All you've said is that it is irrelevant simply because someone else said something which is just as irrelevant. Are her views correct or not? The argument being made was 'how does Ayn Rand know that what she said was right' to which the answer said was 'she arrived at a conclusion by examining reality and giving her own definition that holds no contradiction'. Is her definition right or wrong about existence, about reality, about the self, about the good.

For example, your comments on Kierkegaard is irrelevant beyond the fact that he said something about something. It has no relevance on whether Ayn Rand is right or wrong. This is why instead of providing a contradiction about her definition, you chose to just ignore it and label it as irrelevant.

You have nothing to say, so fuck off.

>>11067473
Good grief kid. There are so many holes in your reasoning and you don't even see it. All I can say is this - start with the Greeks and don't stop until you at least get through Kant's critiques. Then pick up the Kierkegaard I've mentioned. Hopefully, by then you'll have grown up a bit.

Also, just so you know, saying "fuck off" has literally no effect on basically anyone over the age of twelve - it just reveals your own emotional state which is never a good idea during warfare of any kind (and before you say, "This isn't warfare, it's a conversation," I'll say, "Read 'Metaphors We Live By,' by George Lakoff).

>>11067486
>There are so many holes in your reasoning and you don't even see it.
Ha, nothing to say, huh?

>>11067489
I said what I had to say. If you're wise, you'll listen. If not, you've peaked already. Night.

>>11067492
w/e fuck off.

>>11066279
>It when you realize that these people do exist that the speech makes perfect sense
>believing a strawman is real

Bump

>>11068498
>diagnostic argument
>a strawman

>>11065093
>see that humans are selfish and instead of fucking indulging it like some sort of autist they realize maybe they should try and overcome the natural state of man and transcend into a being of compassion.
The biggest fallacy people opperate by. Rand proved why this is wrong in the Virtue of Selfishness.
Quote
>The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind. In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment. Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.
>This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.
That's just the opening of the book.
>you can't not be influenced by the thinkers that helped make the society you come from
What does influenced in this context mean? Rand was saying that Aristotle, purposefully isolated by her, was the only philosopher worth starting from scratch on. Aristotle was the only philosopher that inflenced the formation of her phiosophic system *as a component of it*. That is what she meant.
Furthermore for someone who knows what they are doing, isolation of concepts and integration into their mind is completely under their control. Rand made a crucial discovery in this, the discovery of psycho-epistemology, and of its roots, forms, and errors. Without such knowledge, men would be left at the mercy of unidentified mental habits that they hardly even suspected. Habits that perhaps derived unknowingly from childhood errors that they long since had consciously renounced. Psycho-epistemology represents a whole science, a new branch of psychology.
Most people know nothing about psycho-epistemology. They take their habitual method of thought for granted, leaving it unidentified and unquestioned. Yet this kind of ignorance can be disastrous. Men can automatize wrong methods of thought without even knowing it. In order to achieve intellectual control, therefore, in order to enjoy the full power over your mind that volition makes possible, you must identify your psycho-epistemological methods, and correct those, if any, which are not consonant with your adult knowledge.

>>11069701
do you legit believe people wanting more statal control over finance, banking and corporation are like the one described in brainlet shrugged?
meanwhile the plunderer dodging billion of taxes thanks to legals loopholes and hiding it in tax havens are enlightened gods?

>>11070008
>Who are Bernie Sanders, George Soros and the rest of the people who employ leninist/alinskyite tactics in modern academia, government, and the media
>not 1:1 as they are portrayed in Atlas
Only thing bad about Atlas is that it didn't have a villian/group of villians to match Ellsworth Toohey from The Fountainhead
>meanwhile the plunderer dodging billion of taxes thanks to legals loopholes and hiding it in tax havens are enlightened gods?
>all bussinessmen opperate fom the same premises
That being said I don't strictly take issue with a bussinessman who is utterly moral in his practices but otherwise dodges as much tax as he can legally manage. No one deserves a cent of his money but him. That fact that legal loopholes are the even possible in the first place means something nonobjective is going on that allows the phenomenon. Statists tend to breed nonobjectivity where ever they place they pathetic hands.

>>11066571
I don't take issue with that. Megaphone away; I like what I'm hearing.

>>11039834
Only an alt-centrist could right something as simplistic and shallow as this.

