/lit/ - Literature

Butthurt marxists say it's wrong. Therefore, it is.

Objectivism is Atheistic

Need I say more?

>>829539

>Implying religious views are the be-all and end-all of objectivism.

Wrong answer, really.

Objectivism is flawed in the logic. They basically say we are right, because you can't prove us wrong, and that makes logicians crazy. It's an infallible argument. Good arguments have the premises set so they show how they could be wrong, Objectivism does not provide that, in fact, all objectivism provides is that if you dig deep enough, they are correct and there is nothing you can do about it.

From a logicians standpoint, that's why Objectivism is so "hated on."

>>829549

It may not be their main thrust, but it is enough to show that the Objectivist ideology is deeply flawed.

>>829561

>>829558

I can see that, truly I can. I can appreciate it as well. But I find myself asking...
>Good arguments have the premises set so they show how they could be wrong.
... where most philosophy comes with endless challenges and hardly any solid conclusions (not that a conclusion is what any philosophy -ultimetly- aims for), surely one must come up with some solid axioms to sustain a sound state of mind. Not to suggest that one needs to rely on axioms to maintain a solid outlook, but for some it can be of aid. I think that objectivism is a sound philosophy, it gives as much cosmological significance to an individual as religion does (but obviously in a different sense), but in a realistic way. Not in a way makes us cling onto 'maybe's' endlessly.

Because libfags don't like it.

yep, liberals

it seems to me like objectivism is more a social philosophy to better suit man's needs. It suits mankind better than anything else in a society.

>>829580

Most philosophy is logically flawed as well. I never said it wasn't. Logicians just don't like it when you don't have a set circumstance of how this theory could be wrong.

I agree Objectivism has it's strong points, but it has it's weaknesses as well.

Objectivism assumes that because you make money you are somehow a moral god unto itself.

A strong perversion of Nietzsche's Will to Power and Superman ideas, and thats Rand at her best. The actual writing itself is considered terrible by most critics, and even proponents of Rand do not necessarily defend the quality of her work and hide behind the ideas being good.

Rich-worship is what it boils down to, less authentic Nietzsche for kids, and that is the core of where the hatred stems from.

I think the part that gets -people- rather than philosophers specifically up in arms is the individual-rights, self-interest, lasseiz-faire-market portions, since it's directly at odds with a lot of more liberal beliefs in collective rights, community-interest, regulated-market kind of things.

But honestly I just read the intro paragraph on Wikipedia because I have little interest in philosophy, so I'm sure someone will correct me.

>>829616

Indeed it does. Don't get me wrong, I knew entirely what you were saying, even if I did not fully communicate that I did, in which case you have my apologies.

It does have it's weaknesses indeed. It also has it strongpoints as you said. But for the need to state the obviously, the reason a lot of people slate objectivism is because of the critics political status. I have often come into debates, and sometimes full out-stretched arguments as to why I feel objectivism to not be as retarded as it is usually seen. I do defend it, and for sound reasons. In that I believe as we move forward into the time we are heading, a fundamentally money-based society and hierarchy. That the values of objectivism will play into more people's roles then we think.

Ayn Rand only created Objectivism so she could be the head of something and have followers.

>>829658

wow.. dude knows his shit

>>829658

And to her credit, it totally worked.

It even got her laid.