/lit/ - Literature

>>11369934
her book was a bluprint

>>11369934
She's fucking better than retarded leftist cucks imo. They think with their feels, but we think with our brains

>>11369934
Her books aren't that bad desu, but she is retarded if you read her as a philosopher

>>11369934
Old thread: >>11347323

>>11369944
>a continuation a Rand thread.
Kek r/philsophy won't be happy about that

>>11369934
Why didn't you save her, bros?

>>11369942

Ayn Rand is worse than feels over reals. She thinks feels = reals.

>>11369934
Her ethics and her politics are incompatible.

>>11370034
t. socialist

>>11370087
this isn't even a clever reply, because in order to be so, it would have to make sense

>>11369934
Read this like a week ago.
The rest of Rand's philosophy is argumentatively amazing but it's the aesthetics branch that really drives home how COOL Objectivism can be. No joke.
Rand's aesthetics completes her philosophy and makes it come full circle.
From Peikoff's OPAR:
>"An art work does not formulate the metaphysics it represents; it does not (or at least need not) articulate definitions and principles. So art by itself is not enough in this context. But the point is that philosophy is not enough, either. Philosophy by itself cannot satisfy man's need of philosophy. Man requires the union of the two: philosophy and art, the broad identifications and their concrete embodiment. Then, in regard to his fundamental, guiding orientation, he combines the power of mind and of body, i.e., he combines the range of abstract thought with the irresistible immediacy of sense perception. Ayn Rand summarizes in a definitive formulation: Art is a concretization of metaphysics. Art brings man's concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts. This is the psycho-epistemological function of art and the reason of its importance in man's life (and the crux of the Objectivist esthetics). Here again we see man's need of unit-economy. Concepts condense percepts; philosophy, as the science of the broadest integrations, condenses concepts; and art then condenses philosophy—by returning to the perceptual level, this time in a form impregnated with a profound abstract meaning."
That's fucking cool.

>>11370118
Her ethics and politics ARE compatible in any event

>>11370188
No they aren't. There's no inherent reason to respect other people's rights if self-interest is the basis of morality; only pragmatic or emotional reasons.

>>11370244
>inherent
If only you knew to what lengths Rand went to blast apart philosophers preoccupation with using this word.
It is IN your self-interest to respect others rights and see that they are respected. Long range self-interest. Rand specifically juxtaposes the longe range with in-the-moment whim. She termed it "whim worship."

>>11370153
I absolutely love the idea of pure idealism but it fails to recognize the flaws that this sort of approach becomes impossible to emphasize, which I know is the goal but it's still true. It's as if you're looking at a grand god rather than human but with some traces of humanity that is admirable for Ayn Rand to do. Like, Roark might be seen aesthetically as a god but he doesn't get everything right all the time and sometimes gets manipulated.

I'm still waiting for how my views regarding the problem of induction is wrong
From the past thread:
>How is [the problem of induction] a problem? We see objects and we compare them with others with their differences becoming classifications and form abstractions in the process. By understanding the nature of objects, we form general abstractions then deduct them for our usage.

>If I take a knife and stab you, I doubt you'd argue that cause and effect doesn't exist. Would you risk your life to prove that I can't kill you? Reality is stable and does not change outside of one's nature due to the law of identity. Causality exists independently of our perception of it, and when we see actions interacting, we simply have to understand what makes them unique compared to other material and understand their identity. Actions are actions of entities, having their own identity, only act in accordance with their nature.

>>11369934
Kantian anon know that I am still writing my response and have not forgotten, but was busy earlier.
Addressing your "10 dimensions" point alone has me having wrote a post upon the threshold of the character limit already.

>>11370379
Nope, if I'm a poor pleb I have 0 self-interest in other people's rights. Nice try, bourgeois scum :^)

>>11370379
>It is IN your self-interest to respect others rights and see that they are respecte
Do you believe this is always true at all times, for all people?

This reply is going against a lot of CBT regarding undesireable behaviors, but you've really gotta stop. Your intellectual betters have disavowed her, and your sophmoric interpretaions of her ethics can't save her or you, fo that matter. You might as well be saying "None of the professional welders I speak with are willing to recognize the legitimacy of brazing with a candle and a coathanger, why is that?" and expecting discussion of any value.

What I mean to say is that you could debate until the cows come home with the greatest philosophers to ever live about you selfish mommy, but you'd never be convinced. You're not interested in dialogue, you're interested in justification. Hell, the fact that you feel so marginalized that you think you need these discussions should tell you somehting about the value of your philospohy. How many adherents of Mill or Kant, or even the ancients do you see making threads to sure-up their ideological superiority? The fact of the matter is that revolutionary ideas need to be backed by revolutionarily orginial thought. Rand possessed neither, and in exchange peddled the most basic, animalistic philosphy in existence to a population that lacked the training to understand its flaws. Do you honestly believe that Socrates didn't consider the idea of self-interested moraily? That Heraclitus didn't? That any given neanderthal didn't?

But by all means, keep tring to sell the world on an ideolgy now largely practiced by the sharp minds of Mark Cuban's ilk instead of enaging in genuine scholarship. I'm sure that someday you'll get that yacht and the pretty blonde girl you're promised if you keep it up.

