/lit/ - Literature

yes, we all believe that humans should live in a communal environment and that the government should assign us jobs

now shut the fuck up and go die

>>588062

We hate her because she is a woman. No other reason is needed.

>>588072

no. the reality is that both individualism and a communal attitude is needed for survival. its what we have right now. any attitude that is extreme one way or the other is naive as fuck.

pure individualism= the needs of others will never limit my desires.

pure communistic attitude= everything is the same and its all equally shit.

Rule 4.

Every person should look after themselves. People hate Rand because she isn't individualistic enough.

I think its not only her individualism thats abhored, but her crackpot "philosophy" objectivism. that and the fact that her self-righteous, hysterical "teachings" are far beyond individualism. they are egoistic.

>>588233
>implying egoism is bad

>>588236
sorry, I meant egotastic.

/li/ not being fans of Individualism? /li/ sucks the cock of every author even related to existentialism.

She's a bad copy of Nietzsche.

I HELP PEOPLE BY BEING SELFISH

>>588245
>/li/

>>588239
well played, that man knows his eristics.

>>588213
this is stupid. randomly being a dick is not what is best for you
whoever did this gave rand's philosophy absolutely zero real thought

>>588245
yeah, we are all unique here. I mean, I am the only one that is not a sheep and that stands up to his own personality.

like, only I am not a hipster.

thats why I am ironic so often.

>>588258
Durr. Most people can't tell the difference between amoralism and immoralism. Because they're idiots.

>>588263
amoralism is more useful
immoralism is more fun

>>588266
and the basis for both is arbitrary anyways

>>588259

What's your point, you're implying I'm a nihilist or something?

>>588263

It's not because they're idiots, it's because they don't care.

Pretentious much?

>>588269
>implying there are moral theories that don't have an arbitrary basis

>>588273

Utilitarianism?

>>588277
Assumes that people's happiness has value, even though the only person who'se happiness has any effect on you is your own.

>>588277
lolwut?

its extremely obvious in that one

>>588281

But that's what an ethical saying is; expression of emotions/ emotional mental states. Me saying "I don't like abortion" is like saying "Bleh to abortions". Utilitarianism just takes this basic fact and gives its a mouthful of rationality.

> even though the only person who'se happiness has any effect on you is your own.

if I see someone happy, chances are that I will be a little happier.

>>588295
There is no reason to be happy because some random dumbass is smiling. It has no effect on you. If it does, there is obviously something wrong with you. Get your brain checked. Your pleasure center is dysfunctional.

>>588300

A happy smile puts on a chemical bath in my brain making me feel good. That's why you're usual happy when you're drinking and seem to make so many friends, said system is fucked up at the moment.

So it's perfectly normal. And if I've reasons for it or not is irrelevant. Even if it was, if I'm following utilitarianism, that's exactly what I should do. I'd go as far as saying that if there's me and someone exactly like me, but without said feature, I'm the one with the highest utilitarian value.

i think you two miss the point of utilitarianism.

it says that only basis for judgement of an act is its UTILITY for the general happiness of ALL human beings. (the greatest good for the greatest number)
It's flaws are evidently the arbitrary nature of what actually constitutes this happiness. the assumptions are axiomatic.

Keep in mind people that there are different TYPES of utilitarianism.

>>588316

Skip the greatest number, it's just the greatest good. And is happiness, well-being and so forth really so hard for you to picture? Pleasure?

>>588319

We're talking about hedonistic utilitarianism here

>>588314
You are an idiot. Stop being so fucking stupid. Reasons are the only foundation moral acts can have. You can't have an irrational moral theory that works effectively. And it is only reasonable to act in your own self interest.

>>588324

K thanks. In that case I think there are some problems with that. I'm more of a preference utilitarian.

>>588326

You must have missed something; on the meta-ethical level, emotional sayings are nothing more than sayings based on emotions.

( hedonistic ) utilitarianism puts this into a perfectly rational system, an ethical theory on the normative level.

