/lit/ - Literature

Glad I'm not the only one to think that Ayn Rand is decent and that people are just morally scandalized.

>ended up on medicare
There, refuted.

Why do people argue the philosophy of a woman whose most famous book involves a Latino in a cape dual wielding pistols from a factory roof? Why not discuss the metaphysics of Zorro at this rate?

>>17858819
yeah what the fuck her principles brought her to a miserable ignoble end

>>17858830
You know you're right when they resort to ad-homs to epicly own you, lol.

>>17858849
Her philosophy still stands, anon. You really want to go around judging the validity of philosophies based on the lives the philosophers have lived?

>>17858872
>You really want to go around judging the validity of philosophies based on the lives the philosophers have lived?
Yes.

>>17858857
>Write a book about Zorro
>Get judged on writing about Zorro
>Noooo ad-hominem! Judge me on something I haven't written, but would've if I had talent!

>>17858872
yeah, why not

>>17858872
yeah, despite getting in a car crash not even ten minutes after saying this, chirurh was right
if the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule
she didn't die in hand-to-hand combat or getting executed by a kangaroo court, she died a bitter old lady who nobody could stand on government gibs
even her institutions get govt loans now lmao

>>17858878
Absolute state of anti-capitalists lmao

>>17858804
>The principle of non-contradiction
>a gaping hole in reasoning
>Non-selfish and neutral virtues
>another gaping hole
>The ethics of egoism
You can't refute it. A negation of nonsense is still nonsense.

>>17858890
I just hate women

>>17858882
I don't care about Rand. I've simply never seen a convincing argument against her. And I don't know what a Zorro is

>>17858903
Fair enough, anon.

>>17858907
>I've simply never seen a convincing argument against her.
Ethics 101 would have you learn about the is-ought gap / distinction. But you don't really need it to see how her "philosophy" is a series of non-sequiturs.

>>17858894
Objectivism does not care about logic. It is an embracing of the illogical madness

>>17858917
I know about the is/aught distinction. I choose not to believe in it. Now what?

>>17858907

Then what makes you think the arguments you've seen are not convincing? You don't know what Rand's philosophy is. You think you do, based on hearing a few talking points and trying to reconstruct something coherent in your head, but I guarantee you, that whatever is in your head, is not what Rand has in her books. What Rand has, is Zorro.

>>17858804
She was a Jew. What more refutation is there?

>>17858872
Um yeah retard

All of human ideology is has its roots in human beings trying to understand the impetus of ideology
She neither affirms nor detracts any aspect of the human experience
There are material reasons for why human beings behave the way they do, completely separate from Objectivism or regressive Liberalism

>>17858872
I like Rand, but I like Stirner better. Rand seems to have known Stirner too, and she referenced him at least once.

>>17858926
>>17858928
ok schizo(s)

>>17858957
Okay, anon.

>>17858973
>"There are material reasons for why human beings behave the way they do, completely separate from Objectivism or regressive Liberalism"

Something a little less ideology ridden, please.

>>17858819
This doesn't refute her argument though. She paid into Medicare, so, she had every right to take it out.

>>17858978
Me too. Stirner's ideas are much more fleshed out.

>>17858926
>Self interest is irrational
Please make this argument, commie, I dare you.

>>17858991
Human beings are communal by nature. Objectivism seeks to disrupt the natural order by attempting to ascend man beyond material reality

>refute her
Woman

>>17858999
The problem I have with rand is she doesn't go far enough with egoism like Stirner does, (nor did have the reputation for making Marx have a mental break down) but I can respect a randian capitalist because the alternatives are way worse

>>17859000
Read Freud, anon. Besides, I'm not a communist.

>>17859002
Pure ideology. No, humans are driven by self interest. If you believe otherwise, you're a naive optimist.

I am building my own town in the mountains using only the physical labour of other billionaires to prove her ideas, actually.

