/lit/ - Literature

>>23472518
There's one important difference between Marx and Ayn, even though I hear everything you're saying here. It's valid.
But everything I've read by Ayn, all of it, contains the pungent odor of sheer seething hatred. You can feel how much this bitch despises life and despises humanity. By contrast, Marx speaks highly of humanity.

>>23472528
Marx was a Freemason who wrote poems to the devil.

>>23472518
I thoroughly enjoyed the fountainhead. Will I enjoy that?

>>23472518
ayn rand was a good person. if someone showed her proof of magic or christianity she would have changed her mind

>>23472611
No it's gay and boring. Women can't write worth a damn.

>>23472614
>proof
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

>>23472813
Amen.

Rand can't fully commit to materialism because she can't let go of Aristotle.
Marxists go so far as to even reject "A is A" because they reject all metaphysics and therefore any "A" is a purely material construct, sonically, neurologically, ink and paper, pixels, etc and therefore a completely different and unique phenomenon to anything else that we label as "A", or even "Itself" as the passage of time changes all. Logic and its "laws" become a sub-discipline of linguistics.

Rand is still an idealist, however her metaphysics is truncated to contain only what is strictly necessary to proceed syllogistically to her conclusions. The implication of there being metaphysics at all is left investigate lest there are spirits and demons hiding under the rug it was swept.

>>23472879
All materialists contradict themselves somewhere. It is quite literally impossible to be a materialist and be logically consistent.

>>23472518
>She was a materialist, atheist, rationalist
It's called being Ashkenazi. They're not even real Jews. Insufferable "people".

>>23473056
All logic encounters circularity eventually. Classical worldviews tend to proceed from the circularity of various axioms, whereas materialists conclude with it. To argue for the validity of one over the other creates the problem of using logic to argue about logic and this fails to escape the problem, if you even consider it to be one.

Religion can fallback on faith as an supra-logical circuit breaker. The modernist parallel is to embrace the Absurd.

>>23473354
I embrace the Dharma.

>>23472611
I think you would enjoy Atlas Shrugged even more, in my experience
>>23472518
I've heard people say this a lot, enough that I considered it trite for decades, but I actually finally came to the same conclusion myself not too long ago. Libertarians and Marxists are two sides of the same coin. The difference is that libertarians are essentialists whereas Marxists are constructivists as anon >>23472879 points out. In other respects they have very similar personality types, ie
>wanting to simplify all politics to a reductivist formula (NAP vs. "from each according to ability," etc.)
>Marxists have the labour theory of value whereas libertarians have the "labour-mixing" theory of property rights. This causes both to get into a hopeless muddle regarding the value/ownership of natural resources. In Marxism this is called the transformation problem, in libertarianism, endless debates with Georgists over the proper extent of the Lockean Proviso. This got so bad that Murray Rothbard, who in all other respects demanded a stateless society to the extent of wanting "a flourishing free market in children", when it came to land rights, wished for a set of "qualified judges" to determine the "appropriate amount" of land that each person was allowed to use, ie. socialism.
>generally demanding a radical restructuring of society to such an extent that unless the entire world went the same way at once, their society would be eaten alive by its neighbours
>Marxists don't believe in the Tragedy of the Commons whereas libertarians believe that all commons can easily be privatised, effectively denying the existence of the Public Goods problem (free rider problem), which amounts to the same thing.

>>23472518
>Also we go on "vacation" doing entry-level jobs.

>>23472528
>By contrast, Marx speaks highly of humanity.
fuck off you disengenous rat

>>23472528
>You can feel how much this bitch despises life and despises humanity

>One can't love man without hating most of the creatures who pretend to bear his name.

>>23472518
>Ayn Rand criticized communism a lot but ironically, she was very similar to communists
Objectivism is a literal exact photo-negative of Leninism.