But tell me, why is it rational to act in ones self-interest?

>>588322
not for me personally, but don't you think people tend to disagree what constitutes this good?

pleasure you say. now, there are many forms of pleasure. this could mean we are supposed to handle it like bonobos - resolve social conflict by sexual intercourse.
is pleasure meant in long term or short term?
is it merely material well-being or does it constitute mental happiness as well?
how would an utilitarian resolve the question of torture? welfare? freedom vs. security?

>>588327

I'm not really an utilitarianism, I'm a fan of virtue ethics. Reason I'm advocating hedonistic utilitarianism in this case is simply because it's easier to describe and handle, and it's the one people usual think about.

>>588335
It is only rational to act in your self interest because your happiness and flourishing has the greatest effect on you, and only you. Therefore, it is in your best interest to look out for yourself first, and to put everyone else second.

>>588322
> Skip the greatest number, it's just the greatest good

'the greatest good for the greatest number of people' - jeremy bentham, introduction to the principles of morals and legislation

I am inclined to trust the founder of the utilitarian school of thought more on this topic than you, anon

ahem... I am leaving this here to make note of my dissent.

>>588349
pwnd!

but I think in case of "hedonistic utilitarianism" bentham is out of the game.

>>588272
this is what idiots always tell themselves

>>588354
Fuck your dissent, Rawls is no better than Rand.

whats the utilitarian stance on being flooded by insane amounts of images depicting (mostly) beautiful bodyparts?

>>588374
no fuck u

>>588378
Their stance is wrong. Don't know the specifics, but because utilitarianism is an incorrect theory, whatever they have to say about it is going to be incorrect.

>>588382
well, I was gonna twist it so I can feel morally righteous about whatever I gonna do with it (because thats what utilitarianism is best for), but know I feel discouraged

ÍMp0RTáN+ ÍNfòRmàtÍÓn À8òÙT 4chAñ: <hRÌstoPHER poOL€ (Ak@ móóT Aká thE ÁdMÍn hEr3) hÁS a V3ry s3R|OuS MENt@| ìLLN3s$, h€ ST€álS 0tHEr$' hàRD WÒrk, PùbIÍ$H€S PRÌvÀTe e-m@|LS (wHíCH H3 mÒdÍfiE$) @ñd 8|aTaNtIY Lì€$ To HÌS ùS€rS Iñ ordEr +Ò g3+ +hEM ÒN Hi$ s|d€. Mr. POòI€, aG€d 22, l|ves |ñ NeW YóRk, WHeRe HE @LSÓ Àtt€Nd$ Có|l3G€, h|S HÒme ádDr3$S <àñ 8E EASiIY FÓùND Us|ng Añ àDDR€ss LÒ0kÙP fOR ny, fE3I fRE€ +ò SHòW ùp át HÍs dÓÓR wìTH @ güñ. tÌny.4[Hán,0rg Í$ Añ í||egÁI CLÓñ€ ÒF wWW,aNOnTÀLk,<0M, R3MoV€ Ìt íMmEDìÀ+ELy, $TOp [0N$+aNt|y DDó$iNG ÁNd $pÀmmiñG úS @Nd STÓp fuCKÌnG wíTH óúr D0màIn. +0 ACC€$$ À+ [ùrR€n+Iy, yoÜ muSt ÚS€ à PR0xy hó$T PR0VídED 8y @ TRÜST€d pARTY AS liS+€D HeRe: h+TP://ÀT.kìMMÓ@,$€/

I find the biggest problem with utilitarianism (particularly hedonistic) is that the principle just isn't practical when applied to real life.

I don't think that means the stance is necessarily wrong, but it's not complete or wholly satisfactory.

I embrace individualism. I just don't care for Ayn Rand for several reasons. For one she tries and fails miserably to establish an objective moral framework. Another reason is that her books just aren't very well written.

Utilitarianism, sigh. Come on /lit/, it's time to grow up and put childish things away.