>>17859014
Human beings' self-interest lies in actions that will produce satisfactory material conditions for themselves and the community
Capitalism is an abberation of labor and the human experience

>>17859002
This is a fallacious argument. One, appeal to nature. Humans do not have to act within in their "nature." For example, there are plenty of things that are not natural such as money, human rights, or even cars - but you certainly wouldn't we should be natural in our approach to these things. We can certainly substitute these "natural things" with things that are not considered "natural" by societal standards. More so, "human nature" does not exist - it is a ghastly abstraction; human beings have the courage, will power do whatever they please as long as they are conscious of it. And, you can still be a selfish individual, and embrace "communalism" or even collectivism. Plenty of people, especially communists, embrace "communalism" out of a selfish veneer. You think community is your self interest because you see a utility in using people, co-operating with people, for your own interests. I say, one does not necessarily have see it that way - for their own interests are unique to them as an individual. Communists especially abuse communalism because its a way they use group-think, the herd mentality, to manipulate people to gain power, and then use that community for their own interests.

>>17859032
And how doesn't capitalism produce output that satisfies themselves and their communities?

>>17859032
Socialism is swindling, communism is confiscation. Its popular for those who have nothing, and deserve nothing.

>>17859036
Appealing to nature is when you presuppose that something is beneficial or harmless simply because it came from earth. Our genetic blueprint suggests we don't have any impetus for selfish action
Even flexes of political capital by corporations is an indirect consideration of the material needs of the poor
The existence of a lower class is the wedge and bedrock of Capitalist ideology
This is why the Communist Manifesto is shit because it's a half-assed instruction on revolution
Marx didn't have more time to flesh out the dialectical roots of Marxist theory. When historical events are now out of his reach it's up to us to come to reasonable conclusions

>>17858979
Stepping out of your logical dimension is not being a schizo, anon.

>>17858819
>she g-got old, therefore her philosophy is totally wr-rong!

>>17859002
Strawman

>>17859069
>Appealing to nature is when you presuppose that something is beneficial or harmless simply because it came from earth.
>Our genetic blueprint suggests
You don't think genetics come from nature now? Again, you're still making this argument - its a logical fallacy, and it reeks of scientism.
>Even flexes of political capital by corporations is an indirect consideration of the material needs of the poor
gobbledygook - nobody needs to care about the "poor", and more so, being poor is subjective. If you weren't a materialist, were a self reliant person, and did not fetishize wealth - a perishable good, you wouldn't have any problem with being poor. Your problem isn't poverty; its the resentfulness of wealth, and your inability to take self responsible for your own well-being to improve your impoverished state. The world does not owe you anything - is every man for himself.
>This is why the Communist Manifesto is shit because it's a half-assed instruction on revolution
The Communist Manifesto is terrible because it gives people like you too power, the state, and to use it to confiscate wealth you don't deserve.
>Marx didn't have more time to flesh
Marx should have died earlier. He was scum, and the world have been a better place without him.

>>17859096
Why do the considerations of the working class scare you so much?

Human experience is a collection of baby steps towards an evolutionary apex. If our ability to experience conscious thought and relate our experiences to the world were something we were capable of before the first cell split to create man and ape, then we'd have been lost in the primordial soup like billions of other species

>>17859069
You're complaining about capitalist ideology while you're infected with Judaeo-Christian ideology secularized as "scientific socialism." You just think you're better than the capitalist because your ideology moralizes, and fetishizes the plight of the poor and perniciousness. You essentially believe one has some "duty" to be a slave to communal beasts, or pathetic paupers like wage workers, because they fit your sociologically imposed descriptions of the world. Your head is haunted with beliefs, and you're too much a peon, a slave to leave it behind out of some schizophrenic pious guilt.

she refuted herself when she died lmao

>>17859125
But enough about you :^

>>17859113
Nobody has to give a fuck about the "working class." No one has to value the life of someone simply because they labor. You turn labor into a virtue to be worshipped when one does not have to care less about such an activity. You don't have to value human life, or humanity, and this is problem with communists like you. You turn mankind into a object, a god, to be worshiped. You're a dying clump of cells, there's so many of you dying every day, and yet I'm suppose worry about you? Non-sense, like everything on this planet, you are perishable good, and you are only useful to me insofar you meet my intermediate utility.
If I'm going to value someone, it won't be because they work, it will be because they are creative, artistic, or even poetic. It will be because they create things I personally love to consume, and use, for my own benefit. And this relationship is not sacred, but temporal.

>>17859131
I'm not a socialist though. I'm selfish, I'm a capitalist, and I don't respect people because they're a worker or really care about happens to them honestly.

