/lit/ - Literature

>>11265873
for her fiction was a just a vehicle for politics, not an ends in itself. that was her worst crime. idc if the politics are leftist or libertarian, if thats all writing is to you i dont care for it

>>11265873

>>11265873
>and while she make some good points
I want to ask you a couple of things out of genuine curiosity:
-How much philosophy have you read before?
-Are you american?
-Would you say you think you're smarter than the average person?

>>11265873
It works if you assume all people are fundamentally on the same level. The mentally ill, the addict, the elderly, the orphan, those effected by market collapse (the market is cyclical whether you are dagny taggert or not) and those disaffected by black swans like exponential automation are not on the same level as the worker and the producer, to say nothing of the INVESTOR. Not only that, but when you have a black swan, like a dirty bomb in nyc, a bad actor in an investment bank, or a bad harvest, by not producing a social safety net you introduce instability and reaction, which we are seeing right now coming from the right.

Essentially, its fine to be objectivist in your day to day life, and not make excuses for yourself and create and be greedy, but on the macro scale it leads to a degenerate predatory unstable society. Also, Ayn Rand was on social security.

>>11265873
Yes the politics drags down the book sometimes, but it is interesting in it's delivery.
>>11265903
An example of someone who can't see past politics.
>>11265885
>"out of genuine curiosity"
mmmhmm

>>11265909
explain yourself. Reaction to the same black swan in the french revolution came from the left. your argument is utterly trash 9 word sentence.

The opiate epidemic is not a political problem, its one of chemical dependency. Should an individual who has type 1 diabetes be rejected by an earner, and cannot afford medical care, should they die? Is that a just and non-predatory society? Should there be lions and lambs?

The main actors of Ayn Rand's novels are moral creatures. They pay and support their employees justly. This is the anti-communist delusion, that the private sector will help their own. It does not.

>>11265909
>"out of genuine curiosity"
yeah I was being serious

>>11265929
I agree that Ayn's politics are a reaction to the age and unreasonable, I'm saying the politics is the worst part of her novels, but the very specific way she builds the world and the characters is interesting.
>>11265936
Him being American or not or having higher intelligence are not super pertinent to the discussion.

>>11265873
>>11265873
"Ayn Rand isn't well liked because her work doesn't fit into the mold of what academia deems acceptable philosophy. This makes perfect sense when you understand that Ayn Rand's view of philosophy is different (she wasn't trying to meet the standards of academic philosophy). Rand views philosophy as an indispensable component of human life, while academics treat philosophy like more of a discipline one does simply because one can. If you were to ask an academic what the purpose of philosophy is they're likely to be confused by the question.
Often her conclusions are misrepresented (as they are in the highest voted answer in this thread by Jaime Ravenet, and by Robert Nozick's work On The Randian Argument). Even more often people treat her works of fiction as philosophical arguments and attempt to extract an argument from some character's dialogue, or they attack her personal life and don't even try to hide their ad-hominem."

>>11266523
doctors hate her!

she's yid

>>11266523
>If you were to ask an academic what the purpose of philosophy is they're likely to be confused by the question.
Das rite. Did the man who invented college go to college? Think about it

>>11266523
I can add to this.
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 r/philosophy neetfag contingent). Ayn Rand's Objectivism posited conceptual integration and the true nature of the conceptual faculty on a level no other philosopher had before. She also coined many original logical fallacies, the term/concept "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".
I have named this phenomenon "Collectathon Philosophizing".

People like to call us Objectivists cultish but honestly in their defense; what else are they to do? They are certain there is /something/ bad about capitalism, they witness Rand wax more iconoclastic than anyone in history when she called Altruism unadulterated the evil, and we even attack the terms "centrism" and " extremism" as anticoncepts and improper/fallaciois criteria by which to assess ideational beleifs.
This all results in people assuming by sheer reflex that everything Objectivism posits is the product of some undefined arrogance. They don't WANT to read Rand's nonfiction. We "Randroids" say Rand's argumentation is hard-irrefutable and this is enough to turn off alot of pseuds. The thought of such a statement being said about someone who was unapologetically capitalistic, egoistic AND anti-altruist is enough to fill people who have grown up under the influence and premises of these historic philosophies with dull fury.
Saying they're Cultural Marxist inflenced faggots is too simplistic. We need to go deeper.

What do yall think about Zach Snyder adapting The Fountainhead? Its a perfect match imo.

Rand doesn't feel honest to me and potential problems aren't addressed.

Rands hero in Fountainhead isn't shown in a teamwork situation because she seems to honestly believe that all good ideas made by men were creations of exceptional people who sat in a lonely room, thinking.
Rands hero always dismisses all suggestions by other (>muh intellectual work, I'll have it only my way). Why do you never see him listen to others and come to the conclusion
>oh, well I hadn't considered that, that's actually better than my idea

Imagine someone following objectivism, i.e. become the fantasy of a man that Rand shlicks her clit to. Then you better always do everything right the first time, otherwise you're bound to fai.

ad
https://youtu.be/AX4MKIDvXLM

I think she's a very underrated philosopher and writer. The Fountainhead was the first book I read of hers, and I absolutely loved it. Anthem is a pretty decent novella. I've not read We the Living, and I started Atlas shrugged, but didn't really read it 'cause I was lazy. The prose isn't that great in it (not as good as that in FH, anyway). But I got to a little past page 90 later on (but still haven't finished). Her only nonfiction work I've read of hers is The Virtue of Selfishness, which I thought was okay. I agree with quite a bit of her philosophy, thought obviously not all (namely Anarcho-Capitalism [though I am definitely a capitalist{there's no better system that I can think of}]).