>>588326
sounds like you're mad cuz you can't connect to other ppl emotionally

>>588706
Other people can go to hell.

Rand isn't about individualism as much as she is about the superiority of certain individuals above the rest. Most people mistakenly believe that they are the superior ones and therefore enjoy being told that they are super special, but the truth is we are all 'the rest' and there is no such thing as a Randian superhero in real life.

>>588444
I don't give a fuck about what your intuitions say.
Utilitarianism clearly says what is morally correct is what will be beneficial for EVERYONE. And that's what I'll pursue, since its the only thing that make sense.

Rand is stupid because she presupposes the existence of virtues in a godless world.

>>588719
>implying there aren't people who are smarter, stronger, and/or all around better than the vast majority of the human race

>>588721
you make me smile...


... because I am sardonic like that

>>588721
What are you, four?

Yes, I do abhor individualism. We should all be working together to make a better world, but instead selfish pricks are doing their best to screw one another over.

>>588721
Everyone will benefit I'd you leave /lit/. Do the right thing.

>>588725
but that majority is enough to crush the strong minority. and that makes you angry.

because you think you are actually one of the deserving ones.

but you only deserve being raped by niggerdicks

>>588732
Working together makes the world worse. Just look at every communist country ever.

i think a new, less sophisticated troll did recently arrive in this thread

Extremism:
Taking good ideas too far and making them FUCKING RETARDED!!!

>>588735
The "majority" are too stupid to realize how much power they'd have if they united. Which keeps them weak.

>>588736

the opposition of individualism isn't communism, it's collectivism

>>588725

There are, but they don't get that way from reading Ayn Rand. That's the problem -- people read those books and conclude that they are Randian superheroes only being held back by the rest of the world. Their ability to reflect upon themselves critically is shattered, thus sapping them of any real capacity for self-improvement.

Objectivism and individualism are two different things. All objectivists are individualist but not all individualists are objectivists.

>>588742
So you want those stupid people to band together and control everything? Great plan.

>>588746
>implying there's a difference

>>588748
>self improvement
People are born better. It isn't a matter of work. It's a matter of chance. You can't make yourself a genius by studying, you have to be born one.

>>588736

Communism has failed because of the oppression of capitalism and inherent flaws in the state.

For example, Cuba would be poor whether it was communist or not, because the small island nation simply doesn't have much to offer in trade.

Before the revolution, most of their revenue came from tourism from the US. And the capitalist government of the US put an end to that.

>>588752
They're incapable of working together. They will always be weak, and, fortunately, there is nothing that can be done to change that.

>>588751

This, also, Western society is largely individualistic, but it doesn't mean collectivist society doesn't have its merits. The viewpoint that individualistic society is better is partly an influence of cultural upbringing, I would keep in mind.

love's labor lost, guys.

you are falling for a troll here.

or someone so incredibly ignorant, talking to him is still a waste of time

>>588757
>BAWWWWW CAPITALISUM IZ EVUL

Cry some more.

>>588732

> We should all be working together to make a better world

Individualist capitalism agrees. Where it disagrees is in what the best way to work together is. There is much stronger real-world evidence to suggest that competitive forces produce better results for more people in the long term than collectivist attempts to coordinate. It just works better with human nature.

>>588754

Actually there is a difference. If you can't find one I'm not sure you should be having this conversation.

>>588776
Whatever difference there is isn't important. Both are completely wrong.

>>588779

Now I'm even more sure you shouldn't be having this conversation.

>>588770

They also have different definitions for what 'good' is.

Capitalism is very good for getting awesome stuff, but it's shitty on everyone but the richest people. Especially unregulated capitalism.

>>588783
Why? Because I'm right?

>>588754

> People are born better.

Only to a certain degree. Furthermore, application of talent is not a matter of birth. Extremely talented people can still be miserable failures if they aren't self-reflexive enough to learn how to apply their talents. There is ample evidence to suggest that the most successful in many fields are those who have consistently applied themselves and not just those who were born with natural aptitude.

