/lit/ - Literature

>>5643400
Or what
She's a fucking literary genius and paved the way for most philosophical, economical and social concepts we use in our society today. Disagree? I don't give a shit.

lmfao

>>5643400
agree completely, op

>>5643401
She's absolutely confused as a philosopher though. I do like her idea concerning "Romantic Realism" though.

I do find her ultracapitalism revolting.

>>5643423
>paved the way for blahblahblah
She's a fucking idiot dude.

To give her the D we must first know the alphabet all the way up to "D"

she's not really wrong about the fact that an individual is labeled as such because of its egoism and desires, that quote was surely just a rant against people who never openly show egoism or desire, i.e altruist, the ones she hated so much because of teh gommunism.
basically, good quote, bad motivations

>>5643401
Man I really hope this is a troll comment.

Cause seriously betrays how completely ignorant you are of philosophy and economics. Let's set aside the topic of Objectivism and how important and influential it is and just focus on the fact that Ayn Rand is not even, at all, relevant when it comes to important discussions of Philosophy and Economics - not even a little bit.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I think only Glenavron by Lady Caroline Lamb is a finer example of a woman trying to rationalise her sex life.

>>5643425
I didn't say that

>>5643401
LOL
m8

>>5643429

Objectivism is the worst individual-centeted philosophy you could ever hope to adopt.
Read Emerson or Stirner instead.
>muh laissez-faire capitalism
>muh collectivism
>muh A=A

bitch couldn't handle stoicism's reason and used it to explain reality.

it's pure shit

>>5643400

This is what is known as a 'deepity', I think.

>>5643444
how did you know i'm french? is that you behind teh gommunist red curtain of my window?

>>5643457
>caring about yourself is only stupid when we bring up Ayn Rand.

>>5643499
>stoicism's reason

I think it's easier to channel my hate into one person with a face than 90 percent of humanity. Maybe I'm a bit over dramatic but you get the point.

>>5643548
I mean just look at that face and tell me you dont want to punch it

not a bad quote

>>5643400
'You know how to say "I", don't you Annie? You just put your lips together and blow."

>>5643400
Literally Paulo Coelho for liberatarians.

>>5643499
The way Ayn Rand wants you to care about yourself is stupid, actually.

>>5643400
>"To say 'I love you' one must first know how to say the "I."
Yes, Ayn. It's pronounced with this letter.

>>5643428
>A B C D
>eyy B, see D

my god....

>>5643436
I tend to see it your way.

BUT

I find her objectivism appealing in a pseudo-religious pragmatic understanding of the universe.

Ayn rand wasn't a philosopher, she was a theologian. She claimed access to an unknown known (to know the unknown unknown.)

I think society would be a better place if modern leftist theology were supplanted with her objectivism.

She wrote YA, give her a goddamn break.

>He liked to observe emotions; they were like red lanterns strung along the dark unknown of another's personality, marking vulnerable points.

It's a completely valid and true quote.

>>5644114
>includes: losing everything to the fucking commies

>In this world, either you're virtuous or you enjoy yourself. Not both, lady, not both.

>But you see, the measure of hell you're able to endure is the measure of your love

>But there are people who'll try to hurt you through the good they see in you--knowing that it's the good, needing it and punishing you for it. Don't let it break you when you discover that.

>Do it first and feel about it afterwards.

>John Galt is Prometheus who changed his mind. After centuries of being torn by vultures in payment for having brought to men the fire of the gods, he broke his chains—and he withdrew his fire—until the day when men withdraw their vultures.

>I am, therefore I'll think

>>5645926
Considering she didn't think it was wrong for the state to take things from Native Americans because she said believed "with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man", I don't see how she has any place to complain.

>>5643400
haven't read her but it's a reasonable sentiment about dumbasses who talk about their relationships with other people without having any hold of themselves.

>>5645616
who is that girl is that u butterfly
why are you wearing a fedora?

>>5645941
the rest of the quote separates both situations quite a bit

>There's nothing of any importance in life - except how well you do your work. Nothing. Only that. Whatever else you are, will come from that. It's the only measure of human value.

>We are born into this world unarmed - our mind is our only weapon.

>He never felt lonliness except when he was happy.

>I feel that others live up to me, if they want me.

>She's a writer. The kind of writer who wouldn't be published outside. She believes that when one deals with words, one deals with the mind.

>Did I feel a physical desire for him? I did. Was I moved by a passion of my body? I was. Have I experienced the most violent form of sensual pleasure? I have.

>Money is so noble a medium that does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot

>Through the dry phases of calculations in her mind, she noticed that she did have time to feel something: it was the hard, exhilarating pleasure of action.

