/lit/ - Literature

Rand Paul?

>>6640545
She is a complete try-hard idiot compared to Stirner. She is a blight to captialism and libertarianism because she decided to embody the negative stereotype of capitalism that leftists conjured up.

>there are people here who unironically like Rand
Either this is easy bait or OP is retarded. I would call her an "[Insert philosopher] for dumb Americans", but I can't think of any even close to her in terms of sophistry. Maybe Stirner if she wasn't so spooked.
>le government is evil, except when they murder thousands of native Americans
>le free market is great except when the people don't want what I want them to buy (mfw The Fountainhead is about a loser who refuses to build things the customers want)
>le objective reality = my opinions are correct

Rand L. Allen?

remember muh 1%

>there are people that don't live by objectivism
what a terrible fucking reality you must have

>>6640558
>comparing rand to stirner
how do i know you're new here?

>>6640698
>not being a Stirnerian or Übermensch

>>6640717
>ubermensch
>obtainable
the ubermensch is born, not made. The closest thing to what you're thinking of is rand's ideal man.

>>6640709
They both center around individualism and egoism. They are similar in some ways.

>>6640723
except rand is the only person who can actually benefit you by inheriting her philosophy

inherit stirners and youll just hang yourself

>>6640729
But I don't want to hang myself.

>>6640721
That's according to one interpretation.

>the Übermensch represents a higher biological type reached through artificial selection and at the same time is also an ideal for anyone who is creative and strong enough to master the whole spectrum of human potential, good and "evil", to become an "artist-tyrant"

Although this confusion is arising from my phrasing. We should seek to become the overman.

>>6640729
The only ones benefitting from Rand's philosophy are the extremely rich. Atlas Shrugged is literally Kill the Poor

>>6640863
>The only ones benefitting from Rand's philosophy are the extremely rich
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29
Because living your life to the absolute fullest only works if you're a businessman!

god you niggers are fucking dumb

>>6640863
This is why I don't like Rand as consequentialist capitalist.

As I said >>6640558
>She is a blight to captialism and libertarianism because she decided to embody the negative stereotype of capitalism that leftists conjured up.

>>6640771
NIETZSCHE: THE UBERMENSCH IS BORN, NOT MADE
THIS IS LITERALLY THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWOS PHILOSOPHY ON EGOISM LOL

>>6640901
Because it is that fucking simple. Do you know how the protag of atlas shrugged became rich? Inheritance. Societal conditions are the main determinant in livinf life to the fullest. The fordist labor Rand sucked on no longer exists and cannot be applied to demonize the working class. Rands philosophy is dated from inception and cannot apply to societies of control

>there are people that are unironically religious

>>6641676
> they also seem to unironically like rand

>>6640545
It's probably something to do with the fact that she is an economic illiterate. Only in the USA does such retarded economic fundamentalism still receive mainstream acknowledgement.

>>6642077
Classical liberalism = economic illiterate? how

>>6642116
1. Rand is not in any way a classical liberal, she promotes total free markets. The only classical liberal who comes close to this position is Adam Smith who points out that under total deregulation markets still produce suitable outcomes, but that this position is not always optimal.

2. Even if that was the classical liberal position, she would still be wrong because the classical liberals would be wrong. Market externalities must be accounted for in some way or the system inherently forces you to bare the consequence of other people's actions ro a frightening degree, with the most prominent case being global warming.

>>6642116
Classical liberalism embraces capitalism because it will increase the common good. Ayn Rand embraces capitalism because it doesn't.

>>6642116
>>6642134
I meant to write occasionally suitable outcomes

>>6640545

I don't like because I'm not an adolescent boy plotting my revenge plus her writing is awful

>>6642140
Classical liberals were split on this idea but even the Capitalist half promoted some form of regulation and were opposed to economic exploitation to the degree they could be. Nowhere in classical Liberalism is there a solid argument made that total deregulation and lack of government will lead to a constant efficent use of resources.

>>6642145
Sure, but it's not like Ayn Rand cares for any of that, she just wants the successful to have free reign because that's best for them.

Not to get off topic, but how the fuck does someone "unironically" anything?

Irony - something that occurs contrary to what is believed will occur

So unironic means that it is just as planned? Am I just understanding irony wrong?

