/lit/ - Literature

hey anon, can you break down her beliefs in a simple way for someone dumb like me to understand. i wonder if i agree as well.

NO, rule #4!

ethical egoism is not compatible with ethical conflict regulation

>mans personal beliefs and values are objective
you agree?

>Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception. That one can attain objective knowledge from perception
With this I disagree.
>that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest
Agreed.
>that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights
Agreed.
>and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.
Mostly disagree.

>>1457909
Elaborate.

>>1457918
well that's your problem


you subscribe to romantic bullshit

>>1457920
here is some toilet paper

wipe your own arse

>>1457926
I'm open minded, what are the alternatives?

>>1457918
>that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest
>the proper moral purpose
>one's own
>morality is about selfishness

I just don't think that is what is meant by the words. Maybe most altruistic actions are done for ultimately selfish reasons, but the two aren't necessarily related

It boils down to "the world would be so much better if everyone was always an asshole towards each other and no one ever did anything for other people."

>>1457899
anyone?

>>1457934
1.drop all previously-held associations with objectivity and morality

2.acknowledge nihilism, do not let yourself sympathize with the common nihilist/ do no stop here


and this is where real philosophy begins

>>1457949
all aboard the defeatist train choo! choo!

>>1457957
all aboard the small dick traind. choo! choo!

>>1457963
>dat newfag

does anybody pay attention to rule 4 anymore???

>>1457972
not when there are no mods to enforce the rules

> she thinks that one can attain objective knowledge from perception

What is rule 4?

>>1457999
NO RAND!

>>1457949
Fabulous, do I have to school you on the nature of nihilism again. even if you reject objective truth of morals, that still doesn't entail nihilism unless you reject all moral statements as meaningless. Which makes no sense, as they clearly result in some degree of influence on other humans in semi-consistent ways, so they convey something and that something is their meaning. Its not objective, but its not nihilism. Stop using that word. its not 'nigger' there isn't a movement to reclaim the word for the nihilists, cause nihilism has never been a tenable position.

>>1457983
You need several people to report a thread first.

>>1458010
>they clearly result in some degree of influence on other humans in semi-consistent ways, so they convey something and that something is their meaning

most idiotic account of meaning I have heard in a good ol while, probably as idiotic if not moreso than reference

>>1458020
whats your definition of meaning?
enlighten me.

>>1458045
>definition
I don't use that sort of language, sorry

Congrats OP you have a conscience and the ability to emphatize, both of which have no place in Rand's world.

>>1458071
Its easy to throw stones, eh?
You fucking cop-out!

Read her bio. She came from Russia and was sick of communism so she embraced capitalism/egotism/whatnot as The One True Trueness(TM). Don't mind her. Extremes are retard's homey.

>>1458081
It's your own fault for buying into a myopic system of thought

>>1458081
>>1458045
>>1458010
not that you aren't quite the entertaining quarrel to support, i will prevent myself from such actions

you still beleive in the inter-subjective, no?

>>1458094
while i am the one who posted the original point, I'm not the one fighting with D&E. But yeah, intersubjectivity is the locus of all meaning.

OP here.

>>1457949
I'll keep that in mind.

>>1458075
Good to know.

I'm still waiting on more ideas and opinions on the subject. I mean, apart from >implications.

>inter-subjectivity

this is kind of like that time the existentialists asserted that meaning is self-created and basically ignored the fundamental problem at hand

>>1458125
actually here is the analogy I forgot to use;
putting a rabbit in a hat, taking it out and expecting an applause from the audience

>>1458130
No its more like saying the old attempts at giving meaning were bullshit, so its less of a magic trick and more of calling out the charlatans for their claims of magic powers.

>>1458106
i sort of admire this notion of the "inter-subjective"

it is pretty revolutionary , for wishful thinking

>>1458142
>No its more like saying the old attempts at giving meaning were bullshit

That had very little to do with what I said.

>>1458153
Yes it did, it was a rejection of your metaphor.

>>1458150
How is it wishful thinking?

>>1458156
it was an analogy. It was also concerned with the historical aspect of nihilism as opposed to the existential aspect. I have absolutely no concern for the historical aspect seeing as anyone with a single brain cell who is not being held down by several centuries of bourgeois propaganda is capable of working out for themselves that the notion of institutions and ideologies serving as sources of meaning is completely and utterly halfwitted.