>>11070235
I had always vaguely suspected that centrism essentially amounted to a giant middle-ground fallacy but Rand did me the massive favor of further indentifying that both centrism and extremism are *anticoncepts* of the same order.

not op btw

>>11070198
you don't understand how the social contract works nor do you understand that capitalism literally cannot exist without the State or workers will continuously purge and raid merchants and a warrior-reaver class will overtake the mercantile elite, you a-historic, autistic, midwit

there has never been, there cannot be and there never will be an ancap paradise. Land is wrong, you are wrong, all the lolberts are wrong, rand is wrong. We will see bigger states coupled with Sov-corps acting as ministates, not smallers states. Yes more black markets will pop up, yes more tax evasion and crypto, there will be a reaction to that which will be even stronger security systems, tax collection mechanisms and state monitoring of business. You do not understand dialectics, because you are a fucking pseud

>>11070273
For. The. Last. Fucking. Time. Rand. Is. Not. AnCap. >>11041926 http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html
AnCaps liking to quote Rand without being cognizant of the context and deeper premises she opperates fom=/=her being AnCap herself.
Goddamn it triggered.

>>11070198
>No one deserves a cent of his money but him.
what you retards dont understand is that the only reason the businessman can make money is because he rely on a preexisting infrastructure.
he employ skilled workers educated by the state
he use a logistic infrastructure like railroads, roads, etc. paid and maintened by the state
he sell to consumers paid by the state or enjoying welfare freeing up resources they use on extra goods
he enjoy a legal frameworks both protecting his properties (physical and intellectual) and his transactions
for all this services the state should(and do) charge a fee. that fee is taxes
if only you dumb faggots studied economy you would no longer be lolbertarian

> That fact that legal loopholes are the even possible in the first place means something nonobjective is going on that allows the phenomenon. Statists tend to breed nonobjectivity where ever they place they pathetic hands.
the politic class is influenced by the same corporations dodging taxes you retard

>>11070341
Which is why I want these things slowly fazed out away from the state. Private everything, Laissez Faire. Modular, context sensitive, noncoercive, optional taxation. The size of the state is determined by what it's taxes and donations can buy and no further. Audit the Fed ect ect.
And the state doesn't maintain or create any of these things besides. It expropriates the productive activity of bussinessmen. The state is not directly responsible for a single one of these things.

>>11067396
>it has Platonic roots
Into the trash.jpg

>>11070461
why do you think that the nation state emerged through history? maybe because is the most efficent way to organize resources and people? maybe because every time a state managed to increase his efficency in taxes collection it absolutely outcompeted every close rivals?

>And the state doesn't maintain or create any of these things besides. It expropriates the productive activity of bussinessmen. The state is not directly responsible for a single one of these things.
>t. said this bullshit using the greatest invention after the fire and the wheel developed by the goverment using devices invented by government
seriously educate yourself about history and economy, you're embarassing yourself

>>11067120
This. I found Ayn Rand's identification of the Intrinsic/Subjective/Objective theory of values trichotomy to be very stimulating.

>>11070534
What I am arguing is not a rejection of the nation state, what I am arguing is an alternate manner of assessing and organizing said nation state.
That the assumption that how it has been historically organized is the only way TO organize it is a fallacy Rand was the first to fundamentally identify and subsequently blast wide open.
Laissez goddamn Faire. The tactics people use to smear Rand's conception of minarchist objectivsm consist of mischaracterizing it as subjectivist lolbertarianism and/or Anarcho-Capitalism.
>government
>having ever invented anything
>thinking the internet as a whole is an 'invention'
No dumbass the inception of the internet arose as a *consequence* of networks and interrelated data manangement concerns. Post this on /g/ and watch them eviscerate you.
Government can only get involved with said concerns after the fact. The impetus for said action has and only ever can be on the part of individual inventors. Inventions that collectively gave birth to the internet.

>>11039834
>Great Man Theory
Literally a child's conception of reality desu

i don't get why everyone shits on her prose. i like it.

>>11070881
I have an inkling. Much of past literature consists of lightly romanticizing the delusional, the relative, and the fantastical. Rand spits in the face of this by her criticism of the "anti-conceptual mentality", her romantic realism, and objective literalism.
People sense that in one way or another she is ruining their fun, so to speak. Rand's prose is asserted by them to be simplistic and too to-the-point. Which isn't stictly incorrect of them to say.