>Rationality is the recognition of the fact that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it.

>She was fifteen when it occurred to her for the first time that women did not run railroads and that people might object. To hell with that, she thought- and never worried about it again.

>It is a policeman’s duty to retrieve stolen property and return it to its owners. But when robbery becomes the purpose of the law, and the policeman’s duty becomes, not protection, but the plunder of property - then it is an outlaw who has to become a policeman.

>>5645955
haven't you read her posts? I'm surprised she ever takes the fedora off

>>5645970
Indeed it does. If Indians owned all the land and then whites worked it and Indians got 99% of the economic output in return for owning, then the situations would be comparable.

>>5645928

>Do it first and feel about it afterwards.

Sounds like the was an unfaithful lover.

>>5643400
Ok quote, but Objectivism was an appalling concept.

>>5645980
>>Did I feel a physical desire for him? I did. Was I moved by a passion of my body? I was. Have I experienced the most violent form of sensual pleasure? I have.
>This woman got published

>>5645991
Full quote from earlier

>Married people dont look like they have bedrooms on their minds when they look at each other. In this world, either you're virtuous or you enjoy yourself. Not both, lady, not both.

>“When I die, I hope to go to heaven-- whatever the hell that is-- and I want to be able to afford the price of admission,"

>"Virtue is the price of admission." Jim said haughtily.

>"That's what I mean, James. So I want to be prepared to claim the greatest virtue of all-- that I was a man who made money. "

>"Any grafter can make money."

>"James, you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning.”

>>5645980
Not all those quotes are dumb. The one about perceiving truth hits (or more accurately stumbles on) something interesting.

>>5645955
It's true. I am Egg-chan.

That's not a fedora, and there's nothing wrong with fedoras.

>>5646034
>there's nothing wrong with fedoras.

>>5643425
>I disagree with her so she's an idiot

m8

>>5645616
why all the edge

>>5645873
>I find her objectivism appealing in a pseudo-religious pragmatic understanding of the universe.

>>5645914
I kek'd

What book is that from?

>No principle ever filled anybody's milk bottle

>He did not think of the ten years: What remained of them tonight was only a feeling which he could not name, except that it was quiet and solemn. The feeling was a sum, and he did not have to count again the parts that had gone to make it.


>In an age of casual, cynical, indifferent routine, among people who held themselves as if they were not flesh, but meat-Dagny's bearing seemed almost indecent, because this was the way a woman would have faced a ballroom centuries ago, when the act of displaying one's half-naked body for the admiration of men was an act of daring, when it had meaning, and but one meaning, acknowledged by all as a high adventure.

>I keep thinking that insanity is a state where a person can’t tell what’s real. Well, what’s real now is insane—and if I accepted it as real, I’d have to lose my mind,

>“He belonged in the countryside, she thought—he belonged everywhere—he was a man who belonged on earth—and then she thought of the words which were more exact: he was a man to whom the earth belonged, the man at home on earth and in control.

>In the eyes of his contemporaries, he was a man who had committed the one unforgivable sin; he was proud of his wealth.

>Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth—the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him.

>Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.

>'No, Jim,' she said quietly, 'I guess I've never felt anything at all.'

>To place nothing—nothing—above the verdict of my own mind.

>Whenever anyone accuses some person of being ‘unfeeling,’ he means that that person is just.

>>5646093
Atlas Shrugged, all these quotes are.

>>5646045
There isn't. There *is* something wrong with you though.

>>5646078
To Rand ITT, or in general?

>>5645616
>>5646100
Just lurking around, source on the qt trap?

>>5646034
if it isnt a fedora why are you wearing it inside a house?
check and m8 atheist

>>5646216
Egg-chan

>>5646226
Gawd that's stupid on so many levels. I hope you're just foolin' around.

>>5646238
>you like other traps
>you don't like your cute trap niece
you can be so mean, Butters.

>>5646238
Why would you wear a hat inside a house?
Unless it's a roofless, in which case it's not a house because houses require a roof.

>>5643400
>rand
Of course.

>>5643400
it's a rhetoric statement. In the context of objectivism, it's a solid quote. She's a shit writer, but this isn't an example of that.

>>5643400
There's no I in Team. Get on my level Ayn Rand.

>>5646276
>Niece
The anime poster? I thought it was a dude. You are all anonymous.

>>5646278
I actually want a hat rack, but this girl is not wearing my hats

>>5646314
There isn't an I in Love either.

>>5643400
Congratulations OP. I've been almost a decade on 4chan and this quote is the first thing that made me legitimately mad as in almost throwing the screen out of the window. It's painful. If I could I'd punch her fucking face.

>>5646318
Well I don't care, I'm going to bed.
Have fun with your fedoras you neckbread.