>>11268619
>thought obviously not all (namely Anarcho-Capitalism [though I am definitely a capitalist{there's no better system that I can think of}]).
If you merely think that of the tried systems, capitalism is the one where the abuse of power doesn't fuck with other people as quickly, then this alone shouldn't bring yourself to say you're a capitalist.
What Marx is pointing out is that if people specialize in their trades to make things more efficient - not merely trading the fish I was fishing with the bread my neighbor was baking, but instead (e.g. as a cinema clerk) sitting at the counter and doing some job to get money, so that I have money to buy fish and bread - then everybody ends up alienated from their actions. Most people spend their days as a cog doing a job so they stay where they are or work upwards.
If you can image that a situation would be preferable in which the world population wasn't exploding and people could live a self-sustained 25h work and they could be content with a life that't not aimed at taking capital and turning it into more capital, then you're not a capitalist. If that's the case, you merely believe that the leftist utopias will never be realized. But that doesn't mean you should call yourself a capitalist.

>>11268619
>I started Atlas Shrugged [...] but too lazy
Since that is the case I recommend that you give vid related a try.
All one really needs from Atlas is John Galt's Speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F5nhYo5nx4
Pretty much the greatest speech in fiction.

>>11268543
I heard about that. Who is he?

>>11268619
Am into take this to mean that you are under the impression that Randian philosophy constitutes AnCap?

>>11268789
Lol he's a blockbuster hollywood director, with such classics as the Dawn of the Dead remake, 300, Watchmen, various DC comics movies.

>>11268813
Neat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39Em6t0G7Fc
And now the Objectivists have their own crude humor/meme employer, making usually stick up it's ass Randian philosophy far more digestible to the normalfag. Just like the big players in ideology have had for a decade.
Be worried Marxfags.

>>11269012
Is Rucka /ourguy/?

What does /lit/ think about the rising Objectivist scene among the pajeets?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqoaf5S9m0Mhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlnF3V7pX4E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOYj2SpwJIM
https://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/6100-rand-rising-in-india-entrepreneurial-philosophy-attracts-new-interest-in-ancient-civilization
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMckx4JN7GU

What does /lit/ think about the rising Objectivist scene among the pajeets?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqoaf5S9m0M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlnF3V7pX4E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOYj2SpwJIM
https://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/6100-rand-rising-in-india-entrepreneurial-philosophy-attracts-new-interest-in-ancient-civilization
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMckx4JN7GU

>>11269012
Holy shit he even named the Kant.
>>11269138
>>11269144
bredy gud

>>11265873
I have been trying to finish Atlas Shrugged for a while now, i am at the part where she gets to a certain gulch, however i just find it so turgid. i am losing motivation to finish it.
Is it worth it to finish it?

I've only read Atlas Shrugged and I thought it was a pretty good novel and enjoyed that it had a completely opposite take on business and money than pretty much every novel and movie I had seen up to that point. The first two parts of the novel were excellent in my opinion -- but the third part completely degenerates into what >>11265879 said. The whole John Galt on the radio for 60 pages was preachy and boring

>>11266523
>Rand views philosophy as an indispensable component of human life, while academics treat philosophy like more of a discipline one does simply because one can.
Bitch, what actual academic is this screed referring to?

>>11268511
Look I think reading Rand when you are 19 is a good way to not be a little bitch faggot later in life but honestly her epistemology is fucking shit

>>11269203
The rest sucks tcby

>>11269253
How abouts?

>>11269251
The ones gleefully cackling while they watch their spawn rioting on campus.
Ask yourself for once in your life what premises these people are opperating off of.

>>11268511
>a philosophic paradigm shift of a magnitude only twice before witnessed in the persons of Aristotle and John Locke.
O nah son. Locke's philosophy as a paradigm shift? Lockean metaphysics is a divergent and withering branch.
>We "Randroids" say Rand's argumentation is hard-irrefutable
Is this a copypasta?
>they witness Rand wax more iconoclastic than anyone in history when she called Altruism unadulterated the evil
Going back to Aristotle and Locke: is the form of my hand a predicate of the jerk-off motion I'm making with it, or is the jerk-off motion predicated on the substance of my hand?

>>11269251
>that edit
I hope for your sake you didn't make that and don't actually constitute a molotov with an argument/legal treatise. Romantically or otherwise.

>>11269277
>The ones gleefully cackling while they watch their spawn rioting on campus.
Family, have you ever been to college? If so, the one you attended should revoke your degree. Do you have any more philosophical opinions that are based on SJW youtube réaction vidéos? Someone like Richard Rorty or Wittgenstein is an iconoclast. Rand is just an upstart. Philosophy is a formal discipline.

>>11269289
>constitute
O yeah, it's a Rand thread.

>>11269286
>Lockean metaphysics is a divergent and withering branch
I actually agree. But John Locke to Thomas Paine to Thomas Jefferson were the impetus of the American Revolution. Ideas so transformative the reshaped the world. Just like the Renaissance.
My criteria is based solely on historical effects. Aristotle and Locke for their respective eras.

>>11269318
And Rand's philosophy is the picture of coherence and formality. Especially after what her intellectual heir Leonard Peikoff did with his work on the concept of induction. The least understood area of knowledge. Academic gatekeepers trying to argue their consensus agreement and approval is one of the criteria for validating a philosophic system is a fallacy born of their social-concept-first epistemology and means of assessment.

>>11269318
Sure if you mean being iconoclastic for the sake of being iconoclastic. Whereas Rand was iconoclastic only in areas which warranted it and no further.

>>11265873
I think she is generally right that the best innovations are achieved through the motivation of interested men, and not for a desire of of doing things for the public good.

>>11266523
>>11268511
You have a very good way of writing.

>>11269403
Only one of those posts bruh.

she was a shitty philosopher and a hypocrite.

>>11268800
>>11268800
No. Rand wanted a laissez faire system, a system without any regulations, without taxation. Now, If I am not mistaken( and please correct me if I am), that is anarcho-capitalism. A capitalism without regulations, in which everything is privately owned. Obviously, there are other facets of objectivsm, many with which I agree. I just disagree with that a little bit.

>>11265873
It is the mark of a great mind to be able to entertain a notion without adopting it.

Doesn't matter what your politics are. You should still read Cèline, Rand, Marx, etc.

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist but I've still read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I'm not a communist but I've still read the Communist Manifesto. I'm not a fascist but I've still read Journey to The End of the Night and the political works of Cèline. It's important to understand your adversary's viewpoints, if not to just find holes in it, but also to find common ground among them.