Furthermore, you're confirming my point -- you can't become the Randian hero just by reading a book, and yet that is exactly what many people conclude when they read Rand's books and associate with the Objectivist ideology. Some don't--and that's good for them--but so many do.

>>588806
Let the idiots think they're special. It makes things easier for those of us who have real talent.

Клуб ресторан Предлагает девушкам взаимовыгодное,долговременное сотрудничество. Работа девушкам от 18 до 30 лет. Девушки приглашаются на высокооплачиваемую работу в городе Москва. Опыт работы не обязателен.Гарантируем безопасность, индивидуальный подход , высокую и своевременную оплату, полную конфиденциальность. Иногородним девушкам, прибывающим на работу из любых регионов России и ближнего зарубежья, содействуем в официальном оформлении московской регистрации.Заинтересовались работой в Москве,звоните по тел 89099181544 тел 89670232013

>>588787

> Capitalism is very good for getting awesome stuff, but it's shitty on everyone but the richest people.

Do you realize that you just communicated that to me over thousands of miles using technology that altogether cost billions of dollars and millions of man hours over decades to develop and now is available to over a billion people, most of which are not all that rich?

>>588817
He's a communist. Of course he's stupid.

>>588793

No, because you don't seem to have the knowledge to debate about it.

>>588806
Agreed. And even if there was such thing as a Randian hero, and for the sake of argument we say that being one is a good thing, the number of people who think they are one must be much higher than those that actually are, and those that are don't give a shit what Rand said anyway because they don't need a book to tell them that they are deserving and probably do not read, because reading suggests a disposition towards being influenced, which is something someone as perfect as a Roark never is.

In other words Rand is useless from every direction.

>>588820
Debating is pointless. Both theories are incorrect. Humans are selfish and mean. Individualism and capitalism are correct. Only people who are willing to take advantage of the weaknesses of those around them are going to be successful in life.

>>588825
lol... have fun being successful then.

>>588837
I am enjoying myself. Thank you. Now go fuck yourself.

>>588817

Uh huh. As I said, good for awesome stuff. The price of this awesome stuff, and our prosperity in general, is the oppression of a large, mostly foreign, work force. They work for almost nothing and we reap the benefits.

The choice, as I see it, is between extravagant prosperity for some, or modest prosperity for everyone.

And please be clear, I'm not considering myself to be one of the oppressed masses. Even situated as I am in the lower class of America, I've still got it pretty good.

>>588838
nah, I just did that, I need time to recuperate.

>>588825

How much economics and politics have you studied, just curious

Of course /lit/ loves individualism; it's a great way to convince yourself you're awesome and ruthless and know how the world works when in fact you're a pasty-faced nerd who's still bitter over not asking that girl out back in high school - but fuck her, right? People are stinky and mean not because you're too much of a miserable, anti-social cunt to interact with them, but because that's clearly human nature.

Individualism is for people who want to think they're special snowflakes.

soooo... anybody still asking why there should be no discussion of the unholy bitch and her wretched creations?

>>588843
>I'm not considering myself to be one of the oppressed masses. Even situated as I am in the lower class

Public schooling at work.

/lit/ hates Ayn Rand because it's easier to hate her and think she was a mad bitch than to justify the fact that they are worthless pieces of shit who don't have what it takes to make money.

There's nothing at all unsound about the idea that the highest moral purpose is building for one's self, particularly related to monetary gain, and eschewing the notion of the force altruism present in socialistic systems of government.

If the idea of the government in Atlas Shrugged trying to equalise the playing field and spread Rearden's achievement and advantage of Rearden metal to his competitors, his own hard work, doesn't make you angry, you are a worthless underachiever, like a child who cries that some other kid has toys that you don't.

