/lit/ - Literature

>>2955445
Wut, why?

>>2955449
HOLY SHIT ANOTHER THREAD ON AYN RAND

They're probably fans

It makes perfect sense if you are free from a socially programmed, ethical conformity, but will seem repulsive if you are a high-school, liberal, pseudo-Buddhist, who believes everyone should hold hands and 'ohhhhmmmmmm' together.

>>2955452
>someone makes a thread abour Rand just a couple minutes before me

Oh well if anything this goes to show how her influence is growing.

>>2955469
No, because if you were free from a programmed sense of morality you would be a feral child and wouldn't be able to read. All morality is programmed; there is no morality of nature which only Rand managed to stumble unto. If anything, Rand's morality is far from natural, since it presumes that the rich are rich because they work hard, which is the most obvious bullshit ever presented as truth.

>>2955468

>her influence is growing

haha no, her fanbase will always consist of the same edgy 15-30 year-olds who think they're better than everyone else and haven't read any real philosophy.

She used to be posted here all the time, then we had a rule banning discussion about her, which, unfortunately, has now been lifted.

>>2955469
>programmed, ethical conformity, but will seem repulsive if you are a high-school, liberal, pseudo-Buddhist, who believes everyone should hold hands and 'ohhhhmmmmmm

Wat

>>2955486
>then we had a rule banning discussion about her

Really? Damn, maybe moot should do the same they did with MLP.

>>2955496
You mean make a Rand board? Hahahahahah oh I'd love to see that.

its tottally awesoem

>>2955482
You wouldn't be a feral child. You seem to understand that your idea of morality (whether you are arguing against capital punishment, or for abortion), is obviously influenced by sociological factors, rather than a 'real' underlying morality, so why are you against embracing a code of ethics that makes sense to, or benefits, yourself from a subjective standpoint? If you realise that your opposition to murder is a result of cultural programming, but still embrace the preservation of human life because that is the type of world that you want to live in, then you are much freer than someone who blindly argues for ethics based on any other assumption.

>since it presumes that the rich are rich because they work hard, which is the most obvious bullshit ever presented as truth.

There is nothing wrong with a meritocracy, which is what rand was arguing for. Only it would be flawed if we adopted it from our current political situation.

>>2955469
santas not real.... hope that didn't upset you.. now go to bed

And thus /lit/'s pinko nature is once again revealed.

How's it feel to be the most faggoty board on 4chan? (worst than mlp)

>>2955565

Sorry we don't entertain selfish, childlike ideologies based on fear and greed

>>2955569
No, you entertain far more irrational ideas.

Enjoy your poverty

back to /sci/ masterrace

Cya at the checkout counters girls!

>>2955569
Gb2school, you filthy Marxist.

if I get rich then yeah, I'll like ayn rand

>>2955581

good luck getting rich in a society where the cards are stacked against you ever moving from where you are

>>2955583
Feels good then being in a society that has pretty fluid social mobility. Enjoy your shitty country, anglofag.

this is against the fucking rules.

>>2955574
the funny part is that while I'm enjoying my poverty, you'll be unhappy despite your wealth

Ayn Rand admired a guy who butchered a 12-year-old girl, because that's what "supermen" do. That's some Raskolnikov shit right there mayne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiwBUIZI-Ps

>>2955574
Pretty sure /sci/ despises Rand as well.

>>2955589
>you'll be unhappy despite your wealth
Tell that to all the billionaires and millionaires that laugh all the way on their yachts to their private islands. Pretty sure that they can feel however they want to.

>>2955589
>Ayn Rand admired a guy who butchered a 12-year-old girl, because that's what "supermen" do.

She didn't admire the act itself. She admired someone who followed their own ethical rules, instead of mindlessly following ethical guidelines set out by others.

>>2955597
>you'll be unhappy despite your wealth
At least I have a yacht to be unhappy on.

>>2955598
That typical misrepresentation so often pushed forth by the usual sort. Keep blind hating (retards).

>>2955588
Show me the rule that says we can't discuss Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand: I believe that if someone works hard they should benefit from it.
Butthurt teenager: No, they're rich. They should have to pay for poor peoples education and healthcare.

That Ayn Rand tries to derive her entire philosophy from the logical axiom "A is A" shows that she doesn't understand logic or philosophy.

>>2955600

At least I have my books...

That guy was such a pleb though
>Collected works of Dickens
>Collected works of George Bernard Shaw
>Poems by Browning, Shelley, Keats

>>2955598
>mindlessly following ethical guidelines set out by others
"Don't mindlessly follow ethical guidelines set out by others, mindlessly follow ethical guidelines set out by me!"
I'd slit ur throat without feeling a thing, and Rand would congratulate me for it

>>2955626
Could you enlighten us then as to why she is wrong?
(not trolling/baiting/whatever - I actually would like to hear some well reasoned criticisms concerning her use of logic as it all appears to rest on that foundation)

>>2955637
> mindlessly follow ethical guidelines set out by me!
From my understanding, her point was that if you "used logic" you'd come to the same conclusions she did anyway, so it wouldn't be blind obedience.

