/lit/ - Literature

>>16270132
Because her books are poorly written and her philosophy is cringe

>>16270149
/thread.

>>16270132
A) her books are extremely long and you aren’t going to be able to get kids interested in them because:
B)>>16270149 her books suck ass. Her philosophy is internally consistent but extremely cringe.
The fact that this pro-abortion atheist is popular with American “conservatives” should show you how little they care about tradition compared to making money.

>>16270132
I'd rather squeeze my eyeballs over reading The Fountainhead

>>16270132
Child abuse laws.

>>16270149
Her epistemology is inarguably excellent though. Literally no philosopher better.

>>16270214
Elaborate on that.

>>16270218
no

>>16270132
The development of philosophic potency in children is the one thing the collectivist statist fears above all else. The fact that we DON'T have Philosophy and Economics classes but DO have social studies is very telling. John Dewey ladies and gentlemen.

>>16270218
>>16270222
his trips speak for themselves i'm afraid

Fountainhead is good. Only pseuds say otherwise

>>16270222
Thanks Dave.

>>16270132
If anyone tells me they enjoy a even single Ayn Rand novel I immediately disregard them as subhuman trash, and probably a pedo also

>>16270232
>t. skips to the rape scene and doesn't give a fuck about architecture
It takes a special level of retard to make FLW's life boring.

>>16270132
The public school would be sowing the seeds for its own demise

>>16270375
This. I never encountered a decent person who likes Rand.

>>16270132
I had this amazonian blonde high school english teacher who was some kind of amateur celebrity in the cross country ski scene who made us read Anthem, We the Living, and parts of Fountainhead, and write essays about Ayn Rand.
She bought a husky puppy from one of the students and kept it in class for a few days. Awesome lady.

>NOOOO WHITE MEN CAN'T UNITE AS A RACIAL COMMUNITY YOU NEED TO BE AN ATOMIZED EGOIST ONLY OUT FOR YOURSELF NOOOO THIS GOBLIN JEW LADY HAS THE BEST EPISTEMOLOGY
you need to be over 18 to post here

>>16270218
He can't because it isn't true.

>>16270999
then leave

>>16270989

Dangerously based

>>16270973
I never encountered a decent person who dislikes Rand.

>>16270132
dog I didn't even read plato in my high school

>>16270999
false dichotomy

enter option 3: all men and women unit as a non-racial community, with the notable exclusion of white supremacists, who are euthanized

>>16272031
>thinking that there’s only one type of racial supremacist

>>16270224
Fair enough, but Rand is still a trash-tier author.

>>16272057
there's only one type of racial supremacist that's currently a real threat to society

maybe you can serve as an example

>>16270224
we have all of these classes where I live. not all strictly mandatory but you have to drop out of secondary education in order to skip on basic economics and you can't have a college degree without philosophy classes.

they don't solve the problem at all

>>16270999
Ok collectivist

The previous anon who said that Objectivist epistemology is actually pretty good was right. It's very detailed and it gives a good account for how we know what we know and how we relate our understanding of the world to reality.

Basically--if you've ever encountered either an epistemic nihilist who think you can't know anything or a theistic presuppositionalist who thinks you can't justify believing anything unless you begin with a foundation of theism, objectivism will be able to easily answer them both.

>>16272614
This, I was being lazy when I didn't answer >>16270218 immediately. I didn't want to just parrot the lexicon and be second handed but the way to get at the crucial essence of why it is in my own words that sound good and more importantly succinct didn't come to me. I will quote from https://web.archive.org/web/20191118061209/https://www.peikoff.com/opar/universals.htm hower to hit the point home however:
>The answer to the "problem of universals" lies in Ayn Rand's discovery of the relationship between universals and mathematics. Specifically, the answer lies in the brilliant comparison she draws between concept-formation and algebra. This is more than a mere comparison, as she shows, since the underlying method in both fields is the same. The basic principle of concept-formation (which states that the omitted measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity) is the equivalent of the basic principle of algebra, which states that algebraic symbols must be given some numerical value, but may be given any value. In this sense and respect, perceptual awareness is the arithmetic, but conceptual awareness is the algebra of cognition. The relationship of concepts to their constituent particulars is the same as the relationship of algebraic symbols to numbers. In the equation 2a = a + a, any number may be substituted for the symbol "a" without affecting the truth of the equation. For instance: 2 x 5 = 5 + 5, or: 2 x 5,000,000 = 5,000,000 + 5,000,000. In the same manner, by the same psycho-epistemological method, a concept is used as an algebraic symbol that stands for any of the arithmetical sequence of units it subsumes. Let those who attempt to invalidate concepts by declaring that they cannot find "manness" in men, try to invalidate algebra by declaring that they cannot find "a-ness" in 5 or in 5,000,000. For centuries, rationalist philosophers have venerated mathematics as the model of cognition. What they have admired about the discipline is its deductive method. Objectivism, too, regards mathematics as an epistemological model, but for a different reason. The mathematician is the exemplar of conceptual integration. He does professionally and in numerical terms what the rest of us do implicitly and have done since childhood, to the extent that we exercise our distinctive human capacity. Mathematics is the substance of thought writ large, as the West has been told from Pythagoras to Bertrand Russell; it does provide a unique window into human nature. What the window reveals, however, is not the barren constructs of rationalistic tradition, but man's method of extrapolating from observed data to the total of the universe. What the window of mathematics reveals is not the mechanics of deduction, but of induction. Such is Ayn Rand's unprecedented and pregnant identification in the field of epistemology.

>>16272686
>hower to hit the point home however
oops

>>16272686
Pretty based in my view. While I certainly think there's room to debate her thoughts on epistemology, there's no good reason it shouldn't be treated as legitimate philosophy.