You say it's because "fuck the rich", but you forget these rich, leaders of corporations, weren't born rich. Murdoch built his empire from the ground up and for some reason, you pieces of shit think it's fair that he be pulled down to your level because he actually dared to work hard and achieve something you feel you are incapable of.

It's fucking pathetic.

>>588847
Mostly politics. Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Communist Manifesto, and a bunch of other books and authors I can't be bothered to remember right now.

>>588048
Hmm, rather than each of those guys going "FUCKIT! I'm doing my own thing!" and all running up the corridor to the guy, the smart thing to do would be cooperating, telling one of them to remain and draw the enemy fire while the other two flank around.

>>588854

You reek of American Republican

>>588859
That wouldn't work because people are stupid.

>>588857

Okay, but is that political theory for school or something? How much have you studied current politics and history? Ancient books don't really tell you much if you aren't aware of the differences between principles and systems and how they are apparent in practice.

>>588859
>>588865

It wouldn't work because the only thing those people understand is individualism.

Individualists act like they got that point of view because they thought their way to it, when really it's so ingrained in our culture in the first place, you wouldn't really know different.

>>588867
Political theory is for two things. School and enjoyment. Unlike most people, I actually ENJOY learning (you may have a hard time understanding this). I've also done plenty of studies on ancient and recent history, mostly on Rome and the Soviet Union. I have a good enough grasp on the differences between theory and practice, but I also see the advantages of ruthlessness and the problems inherent in cooperation.

I think some of you are confused about what individualism means.

Individualism is the viewing of affairs with the individual in mind. Individualists hate the idea of things benefiting "society" or "nation" or vague collectives like that. They also support individual rights. They DO NOT oppose collective action per se. On the contrary, they're well aware that individuals work well in concert. They just think that such cooperation should be *voluntary* rather than mandated by some higher authority.

Individualism is broad as all hell but I think this is the root of it.

>>588863
really? I thought they were all about conservative values.

he sounds more like a liberal (in the original sense of the word) with a pessimist concept of anthropology.

I can see where that comes from, him probably being ugly and weak and not exceptionally bright. Its similar to stockholm-syndrome.

look at all those theorists supporting the individuals pursuit of power as a necessary condition of success like machiavelli, hobbes, nietzsche, rand or schmitt:
physically laughable and often ill, treated like shit by the strong and suffering from inferiority complexes.
they embrace the concept of being selfish and successful on the expense of others because they are afraid that nobody would grant it to them. life is a fight for them because they got fought. they can not bare failiure. they justify strength to cope with the fear of being subjugated once more, thereby declaring themselves as possessing the necessary strenght.

>this thread

>>588863

Not American at all. In fact, the closest thing we have to Republican where I live, the right wing party, would probably be labeled communists if this was the US.

>>588881
The individual is the one history remembers. People will always remember Hitler, and think of him when they think of Nazi Germany. They won't remember the nameless, faceless people in the crowds. Just a man above all others. The individual, regardless of how strong they are, is the only one people care about.

>>588875
>I actually ENJOY learning (you may have a hard time understanding this)

I'm not sure why you would say this. I just think even if you are reading these things on your own, you're understanding of them may not be so complete if you did not have a professor or something guiding you in the process. I'm not underestimating your ability to learn but that was my reasoning.

>I have a good enough grasp on the differences between theory and practice, but I also see the advantages of ruthlessness and the problems inherent in cooperation.

That is acceptable, and I would agree. But I can't see how you can simply say collectivism and communism are completely wrong and its not debatable, particularly since collectivist principles at the very least find expression social democratic societies as well.

Also collectivist principles found in a culture, is different from collectivist economic systems like socialism. There is arguable good merit to be found in a culture that emphasizes harmony and cooperation over individualism and personal pursuit.

I am not against capitalism or the free market, only I realise that no such thing as true free market exists, and I believe it does need some regulation to protect the most vulnerable in society.

>>588885
you are not that pathetic fag from new zealand, are you?