>>11370669
That there is a greater interest available to everyone at a longer range if only they would choose to be cognizant of it? Yes.

kike roastie who only silicon valley tofuniggers give a shit for

>>11370695
Be offended in my ironcald certainty in Objectivism all you want but not a single goddamn sentence you wrote here is a a concise respectable argument. And no don't bemoan "hurr this Randroid is too far gone in the ideology theres no point in trying to debate him" faggot. If the case against Rand is so clear present your case explictly just like these "intellectual betters" have NEVER done.
You honestly sound buttdevastated the r/philosophy mod that used to axe Ayn Rand threads isn't around anymore.

>>11370724
Can you care to explain why it would be in the self-interest of a slaveholder to give up his slaves and advocate abolition?

>>11370806
The industrial revolution to come that requires a mass of free men that in turn require that the freedom be operant everywhere to ensure the exponential multiplication of each man's productive work can occur.
Slavery is not just morally wrong; it's capitalistically inefficient. Now it is obviously unlikely that a person who would ever engaged in slavery in the first place would be capable of such profound long range ideas. So in this case he will simply suffer the consequences of his error. And they historically did.

>>11369934
obvious resentiment against her communist upbringing combined with typical female + jewish neurosis.

>>11370887
you're joking right? you don't actually believe this fallacious pile of historically illterate nonsense you just threw at me?

>>11370724
Do you think it in the self-interest of pedophiles to have sex with children if they can get away with it?

she died alone in abject poverty abandoned by her cultists who found a new altar to worship at.

>>11370887
>Slavery is not just morally wrong; it's capitalistically inefficient
which is worse in your opinion?

>>11369934
Her appeal is mainly to former leftists or ambitious people in the workplace who grew up feeling guilty of their ambition because of their background or the 1960s leftist environment they grew up in.

But she's still a retard and "objectivists" are retarded. They want the chains of government to be replaced by the chains of other powerful organizations created by a few men who reach the top and that's ok because... meh... individualism.

Well, what about the individual who doesn't want his freedom to have to be "earned" according to the system of values created by other people? What if this person feels that one doesn't really have freedom if one can only exercise it as someone else proscribes? This individual is F*&%ed in the A$#.

And by the way, if John Gault ever got his perpetual energy generator to market it would mean the end of humanity and the end of the world. No civilization, no group of people, has ever nor could ever effectively manage and control that much power. Not just because rational planning of society is impossible, but also because the world is government by processes of natural selection among competing self-propagating systems that are beyond rational control. The world would become a nightmare.

>>11370153
Philosophy is the bridge between science and art.
It is the mixture of science and art. That is why the ancients esteemed her so.
Objectivism posits that art should express philosophy. So far so good,
Does anyone see anything novel and ingenious in either of the above statements? If you live in a modernist ghetto maybe you would. For anyone with real and cultured intellect(naturally excluding most wannabe-rich and spoiled rich kids) this is just banal.

>>11370966
What you're saying is like calling breathing being chains, fundamental realities exist and there is optimal freedom

>>11370934
nice argument

>>11370695
Haha, I am reading your post and laughing. You are so right brother.

Here is an argument for your detractor:
objectivism: "My life, my body and my mind are mine and mine alone"(1) - wow, so novel, so ingenious!
"therefore the products of my life are mine to do with as I please!"(2)

Hmm, who built your body? Who nurtured your body? Aren`t there any outside physical and psychological influences on your mind that you might want to take into account? Or are you rather talking about your <will> being yours. Your <choice>. Also, have you considered the faintest possibility that you might physically and psychologically be part of some system, like a biosphere or a zeitgeist(mind you, not a party, not antifa, not some cult of a 20th century philosopher, not some heroic philosophical "movement"), have you considered what would happen if you totally disconnected from either? Or should we just leave you to die in your beautiful vacuum, as you attend all the ass-licking gala dinners to get to your vaunted busty blonde? Why then do we still post here? Could it be because we care about you? Naagh, no chance. Right?

Does statement 2 include people and/or systems of people as your products? Do you honestly believe a single man can decide the fate of hundreds, thousands or millions without consulting any of them? Have you heard of the word balance? Even if we screw all golden rules and such, do you honestly believe a single man deciding the fates of millions, will not destroy himself and all of them in the process? Would you call that success for you, your movement, the species? A well-taken risk? Or do you regard life - like many highly "successful", rich, famous people have regarded it - like a petulant child?

>>11371071
I agree, fundamental realities exist. I also agree, there is optimal freedom. I just think your completely wrong about your idea of optimal freedom because you don't have the correct view of reality.

>The capitalistic world is low, unprincipled and corrupt.
- Ayn

>The free market . . . is the greatest of all educators. It continually raises the knowledge of the citizens, the caliber of their tastes, the discrimination of their pleasures, the sophistication of their needs . . . the growing statism of a mixed economy promotes the increasingly debased mass tastes we see today in such fields as art, literature, and entertainment.
- Lenny Peikoff

Who was in the wrong here?

>>11370695
What keeps these people going is simply that most anti-Rand arguments from our intellectual betters are just really, really bad. I don't like Rand, I think Objectivism fails thoroughly to deal with the human condition, but I'm disappointed that most people think it's enough to attack a cartoon strawman version of her because her thoughts apparently don't deserve serious engagement. Philosophy is better than that.

>>11371337
Yeah... I used to think that way to. But then you learn that EVERYTHING is political. Even the venerated "Philosophy" and even philosophy practiced at the highest levels. I could give you a very good example of this if you'd like...