Ayn Rand's fanbase is adolescent Americans

>>5646345
It's a cap.

>>5646360
>I'm an objectivist depending on my parents

>>5646350
as opposed to...

>>5646318
>The anime poster? I thought it was a dude. You are all anonymous.
I was just passing by actually.
I'll just keep reminding you until it becomes a thing or you hate me to dead.

>>5644344
Elaborate.

>>5646216
>trap?
uh oh

pls be trolling

>>5645873
>I find her objectivism appealing in a pseudo-religious pragmatic understanding of the universe.
You need to stop this, anon.

Worship a real religion instead. holy shit

It's a perfectly reasonable quote and I'm just laughing at all the retards ITT butthurt and calling it edgy because they probably accept the truth that "you have to love yourself before you can love someone else" anyway.

It's not hard to understand. It's not stupid. It is essentially the inverse of a Marilyn Monroe quote. It's beautiful.

>>5645926
>includes: losing everything to the fucking commies
My family lost everything to the reds and I lived in worker's paradise till I was 10y old and I still didn't turn into an inhuman monster. I just want to kill commies.

>>5646600
Randian individualism:
>In any society that isn't a laissez-faire capitalist society, every individual is oppressed by the collective and has the right to rebel against that collective. In any laissez-fiare capitalist society, the successful capitalists have the right to throw away all their obligations to the other people in that society, since they're all parasites surviving by eating the flesh of the qualified, successful, necessarily good capitalists.
>Hating everyone who isn't you is justified because they won't be acting in your interest ever; they'll always be acting in their own interest, so it's up to you to prove you're better than them by crushing them under your feet before, while, and after they try to hold you back.
Compare this with Stirner's egoism, which is even more radically individualistic than objectivism.
>I am the creative nothing which is everything. All things exist only to become my property. If another egoist's interests and mine align, we have no reason not to work together. In a Union of Egoists, two unique egos respect each other and work together to achieve a common goal. This is fine, because every individual in every society should be held to be more valuable than any other entity, not only successful objectivist capitalist entrepreneurs in laissez-faire societies.
>The state, the church, etc. will always be enemies of the individual by their nature, but it's not worth getting hung up on, since they'll always be there. Society wants to hold you back and has the power to do so, but you can use it to your advantage. Despite this, you'll only ever have and be yourself-but yourself is everything; you have only to make it your property.
Rand wants you to be everyone's enemy. Stirner wants you to be conscious that you may have allies. Both think you're more important than anything that isn't you.

>>5648302
>tfw the intelligence behind Stirners work is amplified thousandfold when compared to the steaming pile of shit that Rand wrote

>>5648551
It's a tragedy that they teach Rand in high schools but not Stirner.

>>5643401
>Choking on cocks is awesome. Disagree? *Hhkghbl hrrrghl*

Objectivism is amazing

bump

>>5649398
Stirner is not really a person who encourages blind trust in authority, something that high schools are required to teach to a high degree.

>>5652222
That's also tragic.

>>5643436
Her ideas of economics aren't terribly misguided, though. It's just others, real economists, have always expressed them better.

>>5652230
>Her ideas of economics aren't terribly misguided
Laissez-faire capitalism is arguably good, yes.
That's her only economic idea.

>>5652236
Yes. It is not misguided at all.

>>5652245
Care to support that assertion with argumentation & reasoning, bud?

>>5652250
Just read Rothbard and Hoppe. I don't have time for statists like you.

>>5652258
I'm an anarchist and I don't have time to read capitalist propaganda. Explain yourself or I'll continue to assume you don't know what you're talking about

>>5652263
You're an 'anarchist'. You simply want to replace state dogma with anti-hierarchy dogma.

>>5652266
What I think is beside the point (I don't think what you assume I think, btw). Justify the assertion you made about laissez-faire capitalism, then I'll justify my thoughts on the nature of society and the state.

>>5652278
The only person I can determine the actions of is myself, so there is no reason for me to dictate the lives of others, be that through a state or a collective. Laissez-Faire is the only form of societal organisation which makes the individual personally responsible for their livelihood.

>>5652297
>The only person I can determine the actions of is myself
Ok.
>so there is no reason for me to dictate the lives of others
Ok.
>be that through a state or a collective
Ok.
>Laissez-Faire is the only form of societal organisation which makes the individual personally responsible for their livelihood.
But that isn't true. Plenty of people are exploited by the market system to the degree that their low place in society isn't their fault, but that of the people who either failed to pay them enough or failed to employ them at all. Ample evidence of this exists just in the American Gilded Age of the 19th century. For example, at least hundreds of people died during construction of the railroads, doing incredibly dangerous work for pay that was disproportionate to the hazards they were dealing with. How can those people, who took the only jobs they could find, which happened to be terribly dangerous jobs that didn't even pay a living wage, be said to be responsible for their lack of capital and their poverty?
In addition to that, Laissez-faire capitalism eventually ceases to function as capitalism is supposed to, since if someone is good enough at capitalism he'll eventually acquire a monopoly, and monopolies are bad for competition.