>>11269571
cringe

>>11269554
No LfCap>AnCap because Minarchism>Anarchism and in turn because Objective Law>Polycentric Law. They are not the the same.
See AnCaps make this childish mistake of assuming that Anarchy is the opposite of statism and so therefore Capitlaism+delimited Anarchy must be the vaccine for the sickness that is the state. Rand indentfied that instead Anarchism will necessarily always entail statism. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html
For instance Rothbardian Anarchism's tenets are actually in effect irl for us to observe and that is the phenomenon of competing mafia families.

>>11269571
>I'm not an anarcho-capitalist
Neither is Rand, you misunderstand her. LfCap is not AnCap

>>11269582
How tf is that cringe, that’s literally the basis of forming strong viewpoints.

Or do you only surround yourself with self-affirming biased philosophy and thought?

>>11265873
I love her works and her philosophy. I believe it is true.

To be fair, she wasn't saying helping others is bad. She was trying to show the repercussions of a social system that forces it's people to remain subservient with no chance for pushing individual expressions. Basically, her argument is essentially that it human nature is, at its best, individualistic. Not a far stretch because we are all pretty much aware that everyone is unique. She says the problems happen when you have a system of control overplace that tries to cut out individuality and instill uniformity. It's not possible because we are each unique, so the result would be consistent tyranny.

God, you can still share things and be kind to each other.

Just fucking read one other 20th Century philosopher. Then come and ask about Rand. Fucksticks.

>>11267048

>>11269582
Rude tbqh

I bet you only read the same 3 Authors. It's important to understand your enemies perspectives so you can better understand why you don't believe them. It's also important because even though you might be pretty affirmed in your own morals, there might be some argument that you haven't heard before.

>>11269662
Reminder that Socialists, Trads and NatSocs are all equally threatened by Objectivism

>>11269777
All four of those are shit
Join the socdem gang

I want to cum all over Ayn Rand's feet

>>11265873
1. Her writing style is very average.
2. Her characters are 2-D.
3. Her ideas are interesting and worth thinking about
4. Her dream of a capitalistic, atheistic utopia are misled, as atheism simply deadens a world into cogs and bolts and soulless hopelessness. It would simply be a slightly-inverted USSR. No one wants to live in a world of robotic efficiency at the expense of the spirit.

>>11270078
It would be a spirited efficiency

>>11269647
Rand cast a shadow over every thinker after her.
When you go through Baudrillard's journals, he makes constant reference to his abiding terror of Rand becoming a best selling popular figure, and his acknowledgement of her philosophical mastery. He knew if she ever became a well known intellectual his little world would come crumbling down.
Private letters of Derrida and Foucault reveal the same uneasiness.
The three greatest philosophers are Aristotle, Aquinas and Rand. She solved the unresolved issues left from Hume and Kant and gives a framework to move forward. The academic establishment ignores her out of sheer terror, and because she is so brilliant she's not yet fully understood by those gatekeepers. In time I expect she'll be the only thinker we bother teaching about

>>11269253
>Doesn't give any details on how her epistemology is shit.

>>11269403
I'm first one, objectivist bro anon expands on my post excellently

The fountainhead was a great book with a great message. Atlas shrugged was a boring book with a good message but the message was already stated in the fountainhead.

It really doesn't surprise me that a bunch of leftists hate her. It doesn't surprise me that, when philosophies are judged merely in terms of fashions, academia hates her. The fact that academia is filled with leftists only intensifies that hate.

It's the most funny thing if you see people calling her philosophy "evil" or "Immoral".
She was a hopeless romantic and naive idealist but calling the notion of self ownership and productivity "evil" marks you as a subhuman whose opinion can be disregarded entirely.

>>11270849
I was actually more bored by The Fountainhead after reading Atlas first. Ellsworth Toohey is the sole superiority I think Fountainhead has over Atlas.
I say "more" but I wasn't bored by Atlas Shrugged at all. The Fountainhead certainly has nothing of the calibre of Francisco D'Anconia's money sppech and John Galt's Speech.

>>11269793
Rand btfo socialism in all it's form wether it be democratic, guild, or full communism

>>11270167
For a while, yes. But the storm of anti-reason, passion and lust for chaos eventually surfaces, e.g. the Romantic movement devouring the Age of Reason.

>>11271110
And just like the Renaissance upended the antireason of the Dark Ages so (I hope) will the coming Objectivist renaissance/revolution/enlightenment/coup do the same to the Antienlightenment. Pity America may very well have to collapse before it can occur but who can say. I hope America and the world through it simply undergoes a transformative period. Nothing is predetermined.

>>11271289
It's only a matter of time before people become aware of how Rand has disproved Kant and Hume and adjust their premises accordingly.

>>11269318
>T-the professors are innocent. They don't by design and intention fuel the rage and ideas behind campus protests
>T-they don't congratulate they students the next day for their "hard work" and "fighting for equality and to inclusion."
Imagine being this deluded. Everyone knows, even non capitalists, that modern academia is a fucking joke

>>11266523
>she wasn't trying to meet the standards of academic philosophy
Nietzsche wasn't either, yet he is one of the most studied. The same applies with Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer and others.
Randroids are the most deluded group of people on the planet
>>11271853
I'd take a purple haired landwhale who screams at me for being a fucking white male over a randroid every day

>>11271874
ooooooo nice ad-hom

Loved We the Living, but I haven't read any of her other books yet because I hear she is a lot more heavy handed with her political ideas in them. Is Atlas Shrugged worth reading if I enjoyed her writing style?

>>11271874
>I'd take a purple haired landwhale who screams at me for being a fucking white male over a randroid every day
t. brainlet

>>11271874
And what, pray tell, is me the Randroid to do to you that is so undesirable?
Seriously; please answer me.
A quote come to mind.
>"Make a person feel like he's thinking and he'll love you. Make a person actually think and he'll hate you."

>>11272369
You'll enjoy the mystery of "Who is John Galt", get a boner over Dagny Taggart, and enjoy the philosophic evisceration Francisco D'Anconia's and John Galt's speeches do to irrationalism.
Protip: don't go into "This is John Galt Speaking" tired or burnt out on your day's reading. It's a long speech.