>>17859143
One of Marxism's end goals is the proliferation of art and culture, because without the pressing need to address the conundrum of capital, we can finally live how we please

>>17859143
Anon, not the guy you're replying to, but you ought to read Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher.

humans are not individuals and their survival is dependent on complex webs of social relationships and shared resources, ideas, and experiences. The existence of LANGUAGE ITSELF refutes her philosophy. Every achievement of and individual is essentially a riff on thousands of people's works throughout history.

>>17858804
>sociopath
>ungrateful towards family members who helped her escape the USSR
>whore
>got mad at the wife of one of her lovers because she didn't know her husband had yet another side chick
>narcissist
>entire ideology boils down to "fuck bitches, get money", even the average gangsta rapper is more sophisticated
>insufferable fanboys, not a surprise given the whole woman deal
>terrible writing, makes Plato's """dialogues""" look not so autistic in comparison
She was basically the embodiement of America's issues.

>>17859156
>One of Marxism's end goals is the proliferation of art and culture,
Not even remotely true. In The USSR, they killed poets and artists. You're lying, and why do socialists think one must accept their claims at face value? You're tarantula, such as Zarathustra points out, you just make webs lies, and you hope someone falls into your trap. You hate capitalism not because you genuinely care about the poor, you hate capitalism because your bloodthirsty animal who wants to kill people for simply having property.

>>17859181
if leftism was actually "good" they wouldn't need to be perpetually dishonest to justify it

>>17859181
Personal =! Private
Private capital is exploitation, but personal property, what you produce and give to the community and in-turn receive is the modus of human existence, Capital simply tacks on another unnecessary layer

>>17859161
I'm not really interested in reading a communist, let alone a suicidal junkie. Pass. If you want to recommend me something, recommend me a writer who actually made some money, and became rich. I don't want to read a book by some resentful, envious mid life crisis having flunkee.

>>17858804
>you cant refute her.
Yes I can, but why bother refuting a jew? She'll just pillpull her way out of it anyways. It's better to just flood her audience with correct information. Truth will prevail.

>>17859195
Wrong, communism, socialism abolishes personal property by having the state, the collective limit production, and consumption, of goods according to a common plan. This distinction private/personal property is meaningless because its an abstraction made by communists. We can even see the USSR people had less personal goods because the government took everything from people. And, I don't want to give shit to the community, and I don't want a community to decide what I receive. I alone will decide what I have. No amount of preaching to me without Christ like platitudes will change my mind, my mind is too sharp to fall your deceitful pleas - you will always be an enemy in my eyes.

>>17859195
>Voluntary contracts are exploitative
Why do Marxists believe one has to accept their ridiculous theories of exploitation? These are moral theories - exploitation is subjective. I don't really care what you consider "exploitative", and I'm perfectly okay with exploiting you if it benefits me.

>>17858815
I'm a fucking stirner fan and I still think that she was retarded. No friend some ppl just think that she is a dumb bitch

>>17859162
>humans are not individuals
Since when do you decide what constitutes human beings? You don't tell me what I'm. Humans didn't always have language,and even more so, the development of language was a selfish act - the need to communicate ideas is necessary for an individual to appropriately interact with an environment.
>Every achievement of and individual is essentially a riff on thousands of people's works
I don't agree - a community is a group of individuals. Without individuals, there would be no community. Communities can not have accomplishments without individuals.

>>17859240
>I'm a Stirner fan
>I think rand was a dumb bitch
You're probably an anarchist (cringe) or a commie (cringe). I like Stirner and Rand - but I really despise most Anarchists. You're just moralists who replace the church with the school. You're different kind of authoritarian, more sinister one, who uses the love of humanity to manipulate people into sacrificing themselves for your ridiculous, moralistic, violent & decedent political causes. Bakunin was a thug who influenced idiots like Nechayev - one the most repugnant individuals to ever since. The anarchists who use Stirner are especially cringe because Stirner mocked them, especially Bakunin and Proudhon, for being some most pious, moralist Christians. There are so many ridiculous idealists who take Stirner's words, and use them for these ridiculous, utopian political causes that no one has to waste their time with.

>>17859249
>Since when do you decide what constitutes X? You don't tell me what I'm.
Reminds me of another totally-not-a-mental-illness movement that originated in the US.