>>5652310
>How can those people, who took the only jobs they could find, which happened to be terribly dangerous jobs that didn't even pay a living wage, be said to be responsible for their lack of capital and their poverty?
They were born poor. We aren't dealt equal cards at birth, so to speak. If you or anyone else wishes to support them then you may, but don't force these people into equality by redistributing the hard earned wealth of others.
The poor are the weak and the weak don't need your sympathy. You really should abandon your slave morality, socialism, and look to the noble and powerful for your ideal.

>In addition to that, Laissez-faire capitalism eventually ceases to function as capitalism is supposed to, since if someone is good enough at capitalism he'll eventually acquire a monopoly, and monopolies are bad for competition.
How could a monopoly be created without a state to enforce copyrights? How could a monopoly exist without protectionism? If they have a monopoly on resources then they are forced to sell those resources to their consumers, thus voluntarily redistributing them.

>>5652297
>Laissez-Faire is the only form of societal organisation which makes the individual personally responsible for their livelihood.

Incorrect. Only the compete abolition of society can do that. The productive forces of society are so complex that the resulting product of your labour is always dependent on the labour of countless untold individuals spread across the entirety of society.

Modern goods are the byproduct of large scale cooperation between the entirety of society, and the creation of those goods is impossible without said cooperation. It is highly unlikely you had a direct hand in the manufacturing of any of the furniture in your home, for example.

>The means of production being the collective work of humanity, the product should be the collective property of the race. Individual appropriation is neither just nor serviceable. All belongs to all. All things are for all men, since all men have need of them, since all men have worked in the measure of their strength to produce them, and since it is not possible to evaluate every one's part in the production of the world's wealth.
All things are for all. Here is an immense stock of tools and implements; here are all those iron slaves which we call machines, which saw and plane, spin and weave for us, unmaking and remaking, working up raw matter to produce the marvels of our time. But nobody has the right to seize a single one of these machines and say, "This is mine; if you want to use it you must pay me a tax on each of your products," any more than the feudal lord of medieval times had the right to say to the peasant, "This hill, this meadow belong to me, and you must pay me a tax on every sheaf of corn you reap, on every rick you build."

>>5652325
>They were born poor
So they aren't responsible.
Social Darwinism is unscientific.
>How could a monopoly be created without a state to enforce copyrights?
>The poor are weak and the weak don't need your sympathy.
Maybe I'm not as cold-hearted as you.
>How could a monopoly be created without a state to enforce copyrights?
If someone buys all the diamonds in the world, he has a monopoly on diamonds, whether or not the state acknowledges it.
>How could a monopoly exist without protectionism?
It's theoretically possible.
>and look to the noble and powerful for your ideal.
I am my own ideal.

>If they have a monopoly on resources then they are forced to sell those resources to their consumers, thus voluntarily redistributing them.
But if the resource isn't renewable, they still have their monopoly, assuming their consumers don't sell them off, in which case the monopolist is still just the highest producer on the chain of producers and effectively has his monopoly.

>>5652335
>Incorrect. Only the compete abolition of society can do that. The productive forces of society are so complex that the resulting product of your labour is always dependent on the labour of countless untold individuals spread across the entirety of society.
I don't see how it follows that we are not personally responsible from that. Labour is a commodity to be bought and sold like any other, it is your own fault if you sell into a poor market.

>Modern goods are the byproduct of large scale cooperation between the entirety of society, and the creation of those goods is impossible without said cooperation. It is highly unlikely you had a direct hand in the manufacturing of any of the furniture in your home, for example.
Except for the furniture I built, then why does that matter? Voluntary exchange of goods occurs when all others are attempting to make a profit. It is a product of the uninhibited market.

>All things are for all. Here is an immense stock of tools and implements; here are all those iron slaves which we call machines, which saw and plane, spin and weave for us, unmaking and remaking, working up raw matter to produce the marvels of our time. But nobody has the right to seize a single one of these machines and say, "This is mine; if you want to use it you must pay me a tax on each of your products," any more than the feudal lord of medieval times had the right to say to the peasant, "This hill, this meadow belong to me, and you must pay me a tax on every sheaf of corn you reap, on every rick you build."
There is no such thing as rights. You can try to steal from someone, but they will probably defend it and your reputation in the market and society would be tarnished. The owner probably had family and friends too.