>>11272576
Thanks anon, I'll have to pick it up when I'm done with The Lost World.

>>11265873
Remember when discussing Any Rand was banned on /lit/? Those were the days.

>>11271110
The unique (i guess) thing is objectivism doesn't agree with the idea that reason and emotion are at odds. It doesn't say we must destroy human emotion. Ayn Rand really like romantic art work. She wrote a whole book on it. Her fiction is interesting than her non-fiction because she shows more the emotional and aesthetic side to reason, and that there is even one in the first place.

>>11272986
Cry some more r/philosophy

She a dumb bitch and her books are trash

>>11273543
newfag

>>11273602
I've probably made 10% of the Aristotle threads you've ever posted in bucko.

>>11273635
Just saying you're a latecomer.

>>11272986
>Pining for the days when when your ideological enemy was just disallowed from even making their argument from the outset
The self awareness is off the charts

>>11273642
2011. I suppose

>>11265873
I liked the fountainhead but was bored by atlas shrugged. I gather her position is that the weak will gather together and try to tear down the great. I saw a similar parallel to the story of Satan gathering the other angels in revolt against god to try to restrain his power as they cannot accept being inferior. That absolute egalitarianism is against the truth of the world. She goes full materialist by then rejecting god but perhaps at her time puritan prudes were restraining a man's destiny of conquest. Today I find religion empowers me to break free of atheist social pressure in this age and ignoring the pleads of the left claiming I should give up my strength to be equal to the weak. Almost like a lion shouldn't act like a lion but be a mouse like the rest.

>>11268783
>Pretty much the greatest speech in fiction.
Can we stop with this meme? Francisco's speech about money was so much better and it wasn't fucking 80 pages.

>>11265873
Rand ended up being so right it's frightening.
Anyone else here fucking hate Germany? Central instigators to two world wars and and is looking to be the same for the 3rd. Reminder that German philosophy is literally the worst thimg to ever happen to humanity. Time traveling nuke launcher PLEASE.

>>11273696
>Rand
>right
NO
That stupid "Greed is good" thinking gave us the 2008 crash whn the banks got to greedy and started investing OTHER people's money for THEIR gain

>>11273680
In even agree to prefer it stylistically, but Galt's speech subsumed a much wider range of concepts and attacked irrationalism at the root. Objectively superior. Galt's speech being too long is the meme. Yeah it's really fucking long but ever word had to be there. I don't understand people who say the speech tested their patience. I was riveted the entire time.

>>11273644
You were supposed to call me out on how this thread is straight out of 2010 and the ostensible ban never really worked. Oh well. I don't hate Rand. She had a good taste in architecture.
>>11273655
Then you must remember when the rule was in place. I don't actually know when moot dropped it.

>>11269203
>I have been trying to finish Atlas Shrugged for a while now, i am at the part where she gets to a certain gulch, however i just find it so turgid. i am losing motivation to finish it.
>Is it worth it to finish it?
You can just pretend it ends there because it kinda does anyway.

Do Randroids read other writers? I'm actually curious. Do you guys ever read Flaubert or Joyce? And do you still think Rand is a good novelist afterwards?
Likewise with philosophy. Have you guys actually read Hume and Kant and Hegel, and still think Rand is a great thinker?

>>11273906
>Do you guys ever read Flaubert or Joyce?
>Joyce
Oh look, it's the James Joyce meme again

>>11265873
I am surprised people managed to overlook her shitty writing to even get to the crazy politics. It's not even offensively bad in a way that would make it somehow entertaining, just so joyless and forced. I have no idea how I finished AS.

>>11273906
I could not have failed to become interested in Kant and Hume in particular after reading Leonard Peikoff's summation of Objectivism in OPAR, wnd Rand's assertions against them in Philosophy: Who Needs It and Intro to Objectivist Epistemology.
Kant's heavy use of subclauses and parentheticals to purposefully load the reader's conciousness with more information than it can handle is very telling to what kind of man Kant was, what he was truly getting at, and what his arguments actually constitute (despite what he woupd claim). It also explains why Kantians maddeningly always seem to move the goalposts to what Kantianism represents to deflect criticism. I concur exactly with Rand's assessment of him.

>>11273906
She's around Stephany Meyer tier at best. No need to bring in the big guns, faggot.

>>11271089
>social democracy is socialism
You're dumb

>>11265873
Objectivism is based in bad theory of mind, markets have to be restrained or they crash the world economy and cause warfare, there will never be a stateless capitalist society, the State will grow as needed for Capital, her works are fucking atrociously poor English, worse than Oscar Wilde and Hemingway, worse than Fitzgerald, worse than everything written by American greats. Other than that there is nothing to say

Her books are interesting, worth at least one read and she has some interesting ideas. In my opinion Fountainhead > Atlas shrugged.

If you're smart then skip the 11 page monologues because she's just forcing her opinions down the throats of those too stupid to extrapolate them from the rest of the book.

Her characters are indeed quite 2D though- successful yet decent people with good moral compasses. The books would be much more interesting if one of the characters who accrued money acted like a real rich miser and did nothing for the world, even those who have earned help. I find the books unrealistic because most rich people I have met (and in my job I have met many) are horrible people who don't give a toss about the world and, largely, actively try to stop other people making as much money as them.

>>11274176
Democracy is the means the social criterion of assessment is the ends. You're dumb.

>>11274191
This and many other fallacies against Capitalism are things Rand blasts wide open in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. The book is essentially Anticapitalist Fallacies Anthology

>>11273717
What caused the 2008 crash was government subsidy for housing.

Did she understand the works of people like Kant?
Given her interest in Aristotle did she ever deal with Aquinas?

>>11271853
>the professors are innocent. They don't by design and intention fuel the rage and ideas behind campus protests
What the fuck are you talking about?? Give me concretes. I'm at a University right now, and my profs just want to do their research into Husserl and Wittgenstein and go home. Do you think the faculty benefits from incessant interruption? If or was up to me, profs would be much much more antagonistic toward bloated administrative organs. The only protest I've seen had been a demonstration by some TPUSA libertarian dweebs. I agreed with the sentiment of their protest and didn't bitch about the conservative stranglehold on the university's economics department. Grow up.

