Ayn Rand 1905-1982. RIP

[Anonymous No.12250638]

/lit/ is back up. In celebration let's take a moment to appreciate this absolute peak specimen of female. I'm not saying Objectivism is the true philosophy but I'm not saying Objectivism is not the true philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12250646]

>>12250638
Good thread

[Anonymous No.12250648]

>>12250638
I like Rand. Apparently she was kind of a cold jerk but I'm sure she was nice deep down if you had gotten to know her.

[Anonymous No.12250657]

>>12250648
She was kind but btfoing the philosophic paradigm present in pretty much all men and women of the age will earn you that kind of reputation.

[Anonymous No.12250668]

>>12250638
I've finally come up with a word to give voice to the feeling Rand produces in me. People have waifus and daughterus and whatnot but have you ever heard of someone liking a personality so much to declare them their grandmafu? A gentle old frail font of wisdom in her rocking chair by the fire that is so eloquent and interesting you can sit for hours intently listening to her? Think of something comfier.

[Anonymous No.12250672]

*blocks your existence*
heh, nothing personal, bitch.

[Anonymous No.12250679]

she was some kind of a man

[Anonymous No.12250701]

>>12250672
Not so fast Kantieboo

[Anonymous No.12250709]

>>12250679
>some kind
Honorary

[Anonymous No.12250735]

Alisa Rosenbaum, who used the alias Ayn Rand, played a major role in Jewification of American conservatism. A Jewess whose family had been sojourning in Russia, she fled the revolution mounted largely by her own tribe and took up residence in America, where she worked as a writer, first in Hollywood and later independently. Her “school of thought”, basically extreme anti-government free marketism, she called Objectivism. And she expounded it mainly through unreadable novels like Atlas Shrugged.

Just as her novels are devoid of the traces of ordinary humanity that make a story worth reading, so, too, her vision of an ideal state was one stripped of all traces of custom, culture, religion and compassion; everything that defines an ancestral community as an ancestral community, in fact. In the new Judenstaat she envisioned, we were all to live as atomised individuals.

[Anonymous No.12250751]

>>12250735
You know you would have saved yourself the time if you had just posted the triple parentheses anon.
>one stripped of all traces of custom, culture, religion and compassion
Because those things exist in the individual bootlicker.

[Anonymous No.12250763]

>>12250668
Man of culture right here

[Anonymous No.12250905]

>>12250648
>but I'm sure she was nice deep down if you had gotten to know her.

If the stories about her are true, like her inner circle being essentially a wicked cult of personality and she being a complete hypocrite where she first spent years mocking people who said that smoking was harmful until she herself had to stop smoking due to her own health concerns but still refused to even admit to anyone that smoking was actually bad for you, despite her followers begging her to do so, then no. She wasn't a nice person. She was a egotistical cunt.

[Anonymous No.12252078]

>>12250638
>Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.12252548]

>>12250638
>Ayn Rand
Nice spooks kid

[Anonymous No.12252553]

>>12250638
Who did it better?

[Anonymous No.12252555]

>>12252548
Rand and Stirner are two sides of the same coin.

[Anonymous No.12252565]

>>12252555

[Anonymous No.12252576]

>>12252565
>someone actually made this meme
cringe

[Anonymous No.12252603]

>>12250735
This

[Anonymous No.12254014]

>>12252555
Except Rand's Egoism isn't shit.

[Anonymous No.12255558]

>>12250638
Based and Goldpilled

[Anonymous No.12255561]

>>12252555
Stirner
>lol fuck property laws and also the concept of property, i already own everything

Rand
>property laws, and the concept of property, are the foundation of my belief-set and also cool and good

How are these two the same (besides both being selfish pricks who died alone)?

[Anonymous No.12255583]

>>12250638
Did she just die? D: RIP Ayn Rand we'll always miss you

[Anonymous No.12255691]

>>12250638

It seems to be common knowledge on here that contemporary academic philosophers dismiss her. Are there any scholarly articles which encapsulate this, or is it just vague leftist/Jewish feels intimated throughout the academy?

[Anonymous No.12255811]

>>12255691
They dismiss her because she doesn't make any valuable thing, she made her philosophy without general referention to earlier thinkers, and it was oversimplified

[Anonymous No.12255858]

>>12255811
Every word of this post is wrong.

[Anonymous No.12255863]

>>12250735
>unreadable
Brainlet. Opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.12255872]

[Anonymous No.12255874]

>>12255691
Purely political reasons. Modern academia is largely dominated by leftist politics. Bereft of that, I think