Although, I remember reading somewhere of a sort of personality cult that existed when she was still alive.

If this is true then it would be interesting to see how she handled that.

>>2955639
>Could you enlighten us then as to why she is wrong?

For starters it doesn't make any bloody sense.

>>2955654
lol ironclad argument you got there brother.

Interesting, though I dissagree far too much with her epistemology to be an Objectivist. Also, fun to read her work through a Maoist or Hegalian lense.

>>2955639
Ayn Rand took "A is A" to say something about the essence of a thing, especially mankind. Since man is selfish today, he can't be altruistic tomorrow. But the axiom is actually much weaker than she took it: all it says is that a thing is identical to itself, so that anything, man including can change and still satisfy "A is A." Of course, all of this assumes that logic per se can tell us anything about the real world. In fact, all logic can do is tell us if our reasoning about the real world is consistent. It is not necessary to even use "A is A" as an axiom to do logic. A lot of more modern forms of logic deny that A is A.

>>2955654
If it's not too much trouble, would you elucidate for the layman please? It would be most appreciated (I failed analytic philosophy and never got around to doing a logic course)

>>2955684
>Since man is selfish today, he can't be altruistic tomorrow.

Ahem!

>>2955659
>Also, fun to read her work through a Maoist or Hegalian lense.

Would you mind elaborating on this?

I only have a vague sense of how this would be, but not having touched Mao at all and only have the briefest of encounters with Hegel, I can not see what you mean by "fun".

>>2955684
I see (sort of).

Does this fact then dismantle her entire philosophy? (I would presume that it does as from my understanding all her work rested on this premise)

>>2955690
It's like listening to music whilst high, you discover so many new things you hadn't noticed before, new spin on events and protagonists and such.

>>2955639
Almost entirely unrelated, but

"The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there." - Yasutani Roshi

It also seems like her work assumes the self is a singular will, as opposed to a polity of mental faculties, but that's neither here nor there.

I feel that, since it hasn't actually been mentioned what with all the discussion of her philosophy, I should point out that Ayn Rand is a dreadful, dreadful novelist. There are very few people who are quite so bad at the actual craft of writing as she was. I have never read another writer so dismally unable to structure a plot, her prose is near-unendurable at times, her pacing is non-existent... basically, she is simply a bad, bad writer.

FUCK OFF TO >>>/pol/
This isn't complicated!
No Ayn Rand threads in /Lit!!!
You don't start a thread asking "So what does /pol/ think of Ayn Rand's work?"
You start a thread in /pol!!!

Violators will have the book thrown at them, and man, do we have a lot of books to throw.

if rand is so shitty then why do her books occupy the top 2 spots on 100 best novels on modern library?

http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/

not told [ ]
toldjectivism [x]

She was earnest during her earlier times but as she aged and became more famous she became a parody of her own views.

Ultimately, that is what we all think of when we think about her and it's unfortunate because we are seeing a surfeit of people who misunderstand the philosophy and have used it to justify behaving like a sociopath.

>>2955712
You tell 'em bro!

>>2955711
Get with the times, bra

That rules gone.

>>2955712
>if rand is so shitty then why do her books occupy the top 2 spots on 100 best novels on modern library?

Not that I care about whether or not leftielit fags have a cry about rand or whomever it is who is demon of the hour, but plenty of books the tops of lists that are total crap. It all depends on who compiles the list in the first place.

If the "Modern Menopausal Woman Times" compiled such a list it would include Twilight, 50fags of fag and some joan collins shit.

Lists = big fucking deal.

>>2955574
>/sci/
>liking Ayn Rand

"And so Anon proved he was neither a scientist nor an engineer but probably just some first semester economy/law student. The End!"

Honestly though...
If you're looking for objectivism scientific faculties are CERTAIN-FUCKING-LY the wrong place. And I should probably know as I've been there for some time now.
It just lacks the kindness, understanding and most of all cooperation that should be (and mostly is) common in science and engineering.
Selfishness has absolutely no place there (and gets you fired in companies by the way).

You must be fucking insane if you think scientists or any technical/scientific discipline would foster or live the ideas of Rand, a second-rate philosopher.

>>2955744
>You must be fucking insane if you think scientists or any technical/scientific discipline would foster or live the ideas of Rand
But the greedy bastards running the kind of companies who hire scientists and technicians to develop products would.

>>2955744
>philosopher

Huehuheuheuheheu *snort*fart

>>2955736
FUCK OFF TO >>>/pol/
This isn't complicated!
No Ayn Rand threads in /Lit!!!
You don't start a thread asking "So what does /pol/ think of Ayn Rand's work?"
You start a thread in /pol!!!

Violators will have the book thrown at them, and man, do we have a lot of books to throw.

>>2955763
Get with the times, bra

That rules gone.