>>23475193
what do you mean

>>23472614
>Supported segregation under the guise of "gifted children shouldn't be taught alongside under achievers"(Which is basically the foundation of having different leveled tiers in high school)
>Called Middle Eastern people "a sea of almost completely primitive savages"
>Defended America's g3n0c1de of all the native tribes
>Shamed welfare recipients but at the same time didn't hesitate to cash in her welfare checks when her heavy smoking caused lung cancer(she still denied that smoking causes cancer)

>>23475261
I forgot
>>23472614
>if someone showed her proof of magic or christianity she would have changed her mind
Ayn Rand was INFAMOUS for not responding to criticism, she saw her philosophy as objective fact so if you disagreed then it means you're crazy, you can find videos of her being challenged by audience members and her response was "You wanna cause an incident? No? Then STFU lmao"

>>23472528
>Marx: I see and feel myself as a giant, roaming the ruins of the World

>>23475320
Uh, SOVL alert.

>>23475290
Women are not intellectuals. They especially can't do metaphysics.

>>23475232
It's a fully materialistic system that gives material conditions and class relationship with means of production the central roles in historic process.

The difference is that Objectivism endows ownership with creative power, and classifies labor as outdated product of the past that degraded into parasitism, with laborers and their representatives actively maintaining an unproductive and stagnant social system for their own benefit at the cost of cruel exploitation of the real productive class - the owners, who must cast off their shackles and cast down the tyranny of labor with violence.

It's literally Leninism, but bourgeoisie is the oppressed working class, while the proletariat are the ruling parasites that must be overthrown. Upside down. Photo-negative.

It works so well because it opens the entire barrel of revolutionary aesthetic for the audience that is typically entirely insulated for it.

>>23475232
It's a fully materialistic system that gives material conditions and class relationship with means of production the central roles in historic process.

The difference is that Objectivism endows ownership with creative power, and classifies labor as outdated product of the past that degraded into parasitism, with laborers and their representatives actively maintaining an unproductive and stagnant social system for their own benefit at the cost of cruel exploitation of the real productive class - the owners, who must break their shackles and cast down the tyranny of labor with violence.

It's literally Leninism, but bourgeoisie is the oppressed working class, while the proletariat are the ruling parasites that must be overthrown. Upside down. Photo-negative.

It works so well because the loophole of "reasonable self-interest" opens the entire barrel of revolutionary aesthetic for the audience that is typically perfectly insulated from it.

>>23475386
And it naturally flows from Ayn Rand being exposed to entirely too much Leninism in her formative years in a somewhat traumatic way, by her somewhat wealthy family getting their shit expropriated by the Bolshies, which naturally drove her convictions towards "the truth is the exact opposite of what Lenin says".

>>23472518
>communist drink water
>ayn rand drank water
they're basically the same...

>>23475391
But if she really wanted to be the opposite of Lenin then she would have believed in the spiritual level of reality and become a Christian.
She was only the opposite of Lenin in superficial ways.

>>23475540
>She was only the opposite of Lenin in superficial ways.
Or rather, in the same context.

Hence "photo-negative".

>>23472518
You are right anon. It is a good point.

>>23472528
I read Anthem and didn't get that impression at all. The story is all about a guy overcoming a dystopian government with the power of his human intellect.

>>23475859
but most people were on board with it

>>23472518
>>23473920
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLf4dKcFCFo

>>23472879
>The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from the proposition that ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’. This postulate is accepted as an axiom for a multitude of practical human actions and elementary generalisations. But in reality ‘A’ is not equal to ‘A’. This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens—they are quite different from each other. But, one can object, the question is not of the size or the form of the letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities, for instance, a pound of sugar. The objection is beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar—a more delicate scale always discloses a difference. Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true—all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself “at any given moment”.

>Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this “axiom”, it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should we really conceive the word “moment”? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that “moment” to inevitable changes. Or is the “moment” a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’ signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.