>>11274320
you’re an idiot subhuman and your hero was pushed by billionaires, CATO institute is funded by oligarchs

>>11272538
>And what, pray tell, is me the Randroid to do to you that is so undesirable?
He is to ask sanctimonious questions. Also, you are unconscious shock troops for Koch Industries and others.

>>11274777
My favorite trendy meme, "call out their billionaire". George Soros this, Robert Mercer that, Koch brothers et cetera.

>>11274666
She didn't understand Kant, neither does any Randian. I've been in at least two threads like these where the Randians have quoted the "Ayn Rand Lexicon" to me, I explained exactly why and where she was misrepresenting Kant, they promptly stopped responding. Fucking intellectual catamites

>>11274191
I think her argument is that it was government actions that led to the crashing of economies

>>11274811
>>11274666
>Did she understand the works of people like Kant?

Yes she disagreed with Kent's categorical imperative and Kant's view that the senses are not worth calling reality. For the former, she says the categorical imperative creates a split between human desire and moral action. She said this is wrong and leads to a lot of problems in society. She argued that human desire and action should be united. For the latter issue, she argues that the senses are worthy to be called reality because what else would you call it then?

>Given her interest in Aristotle did she ever deal with Aquinas?

This I am not sure.

>>11274212
>I find the books unrealistic because most rich people I have met (and in my job I have met many) are horrible people who don't give a toss about the world and, largely, actively try to stop other people making as much money as them.

Right, so she was positing a good rich man. That was the point to Atlas Shrugged, to show what that would look like, and to show the morality of it.

>>11274916
>Kant's view that the senses are not worth calling reality.
Even if I spent the rest of my life explaining to you idiot sixteen year-olds that this is not what Kant thought, I doubt it would be enough. Kant thought objective reality was uncovered only through universalizing perceptual judgments. "This water is cold" is a subjective judgment, "this water is 7 degrees Celsius" is an objective judgment. The latter universalizes the subjective perception into data comprehensible to every consciousness. Read a fucking book, holy shit

>>11274810
you don’t understand game theory or socio-biology man, you’re fucking retarded and proud of it.

>>11274975
But Rand is just saying, what else are you going to call your functional reality then? Yes, our senses are not always reliable, they can be faulty, but that doesn't completely take away their functional value.

>>11274996
Oops meant to reply to

>>11274963

I have a bit of a unique situation with Rand. I read the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged when I was pretty young and so didn't understand the economy stuff. I liked that the stories seemed to say "No matter what, believe in yourself"

>>11274996
Not, it doesn't, and Kant didn't think it did. The "thing-in-itself" is the idea of objects outside the forms of human perception, an idea which cannot even be comprehended except as a known unknown. Phenomena (objects within the forms of perception) operate according to the laws of nature and causality, which are objective. Kant's entire project was an effort to salvage causality, hence an approach to empirical certainty, from the meat-grinder of Hume's skepticism. He (Kant) goes so far as to say that notions completely devoid of reference to the sensible world are "mere chimeras." Again, I beseech you, read a book.

>>11275062
Ok, but Rand was addressing the human reality, which is the reality obtainable by human senses, and therefore issues related to human existence as a human, man qua man. Beyond that is irrelevant when discussing human life and societal problems.

>>11275095
>Man qua man
Homo

>>11275099
-sapien

>>11265873
Her philosophy is interesting, but i massivly dislike the cult of personality, her and leonard peikoff are basically revered like Gods and the people that follow don't seem to question them in the slightest.

>>11275095
That's exactly what I just got through saying Kant does regarding phenomena. Again, that's the whole impetus behind his work, that Hume was right to deny necessary connection to noumena, but wrong to deny it to phenomena subordinated to the forms of human perception, space and time. Kant maintained that the only comprehensible empirical reality to humans was a human reality. I don't know why this irked Rand so much, maybe because his metaphysic far outstrips hers in terms of thoroughness and rigor while contradicting her brainlet naive realism.

>>11273728
cool thanks,

>>11268708
Oh not this bs marx again.
Fyi, rand wasn't an ancap, she believed in a small restricted government.
On the topic of system, don't say that no real communism/socialism has been tried, if you go down that route, then it follows also that true capitalism hasnt been tried.
You wanna complain about overpopulation? Then go protest all those state handouts to third world countries.
You also misrepresented capitalism. Ancaps, libertarians, objectivists don't say that capitalism is about capital. Capitalism is about liberty and property. Your property is your own and no one else has a right to it. Rand in a video interview said that onjectivism is not concerned with whether one should help another person, but rather whether one has a right to decide on his own accord the decision to take.
To all those people criticising rands literary work, why dont you start examining her philosophy instead of focusing on superficial things.
Ofc i dont agree with objectivism on every topic, but really try to examine her core works, which is onjectivism, not the fictions she wrote as a means of presenting her philosophy.

>>11275278
Yes, but what irked Rand was Kant 'elevating' this 'noumenal' over the human phenomenal. She argued that it lead to a perspective that therefore human consciousness, perception, and thought are irrelevant in regards to this 'higher truth' of the noumenal which we cannot know or perceive. Rand just wanted to flip it around and validate the phenomenal, and questions concerning this noumenal were pointless and unrelated to the human condition, and that it would be dangerous, or anti-man, anti-life, and anti-reason, as Rand loves to state it, to base any social policy upon some argument based on this noumenal

>>11275278
Hehe brainlet realism, this really is the two forces at work in philosophy, plato v aristotle. Objective reality v spiritual.

>>11270078
>4. Her dream of a capitalistic, atheistic utopia are misled, as atheism simply deadens a world into cogs and bolts and soulless hopelessness. It would simply be a slightly-inverted USSR. No one wants to live in a world of robotic efficiency at the expense of the spirit.
I feel like you completely misunderstand her point. To Rand, the "spirit" was human ingenuity and the love of just creating things. In Objectivism the spirituality comes from human achievement. I don't understand how you could read something like The Fountainhead and come away with the conclusion that her ideal world is soulless

>>11273906
Well yes, because Rand's writing is remarkably clear but also weighty and dramatic.