>>11370598
Could you give me a quick rundown on what you think the problem of induction is? Because nothing you said solves it, and you seem to be completely ignorant about the subject. I'm sure I'm mistaken and actually you have a keen understanding

>>11371171
Huh. I had pegged her as uncompromisingly capitalistic. I guess i let my own ideas interefere with my interpretation of her constant praise of the creative individual at first. I only made it through half of Atlas Shrugged though and I guess those two quotes don’t really contradict each other, right? It’s like looking at a coffee table from two different angles.

>>11370938
>>11370724
Still waiting for an answer on this one
>>11370965
Randians think they're the same

>>11371379
Early Rand is very much about "aristocratic" individualism vs the mass society represented not just by communism, but also capitalism:
> “The owners and presidents of film studios force their views and demands on the directors. They greedily pursue the public’s tastes. Like obedient slaves, they strive to satisfy every desire of the omnipotent public. They want to release only that which is popular. They are frightened by the new and the unusual”
https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07/ayn-rand-before-capitalism/

My point in contrasting the two quotes is just to present two perspectives or "wings" of Randianism that can lead into very different directions.

>>11370965

>>11371394
>Randians think they're the same

'Randians' would say that economic efficiency follows morality.
A society that values individual autonomy provides it's members with the greatest possible opportunity for innovation and growth.

A society that is not egalitarian is automatically shutting out potential economic/intellectual contributions from huge proportions of the society.

>>11370938
That’s the equivalent of asking whether it is in someone’s self interest to break the law if they can get away with it. I would argue that it is in the best interest of pedophiles to fix their urges elsewhere without breaking the law so that don’t get lynched for having sexual preferences that are against the law.

>>11371066
Modernist art is a product of aesthetic naturalism, which Rand despised.

>>11369635
Let me open this by saying I've never had a debate with a Kantian that didn't end with them trying to move the goalposts to what Kantianism constitutes. Please keep this in mind because no offense; I'm waiting for it from you.

>On the other hand, sometimes our perceptions are erroneous
The mistake you and Kant are making is failing to differentiate perception and conception, this the total crux of Rand's critique of Kant. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that intervenes in the process of light entering the physical structure of our eyes or in the process involved with the other senses. Nor of these sense organs on to our perceptual faculty barring atypical disease. Sense data as such is infallible, the potential fallibilty of our conceptualization of this sense data is not an indictment to reason. Conception is where fallibilty occurs, no perception.
All Kant is bemoaning is that the use of reason to aquire fact and knowledge isn't omniscient. That instead fact would be more pure and true if it were DIRECTLY aquired somehow. This is the foundational cause of the absurdity that is Kant's fomulation of the noumenal vs the phenomenal and the a prioi vs a posteriori and the mistake at the base of Kantianism that Rand was the first to identify.
>There might very well be 10 more dimensions
Or "might" not.
Some of the conclusions that arise out of the Objectivist conception of the universe as a plenum should interest and potentially disturb your ideas. Time does not exist according to objectivist metaphysics. Now this conclusion is shared by plenty of non-objectivist scientists but a related conclusion we hold is sometimes not. The "4th dimension" (whether that means time or dimension W) or any on higher doesn't exist either. The 4th dimension doesn't exist (specifically, is not an existent) because, yes you're reading this right, the 1rst, 2nd, and 3rd dimensions don't exist. Again meaning, as existents. "Dimensions" are simply conceptions we have formulated to explain and interrelate facts of the universe. A 4th dimension it it's literal meaning may be validly conceived in a data set but not as a metaphysical "thing". 3 is where it stops for space.
It's not that they (higher dimensions) are a part of some undergirding noumenal dimension (hyperspace, metaspace, spacetime, heaven, ect) that meta influences "phenomenal space". The fact is is that these were invalid conceptions from the get go.
It all IS the universe as a part of the plenum. There is presumably a meta-meta-meta component to the universe that we simply can never build a tool to perceive it with. But this does not consitute the noumena. It simply just that: too small and/or meta for us ever to build a tool to assess it with. Though alternatively maybe there are simply no limits. Who knows.
There is not a time machine for us to build to travel through the time that does not exist nor is there a Tardis to hop over to that alternate reality where I ate bacon instead of ham.

>>11371171
>The capitalistic world is low, unprincipled and corrupt.
You are failing to either know or state the context in which she said that. Here she is railing against the corrupting influence of the Mixed Economy. She does not have the same view with her laissez faire ideal and would not extend the same sentiment to capitalism opperant in that kind of world.
>>11371379
Oh she is the above anon was just unclear.

>>11372008
>She does not have the same view with her laissez faire ideal and would not extend the same sentiment to capitalism opperant in that kind of world.
Yeah that seemed to go against her core beliefs and defense of capitalism in an idealised manner. If anything, it was a random quote mining and nothing more.

>>11371165
And his view of reality is incorrect in... what respect?

>>11371584
too bad. i just diddled your little sister when no one was looking. dont be mad bro its just my self interest

>>11372008
The context was given here >>11371449, doofus. It's from her time as a screenwriter in the 30s, referring to the mass-oriented nature of Hollywood. It's obvious that she's not at all referring to capitalism as the unknown ideal, which was my point.