Also, if you use the word 'refute' as utterly incorrectly as you did again I will not respond to you.

>>1458165
I don't think I used the word 'refute', I did a ctrl+f and the only use of the word 'refute' is in your post.

>>1458165
>>1458153
>>1458125
>>1458091
>>1458020
>>1457970
>>1457957
>>1457909
Please ban this cunt, mods.

>>1458178

>>1458178
>>1458181
>how to feel superior with only a few seconds of your time

>>1458178

> lit
> mods

Not so much, no.

>>1458171
That is true bro. Let me put it another way so; I'm not going to respond to you unless you start coming out with statements that aren't total irrelevant horseshit immediately.

>>1458159
oh look on the bright side! i also said it was revolutionary!

>>1458184
>implying i didn't genuinely lol

>>1458186
Good i'm tired of your inane faggotry. Go shit up another thread.

OP here.

There is no catharsis, I gain no deeper knowledge of myself or the subject. But at I least I understand rule #4 now.

I am so sorry.

>>1458209
>implying not responding to you = leaving the thread

>>1458184
>>1458186
> Sages: everywhere
> Thread: remaining

YOU TRIPFAGGOTS DONE RUSTLED UP MY JIMMIES FOR THE LAST TIME DAGNABBIT

>>1458218

You mad?

sage

Bump. Why do you hate tripfags so much? I think that we tripfags are more intelligent and contribute way more to the conversation than anons.

>>1458229
So mad I'm pissing blood!

>>1458251
this thread got randumb faster than they usually do

>>1458186
Sheep are blue and magic. NOW PLEASE NEVER REPLY TO ME AGAIN.

>>1458187
Yes, and that was very nice of you. Its just that as I see it, there is no wish fulfillment, but quite the opposite, wish rejection. If we take the nihilist claim that moral statements are meaningless, we run into the fact that the nihilist expresses a wish for what moral statements should be in order that they be meaningful that is unfulfillable. But my position is that such wishes are themselves meaningless products of the subjective, our wishes are irrelevant words have their meaning outside of individual desires or wishes. Ultimately I'd say the moral realist is a position of wish fulfillment, the nihilist is a position of despairing unfulfilled wishes, and the position of intersubjective morality is one where wishes don't factor in.

>>1458292
>If we take the nihilist claim that moral statements are meaningless, we run into the fact that the nihilist expresses a wish for what moral statements should be in order that they be meaningful that is unfulfillable
Non sequitur

>the nihilist is a position of despairing unfulfilled wishes
straw mang

>intersubjective morality is one where wishes don't factor in
I am really glad you are such an authority on telling us what position is wishing what bro

>>1458310
why did you get my hopes up with the "i wont' reply to you again" shit and then you reply with bunch of stupid shit.

You are such a troll.

>>1458292
nice rinse&repeat, my compatriot

>>1458335
Yeah, well its not like I have new material to go over, I'm just curious by your characterization.

>>1458325
>reply with bunch of stupid shit
>point out this guys logical fallacies
>stupid shit

I guess you could say that we run into the fact that this halfwit expresses a wish for what logical statements should be in order that they be valid is unfulfillable.But my position is that such wishes are themselves totally and utterly irrelevant to a person's argument .

>>1458342
But seriously, when are you gonna make good on the promise to stop replying to me?

>>1458338
and i don't blame you for that, I really don't

Ok, /lit/, I'm an ignorant. Please tell me what is wrong with me.
You haven't read her shit.

Real answer: objectivism is a fine philosophy. Some may call it selfish, but it's logically sound, and it works for individuals.

So why does /lit/ hate it? Two reasons. First, Rand's philosophy is written into her books, especially Atlus Shrugged, in quite a crude way. The opponents to objectivism are straw men, and the idea of an objectivist society is treated as a utopia. Secondly, Rand is overdiscussed to the point where we have a rule that explisitly forbids discussing Atlus Shrugged. We're simply sick of talking about it.

>>1458292
>wishes are themselves meaningless products of the subjective
I dunno bro the last time I wished I had a candy bar it was pretty meaningful 4 me bro
>the subjective
"the subjective" OOOGA BOOGA BOOGA, like it's some ghostly apparition out there in the cosmos somewhere, too abstract

>our wishes are irrelevant words (that) have their meaning outside of individual desires or wishes
>irrelevant words
bullshit, I don't even know where to begin. It would help if you spelled out what they were irrelevant for.