>>5652336
>So they aren't responsible.
Their parents are.

>Maybe I'm not as cold-hearted as you.
Slave morality.

>If someone buys all the diamonds in the world, he has a monopoly on diamonds, whether or not the state acknowledges it.
And what will he do with those? He can't make a profit by hoarding them and their value is totally subjective.

>It's theoretically possible.
Not at all.

>I am my own ideal.
Exactly. Look to the powerful instead.

>But if the resource isn't renewable, they still have their monopoly, assuming their consumers don't sell them off, in which case the monopolist is still just the highest producer on the chain of producers and effectively has his monopoly.
That is also assuming there are no substitute goods and the price elasticity of the good.

>>5652362
>Their parents are
Social Darwinism is unscientific, and if their parents are responsible for it, then doesn't that mean they're not responsible?
>Slave morality.
The slave/master morality dichotomy is a spook.
>He can't make a profit by hoarding them and their value is totally subjective.
Maybe he has a fetish for that particular commodity and doesn't want to sell it. Not everyone is motivated by profit all the time, and a laissez-faire capitalist system allows irrational individuals to behave irrationally with no checks on their behavior. Irrational individuals who acquire a monopoly on an important commodity can't be expected to try to profit off of them if their main motive isn't profit.
>Look to the powerful instead.
The powerful should do something to elevate those below them out of the conditions that cause them to be below them. If they don't do that, they don't deserve their power.
>Not at all.
Why not?
>That is also assuming there are no substitute goods and the price elasticity of the good.
Yes, it is, and plenty of goods without substitutes can be monopolized.

>>5652362
If someone wants nothing to do with the market, any exchange he makes on it will be involuntary.

>>5652394
>Social Darwinism is unscientific, and if their parents are responsible for it, then doesn't that mean they're not responsible?
Not being responsible does not absolve them from the condition forced upon them by their parents, nor does it entitle them to any riches.

>The slave/master morality dichotomy is a spook.
Hardly. There are no partial leaders or partial slaves. You are either strong enough to lead or weak enough to be forced into following.

>Maybe he has a fetish for that particular commodity and doesn't want to sell it. Not everyone is motivated by profit all the time, and a laissez-faire capitalist system allows irrational individuals to behave irrationally with no checks on their behavior. Irrational individuals who acquire a monopoly on an important commodity can't be expected to try to profit off of them if their main motive isn't profit
That's fine, then. Diamonds are not necessary. There are many substitutes for them. I'm sure this hoarding, if disappointing to too many individuals, would negatively affect his income at any rate.

>The powerful should do something to elevate those below them out of the conditions that cause them to be below them. If they don't do that, they don't deserve their power.
That first statement is clear slave morality. The entitlement of the poor. It is also a subjective statement stated as an absolute.
The second part doesn't follow from the first.

>Why not?
For the reasons previously explained.

>Yes, it is, and plenty of goods without substitutes can be monopolized [sic].
Such as?

>>5652404
Then he shouldn't make exchanges. If he hates life so much I'm sure someone will operate a euthanasia centre.

>>5652410
>Not being responsible does not absolve them from the condition forced upon them by their parents,
No, but you've contradicted yourself by saying that someone isn't responsible for the position they're born into.
>That's fine, then
So you admit the free market isn't the best system.
>Hardly.
Prove to me that this particular conception of morality is really the best, or only, one worth following.
>That first statement is clear slave morality
Get yr spooks out of here.
>It is also a subjective statement stated as an absolute.
As if anything you've said ITT hasn't been exactly that.
>Such as?
Oil.

>>5652414
If you live in a market economy, you have to sell your labor.

>>5652417
>No, but you've contradicted yourself by saying that someone isn't responsible for the position they're born into.
No I didn't. I specifically said we cannot control the cards we are dealt, implying chance.

>So you admit the free market isn't the best system.
No. Where are you drawing these conclusions from?

>Prove to me that this particular conception of morality is really the best, or only, one worth following.
Morality does not exist unless you believe in it, like Santa Clause or pixies. I simply state that to be powerful you should emulate the powerful.

>Get yr spooks out of here.
Even if you do not assume a slave/master dichotomy it does not change the definition of slave morality.

>As if anything you've said ITT hasn't been exactly that.
I haven't made subjective points, I have only pointed out apparent truths.

>Oil
There are many substitutes to oil, I'll presume you refer to oil for power generation, and the open market will allow for more to be invested in with no government protectionism.

>>5652423
You can starve, if you like. I don't see why you should be kept alive if you do nothing to support yourself.

To say 'Descartes' one must first know how to say the D.