>>11371337
>What keeps these people going is simply that most anti-Rand arguments from our intellectual betters are just really, really bad
It's almost like there's a reason for that.
>I don't like Rand, I think Objectivism fails thoroughly to deal with the human condition
Her coining of psycho-epistemology was the biggest leap for understanding the human condition in centuries skipper. You just feel her rejection of the social criterion is going too far. It isn't.

the henry darger of judaism

>>11372030
But then you said in >>11371449
>My point in contrasting the two quotes is just to present two perspectives or "wings" of Randianism that can lead into very different directions.
Peikoff and Rand's quotes completely mesh, they only contradict if you take a passing glance at the sentences and don't think too much about their context which is exact what you did. Peikoff does not represent another wing of Objectivism in any respect.

>>11372037
>Rand
>judaism

>>11372061
thanks for correcting the record rabbi

>>11372051
Do you believe that freer markets have historically raised the caliber of public taste and the discrimination of pleasures?
>>11372061
It's in the blood.

Stupid bitch writing stupid shit

>>11372051
>Peikoff and Rand's quotes completely mesh
Not him, but no, they don't. Rand is saying that business owners try to maximize profit(which is the only real property of capitalism if you choose to see it as anything other than an emergent element of enforcement of contracts mixed with free trade) at the expense of creativity/quality, while Peikoff is saying that "pure" capitalism leads to better arts and tastes.

>>11372075
>Rand is saying that business owners try to maximize profit(which is the only real property of capitalism if you choose to see it as anything other than an emergent element of enforcement of contracts mixed with free trade) at the expense of creativity/quality
*in the mxed economy. Decidedly NOT pure capitalism.
Rand's and Peikoff's sentiment here is the same. Perhaps it's not apparent to you from just these two quotes having read less of her work on the matter than I have but I assure you the two are getting at the same phenomenon.

>>11372008
Where did she talk specifically about the Mixed Economy in the early 30s? I'd love to see a source on this.

>>11372107
Except that Rand is talking about about the 30's movie industry and how the owners of movie studios choose the maximization of profits rather than artistic merit. It have nothing to do with whatever the economy is mixed or not.

>>11372031
>Her coining of psycho-epistemology was the biggest leap for understanding the human condition in centuries
Care to expand?

>>11372109
She didn't explictily until Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal but that is what she meant.

>>11372146
>psycho-epistemology
Not him but to my understanding it's a similar idea from the book Thinking, Fast and Slow. We have two systems of cognitive processes: instinctive and rational. In the book it describes it as system 1 and system 2. It's the difference from doing 2+2 = ? and a large multiplication without using a calculator. The thing is that through repeated process of thinking, you can train your brain to form muscle memory of sorts. What Ayn Rand argued is that you can do the same but with philosophy at large. And by doing this, rather than act on instinct, you learn to always be rational.

>>11372165
And this is the biggest leap for understanding the human condition in centuries? More so than Hegel? This just seems like self help book platitudes

>>11372165
>And by doing this, rather than act on instinct, you learn to always be rational.
Jesus, sounds like a nightmare. But the idea that people can ingrain bad mental habits, and that mental habits can be changed through practice, isn't new. I'm wondering if that's what >>11372031 considers the "biggest leap for understanding the human condition in centuries".

>>11372179
>>11372182
Like I said, it's just my understanding, I don't completely get psycho-epistemology or know much of it.

>>11369934
These are good articles.
https://medium.com/liberation-day/my-thoughts-on-ayn-rand-and-why-i-feel-she-is-unfairly-treated-part-1-a9a245d0b863#.olzb5995e
http://deancook.net/2017/04/29/hume-rand-and-the-is-ought-problem/

>>11372165
in TFaS he says that we rely on our instinctual process to a large degree and that it is in some ways more powerful than the rational one. I dont remember him advocating that we switch entirely to the slow version.

I do know exactly what you're talking about with the muscle memory thing though.

>>11372631
>tries to solve is-ought
>starts by asserting an ought and links this to other oughts
Topkek.

>>11372679
Not an "ought", an "if".

Go full Striner or go home

>>11372857
Pfffttt pleb, unironically, what Striner describes in that image is literally the plot of Atlas Shrugged.

>>11372857
That's cute skipper but watch this

>>11372939
kek this manages to not really amount to anything while also somehow being more poorly written than the Madman Max himself.

>>11372873
But none of those people in Galt's Glutch were laborers.

>the concept of spook is a spook
Confirmed for not reading Striner. Striner didn't mention to abandon ideas like nationalism or whatever completely.

Hell>>11372939 is making the concept of ego itself a spook
>the sacred word: Ego
>sacred

>>11372954
Equality247whatever couldn't possibly have been well spoken emerging from the Orwellian cave as he did

>>11372836
>if you choose to live
Same thing dude. That fact-value gap remains unbridgeable.

>>11372986
Or maybe, just maybe Rand is a shit writer

>>11372971
>the word important is a spook
Fucking Stirnerfags

>>11373048
Read Francisco D'Anconia's speech and tell me Rand is a shit writter.

>>11373049
Can Randfags even read? In my picture, Striner himself claims that he is not against anything, but merely against anything being called or treated as scared.

>>11373078
I've read it, and it's workaday prose, nothing special. Lots of clichés. I think I prefer Molly's soliloquy on an artistic level. Or do you mean it's great philosophically?

>>11373078
Wow now that you actually mentioned, it is actually ... very terrible. He is preaching not arguing for the virtue of money.