>>17859289
Yeah, its called humanism, and it infects rats like you. More so, this is a stupid point - even the degenerate Roman Empire had a tranny as their emperor. You'd fit right in.

THERE IS NO FUCKING OBJECTIVE YOU STUPID KANT

>>17858804
Shall we discuss the consequences of this philosophy?

>>17859289
>Protagoras - man is the measure of all things
>This originated in America
Are you sure you're not from America because your illiteracy fits it. Only an American could have such a stupid opinion. Of course, you've never read Plato's Dialogues in your life, so, this types of metaphysical debates are oblivious to you. Americans truly are the most degenerate, uncultured swine to exist.

>>17859338
He's a meme. You do realize you can write to him - plenty of people have, and his letters are often published anarchists who write to him.

>>17859339
he's talking about trannies you fucking pseud

>>17859382
Are you autistic by chance? Anyone reading my reply would know I'm being facetious in my reply because of that implication, but an autistic person, like you, would make such a reply.

>>17858926
definetly not, rands system is one of total dogmatism and "objective" forever true and unchanging facts about the world

Well first of all, she stole her entire ethics from Aristotle and she claims capitalism fits Aristotle's ethics like lock and key, which is just asinine. The ancient Greeks didn't view liberty the same way as modern people do, which is an individualist cult constructed by John Locke.

Secondly, her defence of capitalism is just retarded; not only does she deny that whole groups of people have antagonistic interests towards each other and that these have asymmetric power relationships(e.g workers and owners), she also has a romantic conception of the heroic capitalist which has never existed in the history of humanity, there are no John Galts lol, they literally aren't real, and even if they were real, their ideas would be built on the backs of centuries of people before them, and hundreds of people that currently live, such that claiming they individually deserve every single piece of capital they accumulate is ridiculous.

>>17859285
Nigga you're defending a woman who wrote a book were all intellectuals rebel and go to the woods to create a perfect society. Think twice before calling other ppl utopian.
>>17859249
>>17859162
Individuals and society form a feedback loop at the end of the day both depend from each other

>>17859449
>Such that claiming they individually deserve every single piece of capital they accumulate is ridiculous
The opposite more ridiculous. A bunch of bum workers deserve the means of production because they press a button? Non-sense, capitalism is ran by workers, but consumers. What's ridiculous is the a priori moral arguments communists make society ought to give them the means of production when workers who do productive work make up an increasingly automated minority, one over time that works increasing less and less. The world has no need for these bums; we need people who make life worth living otherwise there would be no point to even work.

>>17859458
>were all intellectuals rebel and go to the woods to create a perfect society.
Nope, Rand did not defend perfection. No capitalist does, that's stawman argument made by retarded communists like you. Its the capitalists, the Randians, who argue the world isn't perfect, and nor does it have to be. The world doesn't appeal, and never will, appeal to your false sense of utopian justice.
>Idividuals and society form a feedback loop at the end of the day both depend from each other
Without individuals, there is no society. Society depends on the individual, and the individual can decide what to do with "society." And, that individual does not have to waste its time letting its religious members dictate its role.

>>17859481
In other words, what this is really about isn't "morality" or "non-aggression principles" or anything else she came up with, what it is about is simply that the capitalist class should get to keep all wealth accumulated because of their superior intelligence and thus high moral worth and the rest of society can just starve to death.

And you wonder why nobody agrees with this trash ideology.

>>17859168
>She was basically the embodiement of America's issues.
The saddest part is that randboys will love to make you believe that hers is a groundbreaking philosophy and that everyone who disagrees with her is just morally scanalized but that's just bs. Her philosophy was a pure destilation of the ideals of the America of her time with maybe a smaller Christian component.
>>17859449
>their ideas would be built on the backs of centuries of people before them, and hundreds of people that currently live, such that claiming they individually deserve every single piece of capital they accumulate is ridiculous.
No, no you don't understand the big objectivity man has the power to manifest his ideas in the world using psychic powers

>>17859000
>calls anyone who thinks that the essence of ego/self is not as rational as a non-relativistic worldview a commie

>>17859496
>Without individuals, there is no society. Society depends on the individual, and the individual can decide what to do with "society
A single individual can't survive by himself without the help of the society around him nor he can change it by himself if not with the help of a societal movement. Dude by trying to put the individual in a pedestal you are coming across as miopic.

