/lit/ - Literature

I never new what the book was about. Now I know it looks like the most boring shit I've ever seen.

Hundreds of pages of that? srsly?

I am the best tripfag on /lit/

going to see it tonight....

looks like it will be fucking boring and the theater will be full of glenn becks

I'm thinking about seeing it, although I'll reserve judgement until then. I think Part 1 was the best part of the book, which...is reassuring.

>>1703247
What happened to the ban on Rand we had here?

Is this what the novels about? a company trying to make a railway line whilst escaping tax or some shit?


Imagined it to be some kind og 1984 thing.

Her face seems slightly sweaty. I would love rub my penis on it.

I'm pretty sure Rand would be okay with that, too.

>>1703247

meant to be ayn in the pic?

the point of the book is to glamorize greed above all else

if you can't be a greedy asshole, what is the point to life

and also if you come up with an idea and a bunch of people help you realize that idea, you 100% own the final product, even though you didn't build it yourself

that is her thesis.

>>1703405
>I have no idea what I'm talking about and am making generalizations about Rand's philosophy based on posts I have glanced over on 4chan

>>1703417

>implying Rand cared about society and didn't despise the idea of altruism

>>1703420
I didn't imply that at all. You should work on your reading comprehension skills.

>>1703405

maybe, but the fact that she was a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism means she was essentially retarded and had little grasp of how economics works in reality.

not to mention her philosophy "objectivism" rofl...female philosophers, dumb as dumbass. 100% dumbass.

>Objectivism holds that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic

>>1703421

you implied it by contradicting me

if you didn't imply it, then you agree with me.

if you deny my statement then the opposite is true.

well Rand, was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, socialism, and the welfare state,

so shee favored greed and hated poor ppl

>>1703427
>YOU'RE EITHER WITH ME OR AGAINST ME
you might not be as anti-rand as you think

>>1703247

oh wow, it looks like a shitty version of that Wallstreet movie, and boy was that movie a piece of shit

holy shit ayn rand was an evil old cunt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU&t=0m27s

>>1703445
Nothing's changed

>>1703458

yep israel is still a lunatic state, and with the help of the US their military oppresses palestinians and steals land

Everyone in this topic is a looter.

Especially you.

>>1703426

>Objectivism holds that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic

Call me a philosophy noob or whatever, but why is that stupid? Genuine question, no troll.

>>1703439

>>1703543
>on /lit/
>expects to get rational answers from emotionally involved public

Mayar, The Tird Keeper: "The essence of balance is detachment. To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful, is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be trusted. Our burden is not for the dependent of spirit.. "

>>1703543

Every observation a person makes is from his own point of view. A person can't jump outside his own mind and access the "objective world". Basically, bias always exists. There is cultural bias, genetic bias, environmental, economic, etc...

Speaking of capital T- truth is impossible for a human. Rand seems to think that what you see is what you get, but appearances can be deceiving.

She says you can access objective truth with a combination of inductive and deductive logic. Inductive logic is fine for day-to-day judgments but "strictly speaking" in the philosophical sense, it totally fails to capture Truth. Why? Because it makes claims like "if X was true in the past, it'll be true in the future" but this is not necessarily true.

Deductive logic points to necessary connections, it has the power to say what is necessarily true. Unfortunately it can give you no NEW knowledge about the world. It will tell you things like A=A, or 1+1 = 2 or A Bachelor is an Unmarried man...but it won't tell you if X is a bachelor, or if bachelors exist...etc

You can't combine the two, they operate on different levels.

Objectivism is really just naive realism...just everyday common sense, but it has no philosophical force, it shouldn't be a "position" or a "philosophy" anymore than microwaving a muffin is a "culinary art"...it's grotesque and oversimplistic

>>1703445
Maybe her Jewish background has something to do with that statement.

>>1703581

So what would a person who buys in to Objectivism typically say in response to your points? I don't think I actually know of any apart from Rand herself.

He would ask him to jump off the window of the third floor while believing that gravity does not exist.

I find it funny that all the die hard spokespeople of the US right wing are so gay for her hyper free market ideas, but completely ignore her atheism.

>>1703599

yep, on day-to-day matters, and common sense things objectivism is okay.

but when you get into more subtle and nuanced problems it's pretty useless.


what's moral, what is truth, how should we structure society, what is freedom, what is consciousness, etc....

a muslim will say morality is X and freedom is submission to God, while an atheist materialist will have totally different interpretations

and neither can say to the other jump out the window and see who is right...

>>1703630
>what's moral, what is truth, how should we structure society, what is freedom, what is consciousness, etc....
so basically all the bullshit questions that arise in the first place from deluded thinking

>>1703630

You comment offends me.

objectivism is what happens when you fixate on truth instead of reflection. the real texture of thought is more...difficult but no less sincere.

>MAYBE YOU SHOULD LET ME FINISH SPEAKING!

>>1703644
Are those ellipses supposed to mean something?

>>1703658
yea. i guess i am just too far from the future and you guys can't catch up.

>>1703644
But.

Somewhere you do know what is right and what is wrong. That's all that matters.

>>1703690
but to discover what is out htere in the world, you reflect on physics, on the actual world itself, go out and explore. naive theory of truth is entirely negative and quiet on any theory.

but theory here means an effort of superceding the lower level discourse, in ontological terms, the effort is upward reduction.

thus the precise interpretation of rand's metaphysics is that she shouldn't have written it. but since she did, what does it mean, _as a theory_.

>>1703694
er change naive theory of truth to naive realism. that works even better, naive realism is...a philosophcal construct, what is real is real is real is real is real is real.

ok james. let me put it more directly.

rand's metaphysics is purely an act of WORSHIP. but the problem with worship is that the wish exists before the method. paying attention to the real is fine, but what instruments do we have for that. is it not the case that most actual disagreements about the world are due to ignoring ifnormation rather than not being able to compute information. what sort of informative content does mere worship serve when we are trying to live with our bodies and with each other.

>>1703707
Thank you.

ALLAHU AKBAR!

It's early going yet, but Atlas Shrugged is pulling an impressive 6% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and a 25/100 on Metacritic.

I think I'll be proved right in my prediction that "part 1" will prove to be hilariously optimistic.

>>1703762
youthful enthusiasm is cute, it should be encouraged.

>>1703763

tripfags should be culled

>>1703784
taking the burden of being the voice of the world, a bit of ridicule is necessary training.