>>11370379
spooky

wow, young ayn looked like THAT???!!

>>11372971
>But none of those people in Galt's Glutch were laborers.
Semantics. In Atlas Shrugged you're either a laborer or a parasite.

>Confirmed for not reading Striner. Striner didn't mention to abandon ideas like nationalism or whatever completely.
Nowhere did I or the image imply otherwise, idiot.

>>11373137
>In Atlas Shrugged you're either a laborer or a parasite
It's funny how someone with such a hate boner for Marxism came up with such similar ideas without even realising it

>>11373137
Let's not pretend that Rand dismissed workers as parasites whereas Striner referred to them as laborers.

>Nowhere did I or the image imply otherwise, idiot
The image did when it said 'a spook is a spook in of itself'. It implies that Striner advocated that you must abandon spooks. But that it is not what he said at all. Do you even read the stuff that you posted?

>>11373150
No, similar end result but different beginning points. Marx argues that all capitalist businessmen are parasite by virtue of existing because all labor is exploited. Ayn Rand argued that the fault isn't capitalism itself as a system but idiots doing nothing or accepting government subsidies. Those are completely different and criticize different aspect, even if the dichotomy is similar.

>>11373163
>It implies that Striner advocated that you must abandon spooks.
>Do you even read the stuff that you posted?
lol do you? Learn to understand context moron, the image is implying Ayn Rand is criticizing spook for being a spook in of itself, not Striner. Idiot. How the fuck did you even think that???

The argument being made is that if everything is a spook, nothing is. Therefore whenever people go 'lol spook' it ultimately means nothing but refusal to talk about abstract ideas rather than the proper way Striner uses it which means to just reject becoming tied by duty to an abstract.

The concept of spook should not prevent you from not being able to do anything, thus it becomes a spook in of itself and is to be disregarded if you want to live purely egotistical and selfishly.

>>11373191
>divide the world into productive and unproductive classes whose ends oppose each other
>purely material conception of reality and society
>fanboys who haven't read any other philosophy
C'mon dude the parallels between Rand and Marx are uncanny. Of course he's much more widely respected and taught

>>11373191
Wow thanks for laying out very clearly for everyone to see that you didn't read Striner at all. Spook is not an idea or a concept, or even a category of ideas, but merely a label to descrive the relationship between an idea and the ego, where the former inhibits and controls the latter. Anything can be used to control the ego. Not everything is a spook, but people treat almost everything Randfags as if it were a spook.

>The concept of spook should not prevent you from not being able to do anything
But nobody, Striner or ITT is advocating you to do that. If anything you are the one preventing yourself from disrespecting property rights.

>>11373235
You literally just said the same thing I did but with different words. Name me something that isn't a spook then, idiot.

>>11373235
>If anything you are the one preventing yourself from disrespecting property rights.
Also, I prevent myself from disrespecting property rights because I don't want people to disrespect my property rights. But it doesn't mean that I'm bound to that as though it's impossible for me to disrespect property rights. Which is how spook is meant to be used; as abstract that isn't needed to be followed by duty but one that you can accept to commit to.

>>11373239
>You literally just said the same thing
Nope I sure as fuck didn't

>Name me something that isn't a spook then, idiot.
Holy shit brainlet, anything can be a spook if the ego places it above the ego. ANYTHING.

>>11373263
You fucking idiot, if ANYTHING can be a spook, then literally everything can be a spook. How are you that stupid?

>>11373258
>as though it's impossible for me to disrespect property rights
It is if your rationale is tied to what you want from others. If you need to respect other people's property to protect yours, then you never own it to begin with.

>>11373278
I own by by right without needing to spend my time defending it. The idea that you can't respect other people's property is a spook.

>>11373191
This
Rand's Anticoncept>Stirner's Spook
The spook is an unusable absurdity

>>11373277
>if ANYTHING can be a spook, then literally everything can be a spook.
Yes and? That statement is vastly different from >>11373191
> if everything is a spook, nothing is
>IS

So you failed in your shit gotcha attempt.

>>11373286
>I own by by right without needing to spend my time defending it
Then you do not own it, merely holding it due to a spook.

>The idea that you can't respect other people's property is a spook.
How is disrespecting something that doesn't exist a spook? You are just abusing the word for your own ends

>>11373289
I swear that Striner spook shit is just an excuse for them to just be nihilist and do whatever they want without any regards to their life. And if you ask them about whether their ego should be protected, they'll just say that the ego is a spook and that there's no reason why they can't be irrational even if it might lead to their death.

>>11373293
Yes you moron, that's the point. There is no standard for what is or isn't a spook. Therefore anything is literally everything. And if everything is a spook, nothing is.

>>11373299
>Then you do not own it, merely holding it due to a spook.
The idea that I don't own it unless I exert direct force is a spook.

>You are just abusing the word for your own ends
The idea that I can't use spook however I want is a spook and will not be used to limit my ego.

>Randroids arguing with Stirnerfags

>>11373315
>There is no standard for what is or isn't a spook.
There is. I just said it here >>11373235 and >>11373263. A spook is whatever the ego places above itself. It is merely describe a relationship between the ego and idea, not the idea itself

>unless I exert direct force is a spook
No it isn't. Force is the most real thing there is.

>and will not be used to limit my ego
Are you trolling me or are you merely failing to engage in a proper discussion?