>>5643400
I wonder if she would've liked BioShock

>>5643429

But that's such a retarded way of putting it, mon amour.

She would better off saying "you can't love people lol"

>>5652439
>No I didn't. I specifically said we cannot control the cards we are dealt, implying chance.
You also claim that people are responsible for their place in society. If someone is poor because he was born into a poor family, he isn't responsible; his family is. Social Darwinism, I repeat, is unscientific schlock.
>There are many substitutes to oil
Which have bee kept off the market by-whoa-the capitalist system's inherent contradictions.
>Where are you drawing these conclusions from?
The capitalist system only works perfectly if everyone is a rational actor, correct? Your capitalist utopia is just another fairy tale.
>I haven't made subjective points
Really?
>I have only pointed out apparent truths
If they're so apparent, explain their validity to me.

>>5652523
>You also claim that people are responsible for their place in society. If someone is poor because he was born into a poor family, he isn't responsible; his family is. Social Darwinism, I repeat, is unscientific schlock.
Not being responsible for one's standing at birth does not mean one is not responsible for their standing once alive. They must either be as they are or be assisted voluntarily by individuals.

>Which have bee kept off the market by-whoa-the capitalist system's inherent contradictions
You mean governmental intrusions in the market?

>The capitalist system only works perfectly if everyone is a rational actor, correct? Your capitalist utopia is just another fairy tale.
Incorrect, it works regardless. The mentally ill may die due to their weakness, a net gain for society.

>Really?
Yes

>If they're so apparent, explain their validity to me.
Do you know what apparent truths are? Must I repeat myself?

>>5652540
>They must either be as they are or be assisted voluntarily by individuals.
If altrusim can help you or others rise higher in society, why not be altruistic?
>You mean governmental intrusions in the market?
A capitalist intent on maintaining his monopoly could conceivably hire mercenaries to maintain it.
>The mentally ill may die due to their weakness, a net gain for society.
If a mentally ill person becomes powerful, is that a net gain for society?
>Yes
Why?
>Must I repeat myself?
Yes, and explain why your apparent truths are true. I don't just accept assertions.

>>5652551
>If altrusim can help you or others rise higher in society, why not be altruistic
It's not a question of why not, but why. I have no reason to will the social rise of another unless it is beneficial to myself.

>A capitalist intent on maintaining his monopoly could conceivably hire mercenaries to maintain it.
The first act is to achieve a total monopoly of an inelastic good with no substitutes. I'm not sure if those exist.

>If a mentally ill person becomes powerful, is that a net gain for society?
Dependent on what they do, really.

>Why?
Because it is so. I assume you are asking me why I said yes.

>Yes, and explain why your apparent truths are true. I don't just accept assertions.
I haven't asserted anything. Readover. If you find anything which is not true then point it out.

>>5652562
>I have no reason to will the social rise of another unless it is beneficial to myself.
If you're a heartless motherfucker, sure. I'm not and I don't think anyone really is.
>Dependent on what they do, really.
So the weak can overpower the strong?
>Because it is so.
Top kek.
>I haven't asserted anything.
>Laissez-Faire is the only form of societal organisation which makes the individual personally responsible for their livelihood.
>there is no reason for me to dictate the lives of others
Two assertions you never adquately justified.

>>5652568
>If you're a heartless motherfucker, sure. I'm not and I don't think anyone really is.
The heart is simply an organ. You mean 'moral' which is dependent on your culture and subjective beliefs.

>So the weak can overpower the strong?
By definition no. Then the weak are the strong. How does this question follow from my statement? The ill aren't necessarily the weak.

>Two assertions you never adquately justified
Alright, is there an alternative where the individual is not supported by a societal safety net and has upward mobility in society. Remember the second part is not possible in a classless society.
Please give me a reason, that I will accept (key), to dictate the life of another.

>>5643437
So a whore?

>>5652589
>The heart is simply an organ
Can you not think metaphorically?
>You mean 'moral' which is dependent on your culture and subjective beliefs
Relativists pls
>By definition no.
And yet a mentally ill person, who is presumably weak, might become powerful in a capitalist society because their oil fetish drives them to buy up and keep for themselves all the oil on the market.
>is there an alternative where the individual is not supported by a societal safety net and has upward mobility in society.
Anarcho-syndicalism.
> the second part is not possible in a classless society
Because social mobility is no longer a factor since everyone is on the same terms.
>Please give me a reason...to dictate the life of another.
If someone is committing genocide, they should be stopped.

>>5652645
>Can you not think metaphorically?
I answered that below.

>Relativists pls
How is that an argument, for one, and how is morality anything more than relative?