>>6640545
Very true. These people are called 'sensible'.

>As a writer, Rand is a mediocre novelist
>As a philosopher, Rand is a mediocre novelist

>>6642019
>>6641676
>Rand was a jerk-level atheist

>>6642134
I know this American dude who is a classical liberal, a huge Ayn Rand fan, he constantly preaches about how we need a totally free market and if you say why we should have taxes for example he will call you a statist that wants to kill people, constantly preaching against force too. He's a bitch to argue with. I can't stand classical liberals.

>>6642147
I'm noq not sure qhat point you're trying to make. My original point was that Rand was an illiterate because she promoted totally free markets, an idea that no great philosopher or economist right through to right wing neoliberals like Friedman and Hayek has made. You then replied by saying she was a classical liberal and I explained why I think she wasn't. Was that right or wrong? Do you think Rand is or isn't a classical liberal?

>>6642155

me laughy at this post

>>6642166
Again, that is not classic liberalism. Classical liberals were split between Capitalism and what we know call Socialism and even the Capitalist half promoted regulation. (E.g. Adam Smith's belief that workers should be allowed a garunteed income)

>>6642168
I never said she was a classical liberal. She obviously isn't. She even bashed right-libertarians for being concerned about the common good. Which is what truly sets her apart, not her belief in totally deregulated markets.

>>6642166
Don't let free market fundamentalists or state capitalists hijack classical Liberalism. There were no enlightenment thinkers who were in favour of constant deregulation. There were plenty of rich land owners and owners of buisnesses within the European empires who were because they wanted to not pay taxes, but the great thinkers of the enlightenment were split between regulated markets and what we would now call Socialism.

>>6642183
>>6642168
Jesus my spelling is terrible. I'm typing on a shitty samsung tablet :(

>>6640545
Why would anyone dislike one of the most important thinkers of all time?

>>6642206
In what world is Rand an important thinker? Outside US conservatism she's barely talked about.

>>6642206
>doesn't list Marx, but lists Rand
Americans can't even strawman evil atheists correctly

>>6642212
You should try to sharpen your humoristic skills, anon

>>6642183
Proof?

>>6642214
In America, if you name or write Marx then your movie stays in production hell for ever. You would think jews had more love for one of their own

>>6642214
>Marx
Russian dictators don't count as philosophers

>>6642149
wrong definition of irony as used here

>>6642212
Please faggot. She's been shilled in Eastern Europe since 1989. It's funny that the people who adore her here are the equivilents to eurocommunists from 1968, basically socially-liberal degenerates.

>>6642345
Is this the appropriate definition then?

So basically unironic is pretending to use words that mean the opposite of what you're saying so as to seen funny, but it's not the opposite.

So just saying shit that you mean, but to sound funny? Like using a sarcastic tone, but being serious?

Seriously, no trolling. I'm just having a difficult time grasping why people say "unironic" when it appears to just mean "in all seriousness".

>>6640545

Rand, the novelist: over writes
Rand, the philosopher: over simplifies

That being said, still worth being studied and discussed in both spheres. Anyone who pans her unilaterally has never read her and just agrees with the SJW, socialist fuck-head next to them.

>>6642418
>white heterosexual cis men's definition of irony
>appropriate definition

oh im laffin

The only Rand I like is the think tank that publishes interesting demographic and policy studies that I enjoy reading

AYN Rand porders on the self-parodical

>>6642206

Brecht deserves some credit for developing the idea of method acting as it is understood today

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ayn_Rand

>yfw

Reminder that this has all been organised and how we communicate with each other has been altered and dictated by Foucault influenced neo marxists.

>>6642206
I actually laughed out loud at this part.

>>6644504
twinshia I think our common love for Bionicles will eventually spark a homoerotic relationship

>>6642418
is this your first encounter with the word?
as for the questions:
1. yes, mostly.
2. no.
3. no.
4. no.
(people who do things unironically usually aren't trying to be humorous)
you should look up poe's law.
it means something like "in all seriousness": it's usually a term used as clarification in that the content of the act may seem to have the character of irony, but yet is completely sincere.

>>6642206
wtf is that handwriting? lol

>>6646088
I prefer dreaming about Matoran to having sexual intercourse.

>>6640545
Ayyn Rand?

>>6640709
Who is this boner honer?