>>17858857
>someone does X
>X is bullshit
>someone says "X is bullshit"
>retarded reddit teens "WHOAAA THATS ADHOMIEN WHOAAAAAAAAAA"

>>17858804
Humans were tribals and egoism is a learned behaviour that damages progress

>>17858973
Schizos are created by society, commie? Tell me more

>>17859002
More like misunderstood nihilism or 'Im 15 and this is deep' thinking

>>17858804
>Refute her.

Simple, social darwinistic capitalism cloaked as "morality" is Satanic.

>>17859039
If the human potential is disposable, the it is unethical (see apple) as the production of goods totally depends on the detriment of another human

>>17858926
Why does this thread even exist in the first place? Mods, please, delete this

>>17859449
You’re literally a character in The Fountainhead

>>17859555
This isn’t even what Rand wrote
Keep sucking straw, fatboy

She's a jew, that's all I need to know to refute her bullshit.

>>17858804
retarded jewish caricature of a person that didn't live any of the bullshit philosophies she wrote down. also ugly, would not fuck even in her prime, which refutes her existence as a woman and person both.

>>17858819
You all know this is a lie, right? She took social security, and she wrote an essay about why she considered it recovering stolen money. That much is true, but the idea that she died in poverty is pinko slender. She died wealthy.

>>17858917
Value exists only within a certain context; it implies volition on the part of the moral agent, and a purpose which the value is meant to achieve. Whether the value tends to promote this end is an objectively observable fact. All value is conditional for rand, means-end.

There you go, gap closed.

>>17858890
>anti-capitalists
Imagine to unironically support Marx's ideas, then. A racist homophobe welfare child that never worked, constantly getting money from their buddies and a coward.

>>17860022
This has been known since the greek times

Considering that I haven't read her and never will, you are completely right

>>17858992

More to the point, it was stolen from her in the first place. She was merely reclaiming what was rightfully hers. There is literally zero hypocrisy in making use of a process to advantage yourself while acknowledging that the process itself ought not to exist in the first place, it amazes me how common it is for people to make this mistake.

>herp derp but by using the system u prop up the thing u seek to get rid of did u ever think of that

>>17859555
There is no "survival" without individuals in the first place - this is a moot point, and a retarded one at that. And, more so, just because I need people for my survival doesn't mean I have be nice to them, or respect them. I can just manipulate them, and toss them away for someone else. I don't have treat you with respect simply because I use you.

>>17859555
>A single individual can't survive by himself without the help of the society
This isn't even factually true - you've never heard of nomads or even vagabonds? Are you stupid? More so, without the individual's own existence - survival wouldn't even be possible. Again, everything that is measured is due to individual purpose.

>>17860580
Its so strange communists make that argument because it applies to them
>The state props up capitalism
>Surprised when socialists take power they continue capitalism
So fucking dumb

It takes a communist retard to argue that the individual's own body doesn't keep them alive. Apparently, without society, there would be no way for my cells to convert CO2 into oxygen. There would be no way for me to get water. There would be no way for me to hunt for food. I mean, lets ignore basic anthropology ignore the fact that humans did this for millions of years as nomads because its an inconvenient truth for me. I must make the argument community is necessary because I'm a communist leech, and this myth is what holds my fragile world view together.

>>17859675
>the production of goods totally depends on the detriment of another human
So? Who cares? My 'community' would be better off enslaving/exploiting other communities until everything is inevitably automated. Humanity as a whole is not my community, only a sliver of it is.
I benefit greatly from the exploitation of Asians and Africans and I don't lose sleep over it. If they are so weak as to be unable to rise against their masters then they plainly deserve their enslavement.

Commies fetishize communities, and the family, over the individual not even realizing these institutions are a despotism imposed on you. Do these fucking retards not realize the amount of social control the family, or even the people around, impose on you for your entire lives? Apparently, these idiots think the community can not be the source of man's problems? You would think they would catch on to obvious fact because only terrible parents would allow their children to be fucking communists.

>>17858872
"If I were not Alexander then I should be Diogenes."