Rand was a amphetamine addict for something like 30 years. In the end, she hated everyone she was once close to. There is nothing redeeming about her life or work

>>11265873
She’s pretty good. I like that you can trigger wannabe communists just by mentioning her name. Atlas Shrugged is great, and it doubles as holy water against SJWs. So that’s a plus

>>11265873
literally every single woman is an objectivist, being that she is a shallow, materialistic, money-grubbing conservative thot

>>11274126
>Kant's heavy use of subclauses and parentheticals to purposefully load the reader's conciousness with more information than it can handle
So long sentences? My consciousness can handle them, funny how the Rand lover's consciousness can't

ITT: an author who is undoubtedly a pseud charlatan whose ideology is being pushed by billionaire child rapist oligarchs and pencil necked sociopaths is being defended for over a hundred replies by autistic 20 somethings who haven't been laid in the last 12 months by an above 6/10 female.

Morally despicable but makes solid arguments that blow many people politically and culturally opposed to her ideas right the fuck out with their own ideas. So useful in the broader political scheme but terrible in isolation.

>>11276244
That's a completely analytical point though, autistic 20 somethings who can't get laid is a definitive quality of 4chan users.

anyone who says the book has "a good message" killed small animals as a child and sometime during puberty realized they could do practically the same to people if they had a business degree but legally

>>11276259
>waah capitalism is like LITERALLY murder
I don't even like Rand but you're a field nigger and shouldn't talk, ever

>>11274126
>he hasn't read Kant or Hume or Hegel, but still feels the need to contribute
Dude just say you havent read them. It was a simple question

>>11265873
id fuck her

>>11276251
t. altruist brainlet

>>11265873

God I wish that was me.

>>11276240
You cannot handle them as a concise unit one after the other liar, no one can. That's why people, even those who like Kant, call him the slowest read ever.
Now I doubt YOU have even read him. Human minds cannot grasp, no matter the IQ, the difference between 12 and 13 units perceptually at a glance. The same phenomenon occurs with prose written so that you have to go over each sentence at least 3 times. New information pushes out the old. Only by conceptual integration do we grasp abstract knowledge subsuming things on a psrge scale and Kant purposefully makes this process tedious.

>>11277029
>psarge scape
large scale

>>11277029
not that Anon but doesnt Hegel and to a lesser extent Aristotle tend to win that prize? Even the greatest commentators of Aristotle struggled with his metaphysics

>>11277029
>You cannot handle them as a concise unit one after the other liar, no one can.
Very possible with practice. You don't start with Kant, you build up to him; a pianist does not start by playing the Hammerklavier.
People read Joyce, Proust or late period Henry James for the sheer pleasure of it. It's perfectly possible to read and underatand Kant. It's not like he's Derrida or Heidegger (I'll admit I can't make head or tail of either)

>>11277039
Kant is worse by an order of magnitude. Borderline obscurantist.

>>11275199
I just view her a ls a hero of the mind just like all the great titans of history is all.

>>11275278
>Kant maintained that the only comprehensible empirical reality to humans was a human reality.
>I don't get why this irked Eand so much.
Because that's the primacy of conciousness.

>>11277074
>Kant is worse by an order of magnitude
How so? Hegels works were so complicated that there are books written that literally have to break down what was said sentence by sentence. Likewise his works have the assumption that one is very familiar with all of western philosophy to the point its intentionally obscure and even his contemporaries struggled to fully understand what he was getting at.

As for Aristotle the fact that we dont have many of his direct works but only lecture notes - some of which have issues over the correct order in them and confused Ibn Rushd is pretty worrying.

>>11274761
>Keynes
>Conservative
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>11269277
>cant cite an actual philosopher
BTFOd

>>11274126
>Kant's heavy use of subclauses and parentheticals to purposefully load the reader's conciousness with more information than it can handle is very telling to what kind of man Kant was
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>11274916
Yeah the world would be great if the rich cared- but the point is that they don't. In fact, the greatest thing in their often vacuous existences is ridiculing the proles in grotesquely self-serving displays of self-aggrandizement.

Don't believe me? If you've ever been in very high class private departure lounges (I have occasionally for work) then they have monitors linked up to the security cams in the central airport. The point? To look and laugh at the proles who have to queue up for hours.

It's sickening desu.Like I said, I like Rand's books but the noble characters she portrays as captains of industry simply don't exist.

>>11277067
>Very possible with practice
Yeah, and the word for that is conceptualizing anon. I use the words "perceptually" and "in-the-moment" for a reason.

Rand solved so many of past philosophers errors. The fact that she is maligned so hard is unacceptable.
Leonard Peikoff summed up her philosophy perfectly:
>"There were once Western philosophers who upheld the primacy of existence; notably, such ancient Greek giants as Parmenides and Aristotle. But even they were not consistent in this regard. (Aristotle, for example, describes his Prime Mover as a consciousness conscious only of itself, which serves as the cause of the world's motion.) There has never yet been a thinker who states the principle explicitly, then applies it methodically in every branch of philosophy, with no concession to any version of its antithesis. This is precisely what Ayn Rand does. Her philosophy is the primacy of existence come to full, systematic expression in Western thought. For the first time."

>>11277863
"The world" is a mixed economy one with whar Rand argues is a contradictory and life hating "morality". What else do you expect bussinessmen to be? Reminder that bourgoise and proletariat are anticoncepts. Anticoncepts marixan commies use to give voice to their feelings of hatred. Hatred they project onto their enemies. The true is that "the rich" don't spend their days deriding proles; the horrible truth you evade is that they (proper ones) don't think about you/them at all. And THIS is the thing which fills commies with fury.

>>11278577
He also speaks as if the poor can't also be retardedly shallow and driven to conspicous one-upmanship shows of ostentation around each other. Marxism is lunacy.