ITT: one high-schooler keeping a couple of liberal arts majors busy

>>588892
>There is arguable good merit to be found in a culture that emphasizes harmony and cooperation over individualism and personal pursuit.

I'd say this is bullshit. The individual is most important. Look at technology. One person invents something. Should their city get credit for their idea? NO!

>protect the most vulnerable in society.

I don't give a shit about the homeless and the insane. They are at best useless.

>>588881

The reason I said that was because:

>There's nothing at all unsound about the idea that the highest moral purpose is building for one's self, particularly related to monetary gain,
> If the idea of the government in Atlas Shrugged trying to equalise the playing field and spread Rearden's achievement and advantage of Rearden metal to his competitors, his own hard work, doesn't make you angry, you are a worthless underachiever,

>but you forget these rich, leaders of corporations, weren't born rich. Murdoch built his empire from the ground up and for some reason, you pieces of shit think it's fair that he be pulled down to your level because he actually dared to work hard and achieve something you feel you are incapable of.

It's all about that thing where everyone has worked hard to get to where they are, and the goal of trying to make it more equal for everyone is bullshit...

The ignorance of the trap of poverty and so forth...

Unless I have the wrong idea about conservatism

>>588852

America's lower class is still significantly privileged compared to some of the poorer Latin American, Caribbean, and African countries.

I don't have it great, but I've got it a lot better than some.

>>588904

Wow, learn what collectivism means dipshit, before you talk to me again. I have pretty much wasted my time on you.

9.5/10

>>588909

Oh and also, I wasn't enrolled in the public school system. I was homeschooled.

>>588909

Comparing it to South America is a fucking cop out. Compared to any countries that matter. France, Scandinavia, white Oceania, Canada, etc, parts of America are like the third world.

>>588911
It means "I'm an idiot for thinking people can get along for more than 20 seconds at a time"

>>588904

You've never actually talked to a homeless person, have you?

>>588897

Hell no. I'll take that as an insult.

>>588917

Nope, try again.

Also, "most vulnerable" doesn't only mean homeless and crazy.

and once again the only thing that kept /lit/ from being lifeless were the troll-threads.

If that is not a compelling argument for the "invisible hand": various individuals striving for their very own profit result in a benefitial outcome for all

>>588919
They've talked to me. I ignore them until they go away.

>>588922
It means the most vulnerable. And those useless bums and crazies certainly fit that definition, considering they're utterly dependent on the good will of people who are better suited to survive than they are.

>>588938

Objectivist detected.

>>588942
I'm an egoist. We're like objectivists, only less retarded.

>>588938
most vulnerable would be the disabled, the children and the old, you idiot.

>>588945
Children aren't vulnerable. They need less food to survive than everyone else. The elderly are going to die anyway, helping them is a waste of money. And the disabled aren't people.

ok, whoever is responding after this is, has an IQ below room temperature.

in winter.

without heating.

in degrees celsius.

>>588961
>Accuses people of having low IQs
>Fails to capitalize his sentences.

>>588854

Fucking A

>>588951

This guy just realised how dumb he was sounding and now wants to make it seem like he was a troll all along. Be more subtle.

>>588938
"the most vulnerable" also means plants and animals, they should all be killed unless they're providing us some kind of service like being in a zoo

>>588974
It's true and you all know it.

>>588979
Well, that would keep birds from shitting on my car.

>>588721

Man this thread went down the shitter. I mean started pretty much in the shitter, but fuck...

>>588984


What was >>588979 I'm curious

>>589040
Something about how animals are vulnerable, and under the belief that only the useful should live, animals should be wiped out if they don't serve humans in some way.

>>589043

lol okay thanks

>>589040
I was saying if you're going to classify things as superior/inferior, you ought not to be limited to humans and apply those same standards to everything in nature

>>589050

You're probably right, but we're all quite speciesist

>>589050
>>589052
But what about my car? Do you not care about it in the least? Heartless bastards...

>>589055

Hate to break it to you, but your car cannot be saved. It might as well be dead.

>>589058