Philosophy is meaningless if you don't or can't live it.

>>17858804
>M-C...P...-C'-M'

>>17860763
How did she not live it though? She was selfish all her life. Taking from medicare was a selfist act because that money was stolen from her; the federal government doesn't give you choice not to pay your taxes. She paid into it, so she had every right to take it.

>>17858804
A serious question.

If I wanted to understand the Randian thought's core concepts or the general gist of it, is it necessary to read her Atlas Shrugged or does The Fountainhead suffice?

>>17860787
I'm made no mention of Rand anon.

>>17860744
> I must make the argument community is necessary because I'm a communist leech, and this myth is what holds my fragile world view together
the phenomenon of feral children handily disproves your entire post, fucking retard
a human without community isn't a grand individual, it's a dirty animal or it just dies of neglect

>>17858819
>paying for insurance refutes her claims

>>17860846
>a human without community isn't a grand individual, it's a dirty animal or it just dies of neglect
There is no community without individuals, retard. "Feral children" does prove my point though, retard. Was that a typo? Feral children are children who raised themselves on their own. Holy fuck, you are dumb. No wonder you're a communist.

shes a woman, and an ugly one at that

also shes jewish

>>17860846
Your argument isn't even more retarded because you think communities can not poorly manage themselves. I figure people are stupid as communists would realize this considering how often their societies, communities collapse or turn into murderous dictatorships. Damn, you really are quite a stupid person. Please, keep going, and digging yourself into this hole.

>>17860846
Nobody ever died of neglect in socialist communities bro, it was a utopia. Big daddy government took care of everyone.
Seriously, how fucking stupid are communists. I swear, every time I talk to one I get brain-damage

>>17860923
cope amerimutt

>>17860870
>Feral children are children who raised themselves on their own.
Feral children were raised by animals, and they are invariably heavily disabled.
However, the vast majority of abandoned children don't manage this fate, and just die of neglect without the support of others.
Your position dictates that if you threw a colony of babies into the wilderness, alone, they would form an emergent community. That's not possible, therefore there are no individuals without community.
> three ad hominems in five sentences
You clearly have an inferiority complex regarding your intelligence and you should stop trying

>>17860904
> you think communities can not poorly manage themselves
never said this, learn to read
> rest of post is an adhominem
bravo retard

>>17860923
> governments commit atrocities
> therefore communities are not necessary at all
> trying to apply this logic to fucking childraising of all things
this "argument" does not follow
> I swear, every time I talk to one I get brain-damage
judging from the level of idiocy in your posts I believe this to be literally true

>>17860700
I didn't said you have you don't ought anything to anyone if you are convinced that you can use big boy brain to manipulate society into submission go ahead just keep in mind that the chances of getting screwed by the enemies you will inevitably make is high and even if you actually climb the social ladder powerful ppl still are accountable to the masses just a little bit less since the masses are stupid. At the end of the day even tyrants need to make the masses feel happy that's what the silk glove is for.
>>17860713
Nomads still live in small communities and vagabonds live in cities or wander from town to town either way they still benefit from the collective effort of society. Find a better example next time you retarded tryhard.

>>17858804
>free will exist because... IT JUST DOES OKAY!!

>>17859648
So what's your proposed alternative?

>>17858804
Already did

>>17860990
Rand: Individuals shouldn't sacrifice their integrity for the good of a collective, especially when that collective wields moralism and guilt to strengthen itself.
You: RAND SAID COMMUNITY BAD!

>>17858819
Based
>>17858804
Subversive kike. She can be refuted by looking at the state of society today considering it was founded in part on her ideas.

>>17861413
My comment wasn't in response to Rand, it was in response to the dipshit commenter above who went apeshit claiming that humans literally do not need community to survive in any sense.

>>17858978
Comparing Rand to Stirner is unfair. Stirner was an actual philosopher.

Stalin should’ve GULAGed this bitch

>>17860930
Tehe

>>17860080
>A racist homophobe welfare child that never worked
based king of NEETs

>>17859212
>without Christ like platitudes
stop worshiping jews

Is it just me who absolutely hates libertarians? They’re the most insufferable group ever. Even commies are more tolerable, they have arguments that don’t just boil down to “hurr u lazy if you disagree with me lol why do u hate freedom?”