>And yet a mentally ill person, who is presumably weak, might become powerful in a capitalist society because their oil fetish drives them to buy up and keep for themselves all the oil on the market.
I don't see how that could occur. He would have to be significantly wealth prior to that.

>Anarcho-syndicalism.
Democracy is tyranny. Anarcho-syndicalism also seeks to eliminate classes.

>Because social mobility is no longer a factor since everyone is on the same terms.
So personal success becomes impossible as success is relative. That seems like a way that could only stifle the natural leaders and drag them down to the level of the followers.

>If someone is committing genocide, they should be stopped.
Why is that?

>>5652665
>and how is morality anything more than relative?
>First, consider that one powerful argument in favor of moral realism involves pointing out certain objective moral truths. For example, "Cruelty for its own sake is wrong," "Torturing people for fun is wrong (as is rape, genocide, and racism)," "Compassion is a virtue," and "Parents ought to care for their children." A bit of thought here, and one can produce quite a list. If you are really a moral relativist, then you have to reject all of the above claims. And this an undesirable position to occupy, both philosophically and personally.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ethics-everyone/201201/rejecting-moral-relativism
Moral relativism is a relatively new concept. Morality was understood to be objective for thousands of years of human history. Since progress is a myth, it doesn't make sense to say that moral relativism is the 'civilized' or 'progressive' stance to take.
Why is moral relativism true?
>I don't see how that could occur. He would have to be significantly wealthy
Why is that inconceivable?
>Democracy is tyranny. Anarcho-syndicalism also seeks to eliminate classes.
I agree with both of those statements.
>So personal success becomes impossible as success is relative
'Success' is a terrible guideline. Social mobility shouldn't be necessary. People should be born into conditions in which they can thrive.
>Why is that?
Because some things are wrong. Genocide is one of them. If you think genocide is permissible, I think you're a sociopath.

>>5652676
>And this an undesirable position to occupy, both philosophically and personally
That doesn't make it wrong. If you were raised in a genocidal, racist culture you would have no problem with those things.

>Moral relativism is a relatively new concept. Morality was understood to be objective for thousands of years of human history.
This somehow makes it correct?

>Why is moral relativism true?
Because there is nothing objective in morality. It is simply preference internalised from one's culture.

>Why is that inconceivable?
Because you stated that he was poor. How will he purchase the world's oil supply if he is poor?

>'Success' is a terrible guideline.
Why?
>Social mobility shouldn't be necessary. People should be born into conditions in which they can thrive.
Why? You have to explain yourself.

>Because some things are wrong
No doubt. 1+1=4 is wrong. But making statements about what action is 'right' cannot be intrinsically right in a meaningless universe.

>>5652692
>That doesn't make it wrong. If you were raised in a genocidal, racist culture you would have no problem with those things.
No, but other cultures that weren't genocidal and racist but which thought that genocide & racism were wrong would be more in the right than others.
>This somehow makes it correct?
No, it just means moral relativism isn't as intuitive as you think it is.
>It is simply preference internalised from one's culture.
There's evidence that morality has a biological basis.
>Because you stated that he was poor
I stated that he was mentally ill and therefore (by your standards, not mine) weak.
>Why?
Because a person shouldn't have to be successful to survive and do what they want to do with their labor power.
>But making statements about what action is 'right' cannot be intrinsically right in a meaningless universe.
Walk up to a Holocaust survivor and tell her genocide isn't bad. I dare you. No, nothing is objectively right or wrong, but people feel certain ways about certain things. Human rights are generally accepted to exist, even if only in the form of a clause in a social contract. If you think human rights don't/shouldn't exist in any form, then I violently disagree with you and would fight you if we were having this discussion in person.

>>5652715
>No, but other cultures that weren't genocidal and racist but which thought that genocide & racism were wrong would be more in the right than others.
It's convenient that your culture got everything 'right', isn't it.

>No, it just means moral relativism isn't as intuitive as you think it is.
When did I claim it was?

>There's evidence that morality has a biological basis.
Sam Harris' books aren't based too heavily in evidence. More about evolutionary speculation.

>I stated that he was mentally ill and therefore (by your standards, not mine) weak.
Weak is a synonym for poor. It means they cannot do much in society.

>Because a person shouldn't have to be successful to survive and do what they want to do with their labor power.
So you'd prefer a civilisation of mediocrity with less violence than a violent successful civilisation? Fine. That's your preference. I have a different preference.

>Walk up to a Holocaust survivor and tell her genocide isn't bad. I dare you.
Assuming the holocaust happened, it was not objectively wrong. It was an action and nothing more. Nothing besides judgement from a superior being (God) could make it anything more. Oh, and it is highly unlikely that God exists and adheres to our Christian moral standards.