>this thread
>m-muh Koch brothers
Kek

>>11277964
>Yeah, and the word for that is conceptualizing anon.
No, the word for that is being intelligent enough to grasp long sentences. Kant is not particularly difficult if you have read philosophy before and know where he's coming from. Your difficulty with him says more about your own lack of learning than anything else (not that I think you've ever actually tried to read him, you seem to be paraphrasing objectivist blogs)

>>11278626
Fantastic point. Literally saved to my 'Good Arguments(4).txt' file

>>11278672

>>11278662
>No, the word for that is being intelligent enough to grasp long sentences
Which one does by higher levels of conceptualization anon. Christ.
Additions and additions of mass amounts of subclauses subsubclauses and parentheticals is not to merely contribute to the length of sentences anon, it's to change their character. We call this literary style/prose.
Kant SPAMS this shit. And not even in ways warranted by the essence of what he is arguing. The fucker clearly viewed waxing obscurantist as some badge of nobility and high sophistication.

>>11278680
K.

>>11278709
Just admit you've not read him dude. I know it, you know it, everyone in this thread knows it. It's no shame, Kant is hard if your only experience with philosophy is Rand.

>>11278680
>He doesn't save every good/stylish argument he encounters to peruse, digest, and integrate in new ways to phrase the topic later.
Hows it feel to be a brainlet?

>>11276426
What did he even mean by this

>>11278709
>criticises a writer for their poor prose style
>while defending Ayn Rand

She wrote a 33k word speech by her main character saying goofy shit like "you know who is really on strike now? these guys right here. the REAL victims, the creators of your world". It's trash. The whole premise of that books was trash that could have been diluted to a short story. The Fountainhead is at least about this enigmatic architect who has a sniveling fanboy that wants to be better than him but doesn't have The Vision™, and that is a decent setup for a character study if the writing is good, but always throwing in these long winded monologues and digressions about what the books is REALLY about, that this archetype of the genius is the living owner class of the real world, and that these people are persecuted by our society, just trashes it every time.

>>11278851
They are the real vicims in an authoritarian world you rich man fearing cuck.

>>11278815
Kant's prose is objectively worse. It's the difference between obscurantism and straight language. The worst indictment peopl have against Rand's prose is that hey don't like being ""preached"" at. What exactly do you fucks think the formulation off a new pro-Capitalist, iconoclastic philosophy will entail? Especially one whose aesthetics embody a new take on romanticism; Romantic Realism.

>>11278737
Yes I have read him and you insisting I/Rand/any anti-Kantian in general hasn't read him for the hundredth time is doing nothing but testing my patience. This smells creepily of the kind of gaslighting leninists and alinskyites are fond of.

>>11275014
Try Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal for an explicit treatise by her on her economic philosophy. Keep in mind she notes that she is not an economic specialist/scientist and none of her deliberations are perscriptive nor should be taken as such.
She pretty much defers to Ludwig von Mises on most matters technically economic. Even forgives him for his lack of cogent system of ethics.

her prose is terrible.

I just got off reading Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Engel's The Principles of Communism back-to-back after being advised to do so by my objectivist professor. The inferiority of one sides argument and even manner of argumentation against the other is mindblowing.
Communism is small, sad, pathetic evil and I weep for the world for having to go through these growing pains ala the thrashing of ideologically stunted tantrum throwing manchildren.
I cannot recommend these two books together enough. Any order, doesn't matter.

>>11278522
>Parmenides
You mean the hyper monist who thought all movement was impossible and only an Illusion, thats the guy who upheld the primacy of existence?

>>11280308
Peikoff means he was one of the greeks who made the first tentative steps anons. It was literally the infancy of philosophy, what do you expect?
Paramenides may have posited that absurdity by in form he still did not hold conciousness over existence. Were talking his ideational method here.
Also, Aristotle's greatest flaw was that he was still heavily influenced by Platonism. It colored his work for the worse.

>>11280593
>by in form
*but in form

>>11274916
>Kant's view that the senses are not worth calling reality.
Even according to my three five-hour cram sessions on Kant, this is just an undignified interpretation of Kant's noumenal.

>>11275095
>man qua man.
Bravo, bravissimo!

pissbaby

>>11280593
But that seems strange given that he is committing the same sin of Kant (by Rand's understanding) by viewing senses as not being worth calling reality.

Even if this is not the case that is the case then why single Parmenides out from the other presocratics?

Dagny Taggert fucks literally everybody.

>>11265909
>Ayn Rand's fiction is interesting
of all the horrible, stupid things libertarians say this is by far the worst

>>11281589
I'm not that anon nor lolbertarian, but I recently marathoned Shrugged and it made me want to come back to it. I'd say that at least qualifies as "interesting."

>>11281602
unbelievably stupid, one of the worst books ever written. truly jewish female charlatanry

>>11281612
>truly jewish female charlatanry

>>11281612
This! Never have any doubts about anything book that praises ((((((((productive excellence))))))). I can hear the shekels being ((((rubbed))))) from here.

She's awful, her writing is boring, I can't believe I actually plowed through that mess that was The Fountainhead. 800 pages of one dimensional shit.

The problem with Rand is that she's a complete an utter sociopath, the same goes for those who follow her, ironically considering her dislike of collectivism. She was an ugly Jewess who disliked any form of social cohesion which would allow non-economic metrics to influence a persons life. Her ideology is inherently anti-social, which is a quality possessed by her ardent and autistic followers. Libertarianism is a bad joke, especially in the era of unprecedented economic globalization and the existence of multinational corporations that have subjected the world to hardships simply to enrich the few. I say this as a bourgeois conservative too, not as some backwards socialist. Her ideology is antithetical to the conservation of anything but money.

>>11265873
>implying a roastie cunt who married for money and then cucked his husband has any saying in moral philosophy

>>11266523
>If you were to ask an academic what the purpose of philosophy is they're likely to be confused by the question.
This is LITERALLY never happened ever and usually most first academic classes about philosophy adress why is it important to studd it

>>11282774
>She was an ugly Jewess who disliked any form of social cohesion which would allow non-economic metrics to influence a persons life
Read a word of her nonfiction for once in your life fag. Her aesthetics integrates beautifully as a capstone to her philsophic system. Her Romantic Realist creed was literally a reaffirmation of dying Romanticism. She identified that art serves as a concretizer of man's conceptual values back to the perceptual level. Her aesthetics is literally just as revolutionary as the rest of her philosophy as she provided an objectification of art's epistemic function in man's spiritual needs.
No matter how much you idiots assert that her appreciation of of the virtue of selfishness amounts to sociopathy, we will refute you at every turn.