>>17861570
There's a reason libertarians need to be grown in a vat anon, they aren't human.

>>17860080

Parasitism is a highly adaptive strategy (a fact easily empirically verified) and therefore fits within rational self interest.

>>17861570
Libertarians are at the intersection of 1. the politically obsessed, 2. the self-described autodidacts, and 3. "corporate culture". They are almost perfectly designed to be intellectually and culturally dead.

>>17861583
Fuck, wrong picture. Can't find it, but itz was a meme saying that he worked intellectually, editing newspapers and books etc, being a doctor of philosophy.

I agree with a lot of her metaphysics and epistemology actually, it's just at ethics that she starts breaking down, partly because it's all a rationalization for her boner for capitalism.

>>17859036
This is not a defense of Objectivism. Objectivism is very much a "it's according to human nature" philosophy. A is A is pretty much Rand's mantra, after all.

>>17859449
Her ethics are only Aristotelian superficially. She starts from some type of virtue ethics (life = ultimate good, so good = that which works towards life, virtue being the behaviors and beliefs that help further life) and then inexplicably transitions into hard deontology ("initiation of force" is ABSOLUTELY wrong).

She also had this autistic hateboner for Plato.

>>17860789
If you want to get it through fiction, Fountainhead is absolutely not enough. You need Atlas.

But really, just read Peikoff's Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

>>17859349
not an argument

>>17860789
Fountainhead is the superior book

>>17858804
>Metaphysics
You can't know that God or metaphysics do not exist. It makes sense to act as though they do not, perhaps, but she's full of shit here. I can see already why conservatives take her at face value, as they seem to think their emotionally superior to everyone else, when in reality, they too are subject to emotions which brings me to the next point
>Reason and the rejection of emotions
You cannot just "reject" emotions. Without emotions, logic has nothing to navigate. Fundemantally, we need a sense of desired and undesired outcomes to make decisions using logic. However, there is a common persistent baseline for what humanity desires and requires. We do not want to die and we enjoy eating, so we eat is just one basic example.

Even sociopaths are not truly happy, because they are more akin to broken humans than some alternative species that doesn't even match what we seem to know about mammals. Emotions are not to be pent up and ignored; this is counter-productive, and takes away emperical evidence from your understanding of the world. What we want isnead is a sane and aware state of mind. If you are not aware of your emotional dimensions, you are not acting sanely.
>Self-interest
While I agree man must learn much of ethics and what is good or bad, I disagree heavily with Rand's apparently absolutist belief; we do not start from nothing. We are born empathic animals. We are born desiring stimulation and communication.
Her idea of altruism misinterprets the extant to which helping others is in our self-interest. There many instances of people making willing sacrifices for the greater good, even going as far as to become martyrs.

But more importantly, the idea that we should not restrict selfish instincts is fundamentally absurd. This is the very thing we do with the penal system. If there were no penal system, then there would be no laws. If there were no laws, there would be chaos. If one takes natural leadership during chaos, then we will have laws and order again that restrict selfish interest.
>Capitalism
I agree with laissez-faire economics more or less, but Rand neglects that people do not have equal power economically. People don't magically become free because they desire it or because they are in the right state of mind and they told some oligarch "gibe me wiberdy owr you'll be sowwy!". This shit in particular is just babbling nonsense. They still have to unify and all this other shit needs to happen that she doesn't even fucking explain properly? Fuck this shit.

Ann Rand completely goes out of the picture anyway when you just think what her model of politics entails. Not everyone is smart or understands altruism. If you do as Rand suggests, you would have to pay the fire department to put out a fucking fire.
Just because you give someone a safety net does not, or even a little extra, does not mean they won't desire more. Also, Wealth does not automatically equate to competence; this aged poorly.

>>17862816
>>17858804
In summary, Ann Rand's philosophy is idealistic bullshit that fails to incorporate essentially the same things most idealistic bullshit fails to incorporate such as
>Human error
>How the world actually works
>The world not being black and white

>>17859217
Then you are an instrinically unhappy and empty sociopath?

>>17861410
God that game is so unbelievably based.

>>17862816
>I wrote this whole thing and then realized afterwards I was completely misspelling a 3-letter name

Fuck.

>>17863291
GG