>>11373343
What you don’t understand is that a duty to an abstract is literally the same as putting an idea above the ego but you don’t understand the word duty. And the problem I outlined is that people use spook to just deny ideas themselves.

>Force is the most real thing
Irrelevant. The need to use force to prove ownership is a spook.

>trolling
If anything can be a spook, then so is the misuse of spooks. Are you telling me I can’t use spooks however I want?

>>11373370
>The poster who claiming that Strinerfags are calling everything a spook is dismissing every counter-argument with calling it spooks.
Confirmed trolling or retarded but I am not sticking around to determine which.

>>11373377
That’s the point you moron. And you’re not proving me either.

>>11373381
Proving me wrong*

"Other than sanctioning currency, enforcing private property, building and maintaining infrastructure, and allowing me to live on welfare, what has the government done?" - Ayn Rand

>>11373458
Any Rand was pro government.

>>11369934
>muh kulak ideology
She should've been hanged.

>>11369934
OP you still here? I replied to your post last thread >>11371996

>>11373458
"Ayn Rand was anti-government, right? Must've been, I heard that somewhere. Can't really be bothered to check, nobody cares that much anyway." - Anon

>>11373486
>>11373590

Being for something only inasmuch as it suits you is being against it. Affirming voting and the electoral college unless it produces Republican presidents means rebuking them. She was just as pathetic as twitter "socialists" crying about Trump.

>>11373500
Relax commie

>>11373833
Suits the consistency of the philosophic system she was build actually.
As much as statists want to conflate the separation of state and economics with being anti-government; that doesn't make it so

>>11373953
*building

>>11369934
Heil Rand! Heil Objectivism!

>>11374327
(You)

>>11373486
She's AnCap retard.

>>11374798
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html
No she isn't dumbfuck. What would possess you to just inject yourself into a topic while knowing fuck all about it? Fuck off.

Why can't people get that her whole philosophy was just a rebellion against the fact that the Bolsheviks expropriated everything her middle class family owned and forced them to flee the country?

Her philosophy isn't even supposed to make sense, it's just supposed to make you hate Commies.

>>11369942
>They think with their feels, but we think with our brains

Anon typed this with a straight face.

Unreadable 2D characters and paper-thin plot lines. Essential unreadable drivel as fiction. If you like her politics, I suppose it's worth wading through the hundreds of pages of bad writing to get to the message

>>11374951

>>11374798
>Ancap
FUCKING LOL she hated Ancaps the same way Stirner thinks he's clever for going 'lol just use force lmao it's real' without caring about his life.

>>11370021
This tbqh

So many of Ayn Rand's discoveries in concept formation, meta-cognition and their interrelation with volition come from introspection. The complex application of Aristotlean logic to assessing the subconscious that Rand was the forst to formulate in a non mystical and subjectivist way.
(The catchphrase "common sense" in the west is simple application of Aristotlean logic btw)
Concept formation and psycho-epistemology, her two greatest discoveries in my view; all formulated through introspection. The way she solved that was by talking to someone who was asking her view on it in the context of the deliberations of past philosophers and then thought "hmm how DO I form concepts" and simply mused introspectively. She looked inward and worked out the meta of what is really going on when she or anyone forms a concept and is how she solved a millenia old problem.

>>11373370

>The need to use force to prove ownership is a spook.
frend, you're clearly not understanding our other anonymous frend if you type this with full sincerity. He said the qualification for what is a spook and isn't a spook is the relationship between an idea and the ego, whether or not the idea is above the ego defines a spook. The real application of force isn't just an idea, you can't say "I hold my ego above this" and negate the consequences of force. That means it isn't a spook if you are talking about somebody attacking somebody else for something, I don't know, to make them suck their dick. Any idea has the potential to be a spook, but you can't point at a chair and say "that is a spook". To who? How are they holding it over their ego? Do they worship the chair? Do they not sit in the chair when they could because they are afraid it may hurt the chair?

>>11370379
>It is IN your self-interest to respect others rights and see that they are respected. Long range self-interest
Absolutely not, lots of people have gotten away with not respecting the rights of others. The idea that your transgressions against others will necessarily haunt you in your lifetime is pure fantasy.

>>11377267
Some pedophiles get away with raping children but the ones that don't have a nasty eventuality waiting for them when the guards leak to the prison populace that new inmate x is in for didling kids.
All getting away with something implies is holes or pure accidental failures in the otherwise, though sometimes not, robust legal system. They are not womehow an indictment to the opperants of the morality itself. Stop waxing apologist for authoritarianism.

>>11377241
Stirnerism simply does not survive this post.

>>11369934
Bump for OP returning and seeing my reply

>Taking a casual reread of this thread
It strikes me how uncomfortable it makes its detractors to actually refer to Objectivism as Objectivism and instead insist on calling it Randism.
Really makes me think

>>11378610
Watch Sam Harris sometime, he is frequently dripping with butthurt over the fact that a capitialist coined "Objectivism" before a socialist could.

Dang it come back Kant anon

>>11369942
>>11374957

Was gonna say your bait was obvious but obviously some spastics fall for it

Last bump for OPs return so he can see >>11371996
Sorry I took so long to post it.

>>11378730
I've been meaning to read his "Moral Landscape" book for a couple weeks actually.