>>11070939
dude rand was seriously a dumb lessy cunt who no one liked. She was like meg from family guy, if im sllowed to say this indtead of alluding to it in some way. She even wore a hat like meg’s, which is the hat tons of cunts wore all over the country for the #metoo movement, which, whether you’re involved in it ironically or not, still makes you a live-strong cow. Ayn rand was a cunt, a dirty old whore who ised her autism to suck her student’s dicks and cuck her female students, all while pretending she had something useful to say.

>>11067303
Hey anon, tell me. What did you think of my post here >>11047998 ?

>>11070881
Her prose is sloppy in its construction; her imagery is narcissistic in its implications, repetitive in its usage, and pretentious in its correlations; she wrote an 1100 page novel which could have (and should have been) half that length, and she didn't have the literary skill to write her message without writing it as open propaganda.

I like Rand just fine, but she is not a top-tier writer.

>>11070229
For someone arguing in favor of an objectivist, you seem ironically ignorant of the objective evaluation of literary skill.

You comment amounts to: If it's to my tastes, say what you want how you want to.

That isn't an objective way to look at art of any kind; in fact, it has the highest measure of subjective valuation.

>>11070235
>>11070260
You're so deeply mired in dualist political rhetoric your brains have gone to mush.

>leave the internet for five days
>this garbage thread is still up

>>11070498
>brainlet.post
Almost all of Western philosophy has Platonic roots. Just to illuminate what a dipstick you are, Kierkegaard's argument can be looked at as both akin to and antithetical to Socrates' position in the Phaedo - both identifying with Socrates and the two Pythagorean students who are his opposition and whose views are akin to modern scientific perspectives.

~"Do you see a scoffer? He will not go to the wise."

>>11067120
>The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.)
*tips fedora*
*unsheates cigarette*

>>11071199
Yet you came back.

>>11071188
Protip: John Galt's Speech would not have the intended effect if it wasn't jarring. It needed to be by necessity. The lengthy type of speech that in all other instances would have been ignored and blanked out by the people in-universe. It is because Galt hijacked Thompson's previously hyped up radio broadcast signal that the speech was even feasible to make im the first place.
That's my objective assessmemt for how it was presented.

>>11071220
Great arguement. This quote is part of a larger one detailing Rand's identification of the Intrinsic/Subjective/Objective theory of values trichotomy.

>>11071199
Then fuck off back to r/philosophy where they ban Rand discussion on sight

>>11071228
It is an essay at the end of a novel. Rand's equivalent of the presidential address she would never give. There's nothing professional or redeeming about your comment.

>>11071249
>It is an essay at the end of a novel. Rand's equivalent of the presidential address she would never give
And? In universe Galt felt it necessary to backhand the world by presenting said essay to them. Specifically in a situation where they thought they were getting something else.
>There's nothing professional or redeeming about your comment.
Except it make perfect sense and you know it.

>>11071194
t. radical centrist. Communism and Rand have fuck all to do with each other.

>>11071049
That's not me idiot.

>>11071325
W-wut? I replied to your post then pointed to one of my posts.
...wut

>>11064886
Ayn Rand solved is/ought.

>>11071337
I'm not >>11047998

>>11071347
If I remember correctly, she said that what something is means that we ought to do it. Is that correct?

>>11071262
>And?
And it is the sign of weak writer to have to resort to such tactics. It essentially signals that Rand did not have the talent to present Galt's points without placing them in essay format (nevermind that most of it was redundant). If you have an essay to write, write it. You don't cram it at the end your novel like a synoptic rant.

I'm not saying your points don't make sense - they do. They just don't stand to show Galt's rant as good literary technique.

>>11071489
You're arguing against its existence rather than what was said.

>>11071531
Yes! Exactly.

I agree with Rand on a great deal. I don't dislike her as a thinker. It is her craft in writing I take issue with, and what is lacking can potentially be attributed to English being her second language for all I know. Still, that doesn't exempt her from scrutiny.

>>11071572
Yeah but there's nothing wrong with having an essay in your novel. Plenty of authors have done it. Ayn Rand might have gone a bit overboard with its length.

>>11071350
Yeah... I AM.

>>11071620
Well I'm>>11067303
???

