/lit/ - Literature

>>17229485
>It's racist

>>17229485
What part of it do you find to be the most solid?

You think being an unfeeling sociopathic realist with no morals is solid?

The problem with it is it goes against the religious and now political virtues of pretending to care about other people in order to show everyone (and yourself) that you are a good person. The reason people have a problem with Objectivism is because they didn’t live in an environment like Rand did, and they never were able to see what was behind the so-called “good deeds” and “humanism”. People are evil, and they will disguise the most disgusting actions under virtues such as kindness, love, empathy. It’s all fake. Rand recognized if I care for myself, and you care for yourself, then there are no problems. Of course we should have a fair political system, of course we shouldn’t allow you to take all my opportunities from me, but as far as morals go, selfishness is the only virtue. Without selfishness you die, depending on others to care for you is unnatural. Cooperation is necessary for our survival only, there is no higher power whether it be God or the State that should have the authority over us to have actions in the name of charity. There shouldn’t be a need for charity in the first place.

>>17229555
>racist!

>>17229485
Starting with the fucking name

>God tier politics
>Decent ethics
>Shit epistemology

>>17229657
pretty accurate summary desu

>>17229657
>Shit epistemology
Why?

>>17229485
It was made after Instrumentalism, anon. That is the main problem, reality as something conceived by the senses doesn't really stand.

Back when I read Atlas Shrugged I wasn't that familiar with Philosophy, but I was kinda into drawing. And people who draw (probably artists in general) see the world in a whole different manner. Being able to draw completely changed my view on people and the way I see things. Sum that with the fact that I'm also reasonably educated in Physics and I'm fond of Biology too. I could look at a bird and see whatever I felt like seeing, does that make sense? As in education provided me with lenses that allowed me to view the same reality distorted in different manners. Each lens with its own advantages and setbacks.

>>17229485
But she probably learned some cool stuff with Nietzsche too.

>>17229485
It triggers people because it reminds them they are not the most beautiful/rich/smartest person on Earth, and to some extend its not their fault and there's not a lot they can do to improve/change it.
It makes people realize they are not as in control as they'd like to think, and that the only way to improve is to purposefully choose to mate with better genetics in hopes your children will get to enjoy being better than the others


This is something modernists are absolutely abhorred by

>>17229674
It's not just her epistemology, it's her entire metaphysics that is trash. She basically simultaneously agrees with hardcore empiricist "bundle" theory that objects are collections of properties, that properties are things directly perceived that we have objective knowledge of, but that objects exist independent of the mind. These three are incompatible on their face--if properties are identical to the things we perceive, and objects are collections of properties, then by definition objects are identical to our perceptions.

She also claims that determinism is true in general of objects because of the law of identity, but then claims that libertarian free will is true of humans. This exception is justified in utterly incoherent terms of it being human's nature to have different possible futures, but how that can possibly exempt them from and immediate inference from "the law of identity" makes no sense. Surely if an object can have such a nature, other objects could as well. Determinism very obviously does not follow from the law of identity.

>>17229771
Where does one start with a good philosophy?

>>17229838
the middle

>bro just like ignore the fact that humans are social beings that need to belong in a group, haha imagine feeling part of something bigger than your self haha yes of course i'm a mgtow how did you tell?

>>17229844
based and rhizome-pilled

>>17229485
A better question is, why does this board love Stirner and Nietszche so much yet shit on Rand for apparently the same reasons? Yes I know she's jewish, female and a capitalist shill but besides that. She is not that much different from those two.

>>17229485
One of its principles is and I quote "existence exists." It tries to be deep but it's really just a snake oil infomercials tier pop philosophy. There's nothing objective about objectivism. Any real philosopher who bothered to could evicerate objectivism. Nobody cares to because it would be like beating up a child. Objectivism is just a superficial pseudo-intellectual elites to come off as sophisticated at cocktail parties and to justify being greedy. Or at least it was when it was more in vogue.

tfw best boy gets cucked by gary stu because best boy was -only- super amazing and not super dee duper amazing

>>17229931
No shitting on objectivism is what you're expected to do socially, usually via gossiping about Ayn Rand's sex life and mocking the meme speech.