>>11279604
>this nigga expects us to believe he's read and understood Kant and yet he still thinks Ayn 'I would rather destroy my novels than allow someone to edit them' Rand is important

>>11282923
>Her aesthetics integrates beautifully as a capstone to her philsophic system. Her Romantic Realist creed was literally a reaffirmation of dying Romanticism. She identified that art serves as a concretizer of man's conceptual values back to the perceptual level. Her aesthetics is literally just as revolutionary as the rest of her philosophy as she provided an objectification of art's epistemic function in man's spiritual needs.
>No matter how much you idiots assert that her appreciation of of the virtue of selfishness amounts to sociopathy, we will refute you at every turn.

>>11273717
>started

I literally laughed out loud. That's what bank have ALWAYS done

>>11274643
lel no

>>11274126
>literally "Kant is too smart for me"
lmaoing at your life

>>11274996
Universal concept extrapolized trough your elaboration?

>>11282985
Choice argument maymayer

>>11283021
Obscurantism is not smarts.

>>11282954
>Who is Leonard Peikoff, her intellectual heir
If you're referring to the Branden's she had a falling out with them for a reason. Moreover if edits in question accidentally subvert core premises involved in her work, why would she or anyone ever allow them? She had a massive ego and cultural stimatism of that notion aside, I fully admire her for that.

>>11274761
I'm studying business and half the professors manage to inject their leftism into their lectures. My Economic History lecturer praised the Bolsheviks as they regarded women as equals before the west did.

>>11269554
An-cap does not believe in any government. Rand expressly states government is needed to operate a society, mainly to protect citizens from the predation of other citizens, provided the laws are created rationally. Ancaps do not believe in any form of government.

>>11273728
But then you miss the best Pirate actually doing Pirate stuff. Apparently, Rand wrote bits where Dannerskjold was doing Pirate stuff to People States ships, but cut them to maintain the mystery of him. Shame. He's a really cool idea (philosopher Pirate) even if he's wrong about Robin Hood. (Who was doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS RAGNAR IS, EXCEPT FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST ENTREPENEURS GODDAMNIT)

>>11283837
You misunderstand what the concept Robin Hood represents. Robin Hood is moral only taken in the context of the which he opperates in. In monarchy and feudalism where the powerful and rich actually ARE parisitical upon the people who they keep in servility. Lords in this context actually do litterally steal. Robin Hood is not applicable elsewhere especially in the freedom of America.
The great fallacy of socialist bernietards is that they think the concept of Hoodism applies in a capitalist Republic. It doesn't in the way they mean it, only against tax coercers does the comparison hold. And even then only marginally

>>11284077
I get what Rand was railing against, but I'm just annoyed about the choice of Robin Hood, the man who robbed Tax Collectors and Abbots to give money to the people who had lost it. Who Ragnar, the man who robs taxed goods and returns their value, in the form of the amount of income tax the individual has paid. Hell there are several stories of Robin Hood giving money to valorous knights who have been cheated. The choice is incongruous, since Robin Hood is the trope Ragnar is based on, except adding in a philosophical underpinning and an aircraft carrier.

Robin Hood is meant to be a heroic figure, who rejected a corrupt government, and chose to leave it and prey upon its injustices to help people within it. He is a former member of the aristocracy, who abandons the trappings of wealth to fight for justice, and avenge his liege-lord. Its so close to Ragnar's story its frustrating.

The philosophy I have no problem with. Its just the use of Hood as the example, when Ragnar is literally just one philosophy course away from Robin Hood

>>11283078
>Obscurantism
is there a bigger marker of pseudery than this word?

>>11265873
this thread is an abomination, to the kantfags who didn’t let it die and the socialist nitwits who embolden these retards fuck you, hope your mom is proud of how gay you are

>>11283355
That's praiseworthy, isn't it?

>>11283078
We're talking about Immanuel Kant, you skunk. The sage of Kœnigsberg was a sophistic obscurantist? Have some humility.

>>11284478
Obscurantism IS pseudery you mong.

>>11284484
Imagine being this angry over people discussing and enjoying capitalist philosophy

>>11270320
>Baudrillard's journals
Citation on those? I'm curious to see what he said on Ayn Rand.

>>11284445
What are you even on about then. I cannot wrap my head around what your issue with Danneskold is. That the comparison is apt but don't like that it is becasue Ragnar subverts the creed of RH but... doesn't? Wat

>>11284523
Only if you think it's also appropriate for a lecturer to praise nazi's for being pro animal rights.

she writes bad, elongated books for white, teen, male, middle-class americans.

>>11285039
Objectivism is too transformative to be limited to just teens. Hows it feel to just regurgitate smears you've read elsewhere? Read her nonfiction faggot.

>>11285039
>That's somehow a bad thing.

>>11266112
>Him being American or not or having higher intelligence are not super pertinent to the discussion.
no, but him *thinking* he has above average intelligence is super relevant to this discussion

>>11284558
Obscurantism IS a word people use when they're too dumb to understand a work

>>11265885
Jesus these liberal fags are so obnoxious. Guarenteed you are a 110 IQ onions boy who reads MSNBC and huff po for your news. I hate the "p-projecting!!!1" meme, but good god it is just dripping from this post.

>>11271083
I think Roark's speech and Toohey's speech are just as good. I do think that the Fountainhead had more fleshed out characters, even if Atlas Shrugged intended on the characters being avatars of beliefs.

>>11285580
I am actually a 140 IQ lanklet who doesn't read the news

>>11285504
Potentially sure. A potential I'm sure you are all too eager to attribute to Rand and Objectivists

>>11285993
Galt's speech>Toohey's>D'Anconia's=Roark's>Rearden's

>>11286084
What's Rearden's speech?