>(that) have their meaning outside of individual desires or wishes
More bullshit, you're telling me it's not meaningful to me if I desire a candy bar or for someone to take a mallet to your idiot noggin? Get fucking real brah. Meaning cannot be reduced to this dumb abstract notion constituted by multiple individuals EXACTLY BECAUSE there is only the individual, "be that self which one truly is." - Kierkegaard

>>1458292
>Ultimately I'd say the moral realist is a position of wish fulfillment, the nihilist is a position of despairing unfulfilled wishes, and the position of intersubjective morality is one where wishes don't factor in.

Okay bro let's project your idiotic and superfluous notion of wishes to a set of abstract propositions in the first two cases and not the third sounds good bro

fuck.ing. hell.

>>1458380
oooh sorry bad punctuation on my part, should be:
our wishes are irrelevant, words have their meaning outside of individual desires or wishes

>>1458380
oooh sorry bad punctuation on my part, should be:
our wishes are irrelevant; words have their meaning outside of individual desires or wishes

>>1458394
>words have their meaning outside of individual desires or wishes
words have their meaning through differance etc, all this is ultimately reducible to individual desires or wishes however considering power relations
You wouldn't happen to be uh koroviev would you

Don't listen to Deep&Edgy, he's fat.

All his opinions are now invalidated.

>>1458401
are you honestly trying to advocate differance. cute.

>>1458374
>logically sound
>reality exists independent of consciousness
That doesn't even have sense to be logically sound, taking sound here not to be your entirely flippant, misleading and idiotic use of the term

ITT: D&E desperately tries to get someone to fight with him so he can go "HAHA I TROL YOU"

>>1458407
>mfw

>>1458410
you must be new here

>>1458408
maybe you would like to put forward an alternate account of meaning, which I can subsequently tear apart

>>1458418
If I put forward meaning was sheet of tissue paper, you still couldn't 'tear it apart'

>>1458409
I didn't say it was correct or sensible. I said it was logically sound. There is a huge difference.

>>1458424
If you put yourself forward as meaning I could still 'tear it apart'

>>1458430
>I didn't say it was correct or sensible
Neither did I
>I said it was logically sound
And you are totally wrong

>>1458448
>sensible
>sensical
also, lol kid you have no fucking clue what I am talking about, instant disqualification

>>1458451
>sensical
That's not a word, and has nothing to do with your or my posts. Either I've been trolled, or D&E has poor reading comprehension. I'm inclined to think both.

>>1458460
>That's not a word, and has nothing to do with your or my post
Lol, fucking clueless shallow-pate.

D&E. What schools of philosophy would you consider yourself to be most closely aligned to? Who are you favorite thinkers? I'm just curious.

>>1458460

He's speaking of sense as Frege would.

>>1458464
I would normally assume I've been trolled here and ignore you, but on the off-chance that you are serious: the only definition for "sensical" I could find included "sensible" in its definition, which would make your previous comment somewhat confusing. I don't think you know what the barely used word actually means.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sensical

>>1458476

See >>1458475

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege/#FreTheSenDen

You don't understand him.

maybe someone else who is at least vaguely competent would like to step in for this illiterate shitbird

>>1458485

D&E.

>>1458470

>>1458475
>>1458481
Oh, that clarifies a lot. I figured a Rand thread would focus on her social individualist ideas, and not the metaphysical ones. I originally meant that Rand's ideas of rational self-interest were logically sound. Whether or not the traditional objectivist viewpoint is logical is an argument that won't be resolved any time soon.

"Sensical" still isn't a word in this context though.

>>1458492
Something can be logically sound but still completely ridiculous if you have chosen shitty axioms. Rand's axioms are shitty, so of course she comes to idiotic conclusions.

If you are 16 years old, have a false sense of entitlement, have an inflated-for-no-reason ego, and don't want to have any friends, Rand's philosophy is great. If you are a real human being who wants to live a happy, successful life, stay far away from her.

>>1458488
Mono I don't consider myself closely aligned to any school of philosophy in the least and I do not have favourites. This is not very helpful I know but there you go.