>>11071620
Ohhh, I misread. I thought you meant if I was the post you mentioned. Sorry. I agree with most of what you've said. While I would argue that Nietzsche equally identified the evils of Altruism, Ayn Rand was more precise and direct. The psycho-epistemology is an actual thing and it's rather amazing that she thought it up. Calling academia a joke is a bit pushing it but a lot of it is garbage that serves mostly to tell you what someone in the past thought philosophically rather than find the truth. I like your term Collectathon Philosophizing.

I find it annoying that most of the rebuttal said against Ayn Rand is a dismissal by its existence and by avoiding her rather than pointing out a contradiction in what she said.

>>11071361
Not that simple. She identified that the Hume guillotine was a fallacious thing to posit as a problem in the first place. Her solution to it was to validly dismiss it.
Hume, who raised the issue, said that no number of non-evaluative premises (is-statments) could ever yield an evaluative conclusion (ought-statement). To say that a set of premises can't entail what's not implicit in the premises is a tautology.
A more interesting question is whether evaluative statements can be, like is-statements, i.e. claims of fact that are either true or false. In more modern terminology such statements are natural statements, and the question is whether or not ought-statements can be natural.

Rand's essential bridge from ought to is is the ethical axiom of life. To be moral, being alive is the ultimate irreducible requirement. The concept of "life" is where all ethics neccessarily reduce to. Only a man who does not desire to live and intends to commit suicide cannot derive an ought.
It is impossible to deduce ought from is but it is possible to induce it. But the problem of induction was and is actually the least understood area of logic and philosophy. Which is because it is an order of magnitude more difficult and complex.

>>11071684
Ah, I see. It's basically the equivalent of saying that everything is subjective and Ayn Rand points out that that statement itself is a claim at the objective and is therefore fallacious. Since to Ayn Rand, life is an objective value from which all values derive, it becomes an objective 'is' by which 'ought' to be followed.

That makes sense.

>>11071678
Lel fucker, you confused the shit out of me.
>I like your term Collectathon Philosophizing.
Kek I just realized all I was doing was fishing for a pat on the head for it.
Thanks.
>Calling academia a joke is a bit pushing it
Popular, entrenched, mainstream, pop culture influenced academia rather. Rand identifyed academia was degrading even back then and the riots and insurrections have only gotten worse.
>I find it annoying that most of the rebuttal said against Ayn Rand is a dismissal by its existence and by avoiding her rather than pointing out a contradiction in what she said.
Are you really surprised though? Objectivsm too big of a threat. They much prefer to morph it into AnCapism or other absurdities and argue against that. Know that they are flawed and far easier to attack.

>>11071749
I'm not entirely surprised. It's funny since I use Nietzschean terms but add Ayn Rand's definitions and views and people eat it up. No one other than Objectivist suspect the truth. I think that Ayn Rand was too direct and people cannot accept that. I recall Toohey's words that you need to bullshit and then speak the truth when you've lured them in.

There's a great deal of dismissal done on Ayn Rand like saying she was for a stateless society, advocated for psychopaths, etc.

Personally, I wouldn't call myself an Objectivist since I do think that her philosophy misses some emotional segment by focusing too much on rationality to the point where it blind sides you. Just as Nietzsche calls Jesus the only Christian, I think it's better if Ayn Rand were the only Objectivist and pick and choose which element work best to you while still holding the primary axiom that your life is an objective value. I mean, she did believe that everyone has their own set of individual hierarchy of values, so not being an objectivist should be too bad.

I need to read some of her non-fiction to get a full grasp at her. Have you read everything she wrote?

>>11071785
I have. Start with "The Virtue of Selfishness", then "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology", then "Philosophy: Who Needs It".
Round that out with Leonard Peikoff's OPAR and branch out fom there if you desire. Optionally "Capitalism The Unknown Ideal", "The New Left", and "For the New Intellectual" are good too. Peikoff's other works as well.

>>11071837
I've read Virtue of Selfishness. That essay of Racism is the best. I'll check out the rest then.
I recently read Ominous Parallels by Peikoff and it made me realize that the caricature Ayn Rand wrote about were actually not as cartoonish as it seemed. It was rather baffling. Especially considering how many times people kept arguing that the ego didn't matter and you should give it up for the state or the common good.

>>11070716
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
the governments were the first ones investing in both internet and every single component forming an electronic computer.

>The impetus for said action has and only ever can be on the part of individual inventors. Inventions that collectively gave birth to the internet.
working for a public entities you stupid faggot

>>11047661
I hate Marx.