>No, nothing is objectively right or wrong, but people feel certain ways about certain things. Human rights are generally accepted to exist, even if only in the form of a clause in a social contract.
So, by definition, it is subjective.

>If you think human rights don't/shouldn't exist in any form, then I violently disagree with you and would fight you if we were having this discussion in person
I'll assume you don't regard freedom of expression as a human right, then. Funny that the person appealing to morality is the first to threaten violence.

>>5652735
>It's convenient that your culture got everything 'right', isn't it.
All right, let's get personal. If I murdered you in cold blood, would that be wrong?
>Sam Harris' books aren't based too heavily in evidence.
I'm not talking about Sam Harris.
http://utcp.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/events/pdf/048_Flanagan_Owen_3rd_BESETO.pdf
>Weak is a synonym for poor.
Really? That's funny, I haven't seen anyone but you and Ayn Rand use those terms synonymously.
>So you'd prefer a civilisation of mediocrity with less violence than a violent successful civilisation?
No, all civilizations are violent. Success is less important than fulfillment.
>Assuming the holocaust happened,
Oh wow.
>So, by definition, it is subjective.
Sure, but there are things that are generally agreed to be wrong.
>Funny that the person appealing to morality is the first to threaten violence.
A moral person can't be a pacifist. He has to step in to prevent horrendous acts of violence if he sees them occurring.

>>5643400
>shit psychopaths say

>>5652743
>All right, let's get personal. If I murdered you in cold blood, would that be wrong?
Not objectively.

>I'm not talking about Sam Harris.
I can't read that and reply quickly. I'll have to read it and that may take a while.

>Really? That's funny, I haven't seen anyone but you and Ayn Rand use those terms synonymously.
This is a thread about Ayn Rand. But what do you think I meant by power, brute strength?

>No, all civilizations are violent. Success is less important than fulfillment.
That is your opinion. Some find fulfilment through success.

>Sure, but there are things that are generally agreed to be wrong
Yes. That means it is subjective.

>A moral person can't be a pacifist. He has to step in to prevent horrendous acts of violence if he sees them occurring
St Anselm of Canterbury would disagree.

>>5652743
>owen flanagan
Is this the go-to guy for wannabe buddhists that need justification for their bankrupt belief system?

>>5652756
>Not objectively.
But it would still be wrong.
>But what do you think I meant by power, brute strength?
Physical or mental power and brute strength, not a position in which someone doesn't have economic leverage.
>Some find fulfilment through success.
That success shouldn't come at the expense of others.
>That means it is subjective
But it's still wrong.
>St Anselm of Canterbury would disagree.
Then I disagree with a saint.
Objectivists appealing to religious authorities? Really?

It is kind of a retarded quote, but she does make a valid point. To love someone, you must also have respect for yourself.

>>5652767
>But it would still be wrong.
By your definition.

>Physical or mental power and brute strength, not a position in which someone doesn't have economic leverage.
It's about the power you can exert over others.

>That success shouldn't come at the expense of others.
That's your opinion.

>But it's still wrong.
Opinion.

>Then I disagree with a saint.
Objectivists appealing to religious authorities? Really?
Just evidence of the subjectivity of your moral claims.

>>5652777
>By your definition.
It's pretty commonly accepted.
>It's about the power you can exert over others.
OK.
>opinion
>Opinion
>subjectivity
Your assertions are all subjective, as well. Prove to me that your opinions are objective.

>>5652794
>It's pretty commonly accepted
So what?
>Your assertions are all subjective, as well. Prove to me that your opinions are objective.
I haven't asserted an opinion with those posts. I am simply pointing out that there is no basis for you claims of morality. Unless, of course, you're going to start appealing to God or a higher power. Whatever the case, your tu quoque has signalled the end of this conversation. You obviously have nothing worthwhile to say at this point.

>>5643400
Do any of you even understand the point she's trying to make? She's saying that love is inherently selfish. If you took the time to read the 168 pages of the Signet copy of "The Virtue of Selfishness" then you'd know that Rand's philosophy is based of the fact that humans are inherently selfish and emotions like love are selfish by nature.
Rand was very good at defending Egoism, and her ideas are very simple, and that's the way she made it, so simple a roach could understand it. And yet there seems to be no end of the "dur hurr hurr, y is Rand so dum? All she sez is MINE MINE MINE!!1!"

>>5652502
Nope.
Andrew Ryan dropped Objectivism as soon as Fontaine showed up so he could be dictator and control Rapture.

>hurr no true scotsman

Bioshock isn't Objectivism. It shows what happens when babies claim to apply it.

>>5643429
>>5643444

I can't see the gallicism here, could someone help?