>>23472518
tl;dr they're both jews

A = A = Absolute Equality

Have fun, deducting flaws in that equation, Neo-Objectivist faggots, and pretentious deniers of such.

Atlas Shrugged wasn’t a bad read, though.

Obviously lost his train of thought along the way to “objective” reasoning.

Guess A Lot, was in His mind.

Autistic Fuck.

>:l

-Elohim, The Night Dragon-

>>23478102
>his

>>23472518
I don't know much about ayn rand (except that she was an objectivist etc) but isn't economics in the current age one of the most important things in the world ?
>She was a materialist, atheist, rationalist
Like 90% of people living in the west
>which ultimately is meaningless because they're all just going to die and stop existing anyway
If we suppose that we're all going to die either way, shouldn't we at least try to find the optimal way of exchanging and administering laws ?
>>23475290
The video where this does happen she does say this but then goes on to adress the points which the girl was talking about.

>>23478061
It's hard to fathom how these ideas had such a grip on so many people. Every word of his argument invokes the principle that "A is A", and the objections are irrelevant. As for the idea that a "moment" is a mere abstraction - draw me a line that doesn't contain a point, Trotsky boy.

>>23472518
Just stop thinking please. I will exclude Marx's comparison to Rand, which you have distastefully made with zero comprehension of both philosophies but that's fine try a simpler philosopher like Sartre. Now yes, both Rand and Sartre (a majority of like minded communists) start with existence preceding essence, materialism and atheism (this is the metaphysical and epistemic foundations). This is the fundamental starting point of objectivism and Sartre(communism) which they all agree with as it's the most logically consistent arguments to have. The biggest divergent is that Marx had a metaphysical argument, expanded by Sartre and Beauvoir (massive supporters of Marx) that freedom is directly acknowledged not by oneself but by another individual - in other words, your freedom is not your own, but the standard of other people acknowledging it (at this point this is just Hegel - in regards to consciousness- which we all now Marx basically copy and pasted his philosophy into his own). This is a form of altruism in a metaphysical sense, not an ethical one and it's logical political end if communism, as the commune decides your stature of individualism, not yourself. This idea is very fucking dangerous which Rand correctly criticizes, however she supplements it with egoism, which does work however she was far more focused on political and ethical ideas on egoism and completely skips of epistemic foundations of egoism and freedom. Ayn Rand believed that the ethics of egoism support life, and Marx thought it was altruism, it's as simple as that. I saw some retarded comment like Rand was an idealist, kill yourself please. Rand was an outright materialistic in the sense that reality is objective and separate from the conscious experience(though the conscious experience is derived from physical actions in the brains like neurons firing etc.), for example if a tree branch breaks in the forest with no subjects to experience it, does it exist? Rand says yes it does and Marx says no it doesn't. Obviously materialism is really hard to argue! but if anyone should give Rand credit its that she committed to it's logical end.

What makes Rand such a cultural zeitgeist is that she is an extremely rare philosopher in arguing a rationalistic, egoist, atheistic and materialist approach to philosophy, which is extremely fucking rare as the last person to actually argue for this may as well be Aristotle (desu it's Max Stirner). There is very little philosophy about egoism without god derived from materialism and Rand honestly deserves credit for actually trying to make an argument for it, even though it's poorly done whereas there are philosophers by the week shitting out communist philosophy based on atheism.

>>23478283
>What makes Rand such a cultural zeitgeist is that she is an extremely rare philosopher in arguing a rationalistic, egoist, atheistic and materialist approach to philosophy, which is extremely fucking rare as the last person to actually argue for this may as well be Aristotle (desu it's Max Stirner).

