/lit/ - Literature

>>12809814
If that's really why you dislike her why don't you make threads about Smith, Mises, Rothbard, Locke, Mill and Bentham with the same vehemence you display here? Or might it be that you dislike her because you've been told to?

>>12809814
At least try next time anon. There are strawmen and then there is your post.

>>12809821

I dislike her for being narrowminded honestly. Growing up in the USSR made her react extremely in favour of a selfish ideology. Extreme libertarianism is a joke.

>>12809825
Any thinker committed to their intellectual project could be described as "narrowminded". How else is someone to defend their position?

Taxation is theft but the IRS does it anyway because nobody will stop them. That's just how it goes.

>>12809845
Not anon.

A good philosopher will identify their own assumptions and the weaknesses in their system, at least in late career.

This woman has her public and private life made a shambles by her philosophical Atlas, but on her death bed seems to either have learned nothing, gone into massive denial, or desirious of keeping a bold face to justify an experientially unfruitful life-philosophy.

Philosophers can and often do come out of suffering with a "selah" state of mind while retaining their essential philosophy; Rand died resentful, even when fully convinced she was right. Being right wasnt enough; she hated that she wasnt triumphant, which would have made her insufferable.

>Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

:^)

>>12809814
>>12810695

Ayn Rand was a fiction author and rarely touched on philosophical concepts. If you're looking for a good introduction to libertarianism, Nozick's Socratic Puzzles and Anarchy, State, and Utopia are a good place to start. If you're more interested in anarcho-socialist literature, check out Emma Goldman's Anarchism and Other Essays.

t. guy with a relatively useless philosophy degree

philosophy in general is useless. a bunch of bozos who think that they will attain to "the Truth" by sitting around and joggin their noggin. poetry/literature will forever be superior

>>12810703
Lol mr philosophy degree how bout you read one of her many philosophy books (the virtue of selfishness for instance) and then get back to us k?

>>12810703
Second poster.

>Rand was novelist
This makes it even worse, if anything. Her narrative is stilted with ideological marysues and straw memes; the only thing that excuses the prose is the underlying ideas, which isnt well represented.

t. havent read those books; a passing pseud

>>12810723
I tried, but I failed to find anything of great merit -- especially when compared to other anarchistic philosophers who may be considered her contemporaries.

>>12810732
In my opinion, Rand was a failed philosopher and novelist. Because she couldn't succeed in expressing her ideas in academic philosophy, she tried imposing those ideas on fiction. Everything she writes comes off as forced and unnatural, every position argued against is a straw man. Highly disappointing given her popularity.

>>12810703
She's not taken seriously as a philosopher in academia but she wasn't only a writer of fiction. She wrote several philosophical treatises, and her ideas have done a lot more to shape American culture and politics (much to our detriment) than Nozick's or Goldman's. She's worth reading to understand the mindset of the right wing libertarian.

>>12810695
Or. Or a philosopher will attempt to no have any weaknesses in their system. Centrism rots your brain anon.

I see this thread is based on the same reddit spreadsheet platitudes that are always used to smear Rand. This "died miserable" is pulled straight out of her detractors asses.

>>12810744
>Everything she writes comes off as forced and unnatural, every position argued against is a straw man
Identifying the intensity of altruism's and irrationalism's evil=/=erecting a strawman

>>12809814
What answer do you have to the fact Rand accomplished:
>The Objectivist Theory of Concepts
>solved the "Problem of Universals"
>the discovery of the intrinsic/subjective/objective trichotomy
>the formulation of psycho-epistemology
>the identification of several new logical fallacies
>Rand's Razor
>providing LfCap's then lacking philosophic base
>the, not solving, but invalidating of Hume's Is/Ought problem
>coining of the meta cognitive tool of critique; the "Anticoncept"
Nothing I wager.
But the reddit infographic that gave you your opinion of Rand doesn't arm you for such things does it?

>>12810774

I accept that you call me brainrotted centrist; i am a middlebrow pseud, so you might be right.

But heres what i got:

A philosopher should never pffffft at genuine doubt. Rand is (in)famous for cutting people off if they dont agree enough with her.

I can understand Rand wanting her headphilosophy to always win; how that's done is by modifying the parts that fail, not sticking to your original utterence forever like it's some xoanon tablet that fell from heaven.

Also, your pic:
>Critics say she was butthurt
>"Detractors"

>A close friend of hers
>"He would never lie to preserve her memory."
I'm not invested enough in Rand's ideas or person or work to buy this, anon.

>>12810777
The problem is she already decided that altruism and etc are bad, but doesnt prove it to (Us). Doesnt make them meander by their own decisions and "logical" event progression to tragedy/disaster.

This is bad storyteliing, epecially for a polemic narrative; imaginative laziness right on par with Pilgrim's Progress and Jack Chick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Later_years

>Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.[97] In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, she allowed social worker Evva Pryor, an employee of her attorney, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare

>>12809814
Rawls

>>12809821
>why don't you make threads about Smith, Mises, Rothbard, Locke, Mill and Bentham
Because they are actually good. Even if you disagree with them they are intelligent and influential writers with important things to say and cogent arguments, as opposed to Rand's scientology tier nonsense

I started reading the Fountainhead, and the first two parts were good, because the plot carried it, but then 500 pages in none of the character's motivations make any sense, and none of them feel like actual people.

>>12809814
Rand and Marx are both radicals and all radicals are the same, sitting there in the filth on the and of the horseshoe while myself (one who considers themselves an intellectual) takes the rational approach of identifying what these two people believe and then situating my beliefs in between them. They're both right and wrong but I take the rational, moderate and intelligent position in the centre unlike extremists.

>>12811056
This comment right here. I agree with this.

>>12811763

>t. herd animal
I bet cherrypicking philosophy quotes and listening to youtube retards livestream their own mental diarrhea must be intellectually taxing. Heaven forbid you leave the safety of the middle of the herd.

>>12811832
This is exactly what an extremist would say.

>>12811852

project harder

>>12811832
middle of the herd is comfy. when the frost winds come, those on the perimeter freeze first

>>12810774
i can't imagine who would go through that much trouble and lies to produce that infographic

>>12811763
>implying Rand and Marx are on the same level
Love or hate him, Marx is the most important thinker of the last 150 years with an incalculable influence on economic, politics and philosophy. He's indisputably an intellectual giant. Rand is a bad novelist with a creepy fanbase. Stop trying to elevate your cult leader by pretending she's relevant