>>1458492

>I originally meant that Rand's ideas of rational self-interest were logically sound
Feel free to post them and I will destroy them along with the idiotic metaphysical notions they are derived from

>>1458503

Okay. No worries.

lol philosphy
horseshit

>>1458503
I agree that the metaphysical aspect has logical flaws. But as >>1458501 points out, this is part of her base premise, not her reasoning. If you want to pick apart her reasoning, feel free to go do research.

You see this thread, OP? This is why we don't talk about Rand.

>>1458525

>>1458532
no, that's why we don't talk to D&E

>>1458532
>this is part of her base premise, not her reasoning
Well then there's nothing to fucking talk about then because you either buy into the axioms or you don't. Essentially all you've said in this thread is that you agree with her fucking axioms, big wow, your medal's in the mail bro.

>>1458545
no, that's why we don't go to Ravenholm

>>1458532
>these are my premises, don't criticise please!

kill yourself.

OP, usually the things people have problems with are:
Reality and Morality being objective
Reason is absolute
Selfishness should be universal
Capitalism as the only viable system

It's more often than not one of the above things she is criticized on. There are good arguments for and against each of the above, and it pretty much boils down to what your own opinion is. You should look into it; it's a popular philosophy which is different to the status quo, and when you find out enough you'll probably find your own opinion diverges at certain key points.

tl;dr Read her stuff, but like anything view it as a way to explore ideas, not to be told what you should think.

>>1458755
no. rand is a hack. there is no need to discuss anything.

>>1458789
Who said anything about discussion?

Although if you want one, why is it that you think Rand is a hack?

>>1458797
Read the thread, asshole

>>1458803
There is some discussion, but it degenerates into "But my own view is different.", and then a lot of claims that this view is somehow objectively better or more rigorous or whatever. This is, of course, a load of bullshit.

No need to get butthurt bro.

>>1458821
>There is some discussion, but it degenerates into "But my own view is different.", and then a lot of claims that this view is somehow objectively better or more rigorous or whatever. This is, of course, a load of bullshit.
That is a fair enough appraisal of every post that isn't mine itt

>>1458821
>objectively better
This is the problem with Rand and Randites. To them, there is one "objectively better" for everything. Opinions can be wrong in that view. The rest of us normal people see that there are shades of grey.

There is no arguing with a Randite. They take as a premise "reality is objective, that reality can be perceived without bias through human sense organs, every question (philosophical, moral, or other) has one answer, and that answer is whatever I have arrived at. QED."

Objectivism is a philosophy for unimaginative children. It fuels a typical teenage fantasy in which you are always right and everyone around you is wrong. It feels nice until you realize you have no friends, no job, and no future.

Let's define selfishness as everything I like and everything I don't and reminds me of communism is altruism

>>1458840
>This is the problem with Rand and Randites. To them, there is one "objectively better" for everything.
Well, no, this is in fact (surprisingly to me) the problem with those criticizing Rand ITT. Your own post is one example; you say you can appreciate different views, but still you view yourself as the "normal" correct view, and those who disagree with you as "unimaginative teenagers".

>>1458856
This is the main problem I have with Rand. It's designed to be doctrinal in certain arenas. However, who isn't?

>>1458866
>you say you can appreciate different views, but still you view yourself as the "normal" correct view, and those who disagree with you as "unimaginative teenagers".
Actually Anon didn't characterise those who disagreed as being unimaginative teenagers, merely those whose disagreements consisted of views common to unimaginative teenagers.

>>1458896
I put it to you that that is exactly what they're saying, and that the real problem is, for that poster, they cannot enforce their own opinion on a Randite.

It cannot be about what the post purports to be about, the problem with objectivity, since the poster is just as objective:
>To them, there is one "objectively better" for everything. Opinions can be wrong in that view.
This is the key argument. However, the rest of the post then goes on to make the opinion that does not agree with the poster wrong, the exact same behaviour which is being criticized. This is done in tandem with the poster associating each view with two different, imaginary groups:
>The rest of us normal people
>Objectivism is a philosophy for unimaginative children.

I would say the key sentence is this:
>There is no arguing with a Randite.
That is the posters real problem. They want the promise of being able to change the other's mind, which may well be a way to try and validate their own opinions.