>>11369934
damn, i'd tap that

>>11377241
>The real application of force isn't just an idea, you can't say "I hold my ego above this" and negate the consequences of force.
I don't think you understood my post at all. The real application of force is real, I don't dispute that, what I argue is the idea that one must use force to make something real is a spook. The qualifier that only by using force that you prove any ownership is an idea that goes beyond the ego because it forces you to use force. There is nothing stopping me from not using force on other people and I choose not to do so.
You have misunderstood what I said if you think I argued that a chair is a spook.

>>11381870
>that a chair is a spook
The chair is a spook anon

>>11381888
The chair is real. Reality is not a spook.

>>11383408
>implying you can prove that

>>11372857

>>11383408
>what I define as reality is not a spook
LOL

>>11383441
>muh reality vanishes when I close my eyes because God might stop thinking
>implying experiencing reality means that it somehow doesn't exist and not self-evident proof
As Ayn Rand said:
>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.
>[Reality] exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists [and is real] which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which [is real and] exists.
>If nothing [is real], there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
>To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes.


>>11383558
Reality is everything. It is beyond definition because it is all-encompassing. It is not a spook because it is not an abstract to idea, nor is it an idea. If reality is not real, then so is the idea of using force since that too is not real.

>>11383441
>muh reality vanishes when I close my eyes because God might stop thinking
>implying experiencing reality means that it somehow doesn't exist and not self-evident proof
As Ayn Rand said:
>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.
>[Reality] exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists [and is real] which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which [is real and] exists.
>If nothing [is real], there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
>To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes.


>>11383558
Reality is everything. It is beyond definition because it is all-encompassing. It is not a spook because it is not a duty to an abstract since reality itself is not just 'an idea' but everything. If reality is not real, then so is the idea of using force since that too is not real.

>>11371996
Sorry, I've been busy. I hope I can reply to you tomorrow. I just bump this thread, so it might still be here when I have the time to reply to it.

>>11369934
She looks like a qt 3.14 Russian in that picture. It's a shame she cut her hair to make herself look like a bitter old cunt.

>>11384934
You're back. Noice. I'll bump too

>>11383621
>Reality is that which exists
Searing insights

>>11385300
You have to understand the metaphysics she is juxtaposing it with. Being literal and deliberate here is the foundation she is hard-required to set so that she may then build on and posit more insightful deliberations. The three irreducible axioms are one. The universe as a plenum is another.
Her entire life story pretty much boils down to a fight against Platonist metaphysics. Kant's and his ilk's in particular.

>>11385401
But people don't deny that 'reality is what exists; the unreal does not exist' even Plato or Kant. Those are pretty much just definitions.
The difficulty is in working out what actually exists and what doesn't. Saying 'reality is what exists' is circular and gets you no closer to finding out what exists.

>>11383621
Maybe I'm missing something here, but who's denying that some things exist and others don't? Isn't the problem generally determining which things exist in which ways / to which degrees and why? Like the anon above said, I don't see anything here that Plato or Kant or anybody else would disagree with.

>>11385401
>The universe as a plenum is another.
It's not. Unless you are a follower of the luminiferous ether theory

>>11385514
Not circular; axiomatic.

>>11385577
Presumably that is only one of many theories that subscribe to plenum theory. I confess I know nothing about that one.
Nothing in quantum mechanics discovered thus far contradicts plenum theory, just like nothing in it as hard proved multiverse theory.

>>11385514
But they do assert the primacy of conciousness over the primacy of existence, which is Rand's contention.

who is the guy that keep creating these threads?

>>11386292
>Nothing in quantum mechanics discovered thus far contradicts plenum theory
Modern physics directly contradicts plenum theory. There was this guy called Einstein, he did some work on it

>>11383621

Ayd Rand: also a redditor.

>>11386344
Scientists have been discovering that certain aspects of Einsteins formulations such as spacetime are wrong.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2017/01/quantum-view-of-space-space-does-not-exist-independently-.html
His physics are hard-irrefutable of course but his opinion on the WHY, ie metaphysics, are not.

Her books are bad, characters are written one dimensionally.

>>11386788
you have no idea what you're talking about

>>11386526
>implying
r/philosophy literally disallows her being discussed in a serious capacity.

>>11386808
No u :^)

>>11386825
no, this is serious. stop reading popsci, it rots your brain.

>>11386313
This one is by some Kantanon actually. I'm the most pro Rand guy itt but haven't made the past 4 or so Objectivism threads I've participated in, if you were thinking that.
Why do you ask?

>>11386840
Don't just name drop Einstein thinking the made was 100% correct in every conceivable respect, he wasn't.
The theory of relativity can be generally correct while misintegrating certain nuanced causal connections. As plenty of scientists assert he did.

>>11386873
you are the one namedropping irrelevant meme scientists in a popsci article while fundamentally misunderstanding the entire discussion. you don't know anything.

>>11386879
I'll bite misunderstandind in what respect?

>>11386873
Nobody is saying Einstein was 100% correct about everything. Was is true is that relativity has completely supplanted plenum theory in modern physics. We now understand more about how light works and no longer need to posit a plenum full of ether to explain the wave function.
Of all the hills you can choose to die on, plenum theory is just about the worst I can think of. Rand was wrong about this, move on. It doesn't necessarily mean she was wrong about other stuff, any more than Einstein's occasional mistakes mean he was wrong.