>>2955703
>is a dreadful, dreadful novelist.
No denying that.

But I'm trying to think of any other so overtly didactic fiction that wasn't also remarkably terrible.

Anyone?

>>2955744
Yeah no.
Selfishness, Kindness et al are not at all qualifiers in the science fields.
Teamwork and professionalism is.
The Social "Sciences" gets shat on almost entirely over their tendency to value political opinion over truth.

>>2955794
That's right. No moral imperative stuff - you cooperate if you like your team and respect them as fellow scientists. You cooperate because you may just value your job.

I see no contradiction here, if rational self-interest is implemented.

People tend to go overboard with the whole OMG SOO SELFISH thing.

Just be smart about it, and you'll find that most things tend to work out that way, whether one could ascribe it to randian self-interest or not.

Or maybe i'm a huge faggot, plase rape my face

>>2955758
Maybe.
That's a different topic though.
Universities offer shit tons of courses on ethics in science because of that dilemma.

>>2955794
>Kindness is not a qualifier
>Teamwork and professionalism is.

You can't work in a team if you're an asshole. I can tell you so much. It's going to be a living hell and shit wont get done in the end.
Do you think teamwork and professionalism just come from itself? Because that is certainly not the case.
Those are traits that have to be polished by your personality. Like for an example with humility. Which can also be expressed in the form of professionalism.

By the way nobody is talking about the fucking social sciences.
...those fags...

>>2955823
>Universities offer shit tons of courses on ethics in science because of that dilemma.
And a lot of good that does anyone.

>>2955853
I said they offer them.
I didn't say anyone is taking them.

It is rather that people are aware of the problem and encourage thinking about it.

>>2955823
>You can't work in a team if you're an asshole.
But does Objectivism, even a smattering of it, necessitate that you be an asshole?

I mean, I know most of those posing as such usually are assholes, and rand herself was no smiling sambo.

But is it in the objectivist agenda to be an asshole? Or is that just a byproduct of assholes taking rand to heart?

Could you be a "pleasant" Objectivist?

>>2955873
If I had more time now I'd love to stay a while and discuss this a little bit more, but I'm in a bit of a hurry so I'll cut it short:
I'm honestly afraid there is just too much "I, Me and Mine" in objectivism to really practice it in a way that would be pleasant for people around you. And it is just logical since not the community but the individual is the focus of objectivism.
However you are living in a community and probably always will.

I think that is also the problem many people have with Rands work. In the form she delivered it, it is just not applicable for the real world unless you're kind of a prick by nature.

For an example, how I see it, the doctrine completely abandons the principle of sacrifice which in itself wouldn't be an unpleasant act per se but just stands au contraire to the principles of objectivism.

I think if you hack the work down to its bits objectivism is probably not much more than primitive pleasure gain and satisfaction of your needs.
I honestly have yet to meet a person that has truly experienced self-fulfilment by that.

Nobody says however you can't mix up objectivism with more moderate tendencies.
But then you have to wonder if it is still objectivism. Which again makes Rands work obsolete.

>>2955873
>But does Objectivism, even a smattering of it, necessitate that you be an asshole?

Yes. Have you read anything by Rand?

>>2955482
>the rich are rich because they work hard, which is the most obvious bullshit ever presented as truth
This is what Randroids actually believe. It's not that the people who work in sweatshops or people in this part of the world who work day after day for a minimum wage just to get by that are hard workers, it's billionaires like Romney who inherit all their wealth from daddy and have public officials in their back pockets to bail them out that are the real backbone of society not the people who's actual work they make all their money off of. No, that's retarded, if you market fundies hate /lit/ and our left leaning sensibilities so much then fuck off back to >>>/pol/ to bitch about how jewish "cultural marxism" is corrupting the "useful idiots" that are stupid enough to believe that real working people actually deserve rights.

>>2956226
forgot the pic

>>2956226
>think opposing randroids is left-leaning
Fuck off back to reddit.

>>2956226
>/lit/ and our left-leaning sensibilities
/lit/, in general has mainly seemed to be mainly centre-right from an economic perspective. I know that's not what you're talking about, but I feel the need to point it out.

>>2956230

pic pretty much sums it up for me though I like this quote:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

>>2956243
Not from reddit and yes opposing a right wing idealogue like her and the rest of her cult members would mean you are likely to be coming from a left wing perspective. Not that you'd have to be but it would probably be the case, especially if it's in reference to her right wing economic viewpoint as the comment that you're responding to was.

>>2956276

So you /lit/ are a bunch of pinko liberals? Intredasting.

>>2956226
how HARD you work is meaningless

i could exhaust myself day in and day out digging a giant ditch in my backyard, wouldn't make it anything worthwhile.

Someone at some point "earned" that money through hard work and providing a profitable and welcome service/product.

Please contain your jealousy, how they live does not affect you in the slightest.

>>2955690

Fun to read from a Hegelian perspective, as in, with your head shoved up your ass.