>On such a principle, then, depend the heavens and the world of nature. And it is a life such as the best which we enjoy, and enjoy for but a short time (for it is ever in this state, which we cannot be), since its actuality is also pleasure. (And for this reason are waking, perception, and thinking most pleasant, and hopes and memories are so on account of these.) And thinking in itself deals with that which is best in itself, and that which is thinking in the fullest sense with that which is best in the fullest sense. And thought thinks on itself because it shares the nature of the object of thought; for it becomes an object of thought in coming into contact with and thinking its objects, so that thought and object of thought are the same. For that which is capable of receiving the object of thought, i.e. the essence, is thought. But it is active when it possesses this object. Therefore the possession rather than the receptivity is the divine element which thought seems to contain, and the act of contemplation is what is most pleasant and best. If, then, God is always in that good state in which we sometimes are, this compels our wonder; and if in a better this compels it yet more. And God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God's self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God.
-Aristotle

Not surprising that a materialist and atheist would have a rather sketchy understanding of the Greeks desu.

>>23477614
I don't think you can accurately guage how many people support an authoritarian government when that government is constantly threatening to burn them at the stake or torture them if they say they don't support it.

>>23478061
Trotsky was a member of the French Masonic Lodge, along with Lenin. They both were puppets of Satan.

>>23478061
Whoa. Is this in Marx, or did Deleuze get this from Trotsky?

>>23478693
Both Marx and Trotsky were Freemasons, so ultimately these perverse ideas come from Satan, regardless of which one wrote it.

>>23478693
>>23478702
Also, this all is basically just a rehash of Heraclitus, who said that the ultimate truth of reality is change (which is self-refuting).

>>23478712
nice cat, bro

>>23472611
I think Fountainhead is her best books because real of arts (like architecture) is only place where her radical self-interest, as in means of artistic self-expressions, makes some sense

>>23478061
Two whole paragraphs and not once is an actual direct explanation made. Amazing. I am now ready to give up all property and engage in the never ending permanent revolution for the next stage of human history which will happen regardless of individual human will or action.

>>23479507
Perhaps you are beginning to realize that Marxism, Trotskyism, etc., is not about making a logical argument or showing you the truth. It is about using words to cast a magic spell over you to stir you up into an emotional frenzy and do their bidding.
That is how Satanists operate. They don't have truth on their side. They have to use sorcery to convince you.

>>23472528
>Ayn, all of it, contains the pungent odor of sheer seething hatred.
Good to this point
>By contrast, Marx speaks highly of humanity.
kek, what a retard

>>23479537
This.
Marxism is constructed especially to be used pragmatically by cunning power-grabbers. Whom with it they stir the emotions of the working class and blind their vision with induced hatred, just so they use them as means to get to the ends.
Politicians, Union leaders, Intellectuals. You name it, They don't give a fuck about the poor and only exploit them to use them as a bargaining chip to gain power over others.

>>23472813
>three lines of cope and no prove offered

>>23475261
>>Called Middle Eastern people "a sea of almost completely primitive savages"
she was not wrong

>>23475261
>she was heckin racist
Piss off, wanker

>>23472518
I've never heard of brutal dictatorships killing millions because of rand

>>23480094
You've never heard of the covid "vaccine"?

>>23480051
You cannot be a good person and be a racist

>>23472518
Both Marx and Rand are cappa tribesmen so this isn't surprising

>>23480122
You mean the vaccine enforced by the authoritarian world governmental powers? That vaccine?

>>23472518
Commies are empiricists not rationalists

>>23472518
>it's another hecking BASED antimaterialist orthodox christian who last went to church six years ago thread

I'm so tired of these losers

>>23472528
>you should enjoy life and live it for yourself
What a hateful bitch, lol

>>23473920
right on cue, libertarian @Seld_On has taken to twitter to claim that "the Tragedy of the Commons is inherently left-coded", a nonsensical claim. it's nice being proven right all the time.

>>23480861
>you have to accept you and your family being killed and raped, lest you're a bad person!
Oh no...
Anyway, Rand was a miserable retard who couldn't stop thinking with her clit long enough to write a good story. Her works are worth reading just because they are often discussed. The quality therein is lesser.

>>23484537
>!