>>11386526
>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.
>[Reality] exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists [and is real] which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which [is real and] exists.
>If nothing [is real], there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
>To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes.

This IS reddit.

>>11386968
Ah I see; you think the old Aristotle conception (one of the fews things he was wrong) of the etherial plenum is the end all be all of the concept of the universe existing as a plenum.
The plenum has been modernized with the advent of quantum mechanics. I heavily recommend you look into it /sci/ anon.

>>11387127
What are you talking about? Nobody has taken plenum theory seriously for a hundred years

>>11387053
I don't know, seems more like a YouTube/4chan-level insight.

>>11370153
>1+1=2, as confirmed by countless authors, please buy the rest of my bullshit

>>11370379
>It is IN your self-interest to respect others rights and see that they are respected.
If that isn't the biggest lie anybody has ever had the audacity to say about Rand's (or right-wing in general) philosophy, then calling rand a leftist would be the only other possible one.

>>11387210
In pre-Relativistic physics, we have the ether described as a “fluid” through which electromagnetic waves propagate, permeating (consisting) of all of space. In “modern” “accepted” physics the concept of the ether is replaced by the quantum field. This field is the substrate for not only electromagnetic propagation, but all energy and matter in the Universe.
(Also, the elementary wave theory of Lewis Little presents an approach to modern physics which rests upon different philosophical grounds, and has been posited as an alternative to quantum mechanics.)

>>11387053
Of all the words you could try to describe to Rand with, leddit isn't one of them. Reddit will tell you as much themselves.

>>11371345
please do

>>11387828
>In “modern” “accepted” physics the concept of the ether is replaced by the quantum field.
stop memeing

>>11383621
>things exist because they do

>>11369934
>>11388540

>>11388540

>>11388540

>>11388622
>things don't exist because I somehow don't believe it

>>11387366
Its not a lie whatsoever, its something Rand would have completed endorsed. Its in your self interest to respect other peoples property so they respect yours

>>11388795
I don't understand why people think that maintaining the integrity of rights is important so that you don't end up having someone infringe on your friends. By what standards is protecting rights a leftish position?

>>11388795
I don't understand why people think that maintaining the integrity of rights is important so that you don't end up having someone infringe on your own rights. By what standards is protecting rights a leftish position?

>>11387333
Ok anon, what specific issue do you take here? Be robust.

>>11388623
Posting warosu
>>/lit/thread/S11388540
Now what did you mean by this?

>>11388622
Observe.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/irreducible_primaries.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/axiomatic_concepts.html

>>11388990
I still haven't seen any example of a philosopher disagreeing with these. You claim that "stuff exists, consciousness exists, stuff is identical with itself" are revolutionary positions, I want to know who is attacking them, and where.

>>11387828
In other words, the universe is not a plenum. What do you think fills the vast empty spaces between stars and galaxies? Your mother's ass?

>>11389639
Vacuum, but not "void". A void is specifically and area devoid of existence with no identity. But such a thing is impossible and a contradiction in terms. Dark matter and other theories have been posited but none hard proven. The (modern) plenum theory, likewise unproven, simply posits that nowhere in the universe has a void. Not even the vast distance between galaxies. Likewise the universe is finite BUT there is no "edge" to it. It can be said to go on forever and have "infinite distance" but "distance" here is a conception only. There can only be a finite number of entites. To posit that there may be an infinite number of them is to contradict the concept of entity.
The correct descriptor of the universe is not infinite but eternal.

>>11389225
Oftimes it isn't even philsophers diasgreeing with them but instead not being cognizant of them nor their implications and failing to integrate them in the first place.
Jacques Derrida:
"We need to interpret interpretations more than to interpret things"
Here is the primacy of conciousness laid bare. Postmodernists are often explicitly and openly irrationalist but on the other hand other philosophies such as empiricism, pragmatism, "rationalism", and "realism" simply perform their assorted errors by default.
I, frankly, need to reread more example philosophers of each of these creeds to have relevant quotes on the mind to present to you like you clearly want.

>>11370153
>Concepts condense percepts; philosophy, as the science of the broadest integrations, condenses concepts; and art then condenses philosophy—by returning to the perceptual level, this time in a form impregnated with a profound abstract meaning."
That really is it isn't it? My professor likes to tell me art is undefineable and above petty human classificstions. I always knew that was bullshit.

The tards smearing Rand need to dial it back a couple notches of they don't want people reading her work for themselves out of sheer curiosity. Look at this abortion of an article https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
I knew nothing about Objectivism 5 years ago and if not for the blatantly pathetic salt of this fucker I never would have. Fast forward to today and I've read half of Rand's nonfiction and conside myself an Objectivist.
Did the person who recommended me this link think it would convince me to hate Rand? Literally had the opposite effect. All I saw were the ramblings of a child.
This guy is completely right:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand/Archive2#CP_level_of_quality

>>11388622
That's literally it though

>>11390742
>The (modern) plenum theory
no such thing pseud

>>11392473
It is merely niche. You need only go looking.
https://garyherstein.com/2016/09/23/plenum/
The modern theoruly simple rejects the ether and instead rests it's foundation on quantum mechanics.

>>11392986
utter dross

>>11392986
>let's ignore the consensus of modern science because it contradicts the Leader
And objectivists get butthurt when you call them a cult. Why is it so hard to admit she was wrong about this one thing, which on its own doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of her thought is wrong?