>>17229555

I appreciate that you were brave enough to phrase it so succinctly, which is liable to invite the usual /lit/ scoffing like this one >>17229569 . While I am very sympathetic to the notion of an atheistic capitalism, even I recognize that the statement "depending on others to care for you is unnatural" is plainly false. First, babies, second, there is no such thing as the unnatural, if natural is meant to refer simply to existing states of affairs as opposed to its other senses ( procedures that actually work in practice, procedures that tend to go well of-themselves). I sincerely hope that your posts causes frustration to normies and more communally based forms of life.

On this same head, I must also take issue with the formulation "if I care for myself, and you care for yourself, then there are no problems". At the point of the the human as social animal, community necessarily comes about. The point is to have and to enjoy your own private property and interact with others without having to be in some shitty commune. To avoid the negative aspects of "community", which al humans know very well of their fellow humans. The undesirable, pseudo-community of Obama's "community organizers". I do not want to live in a community that is organized by community organizers.

Following this criticism, I must stress that you are correct on the basic point of rational self-interest ("selfishness"). Here, we are in full agreement.

It paves way for essentialism AND ESSENTIALISM BAD

>>17229931
I don't know. On that regard I definitely think she was a successful philosopher. That is the main reason why I don't cringe when people say that she is a philosopher. Consider that she brought philosophy to people's lives anon. Be it because they disagree with her or because they embrace their ideas.

That is probably some of Nietzsche's influence on her, she made herself hard to ignore. There are some other things, but I don't feel like writing an essay. I'm thinking about it, and I might end up writing something. But I'm still thinking about everything.

As far as metaphysics and epistemology go, what does objectivism have to say? We perceive objects directly and they exist the same in the outside world as they do independent of our senses? How does she make this claim? It can't be proven

>>17230119
Even her other stuff is flimsy, anon. It is hard to maintain a radical line of thought solid.

>>17229963
dude... we were doing so well before you replied to obvious bait that doesnt even contextually make that much sense.

>>17229931
>It tries to be deep but it's really just a snake oil infomercials tier pop philosophy. There's nothing objective about objectivism. Any real philosopher who bothered to could evicerate objectivism.
Now the interesting question is why Nietzsche doesn't get the same treatment in academia given all of the above apply equally well to him.

>>17230353
Nietzsche is very deep and nobody has a good understanding of him. If you lived a sheltered life he won’t even make any sense to you. Most academics are probably completely flabbergasted when they try to understand his work. Consider yourself filtered anon

>>17230367
No he is not. There is nothing profound about him. His critique of his opponents is based on psychoanalyzing their motives instead of actually making any arguments and his epistemology is complete relativist idiocy that anyone with a basic grasp of logic can refute effortlessly

>>17229485
Objectivism validates selfishness and capitalism. Academic philosophy is self-congratulatory virtue signaling intended to make mainstream social elites masturbate to notions of their own altruism, moral superiority, and concern for the 'oppressed.' Rand cuts through that, so of course she'll be hated. Objectivism is ironically incorrect in that it neglects the social signalling requisite for success that requires interior amorality but exterior piety.

If you actually get Bezos-tier rich then you essentially have to be a functional objectivist while preaching Rawlsian mainstream academic philosophical bullshit.

>>17230367
>Most academics are probably completely flabbergasted when they try to understand his work.
That's because he's a schizo

>>17229771
libertarian free will is absolute cringe

>>17230131

You miss the point. "Bait" frequently contains truth, regardless of the intent of the author. The point is to take the ideas themselves as they come. The author is dead.

>>17230788
That 'bait' is weak af, because it is definitely written by someone who haven't read anything of her, saw some random book review and whatever. Or someone who didn't understood it.

>>17229485
Rand's idea of objectivism is not well constructed. In fact, you will never find anything of "philosophical" value in any "libertarian" like intellectuals, because they are worried about shekels, not in virtue, nor truth.

>>17229555
>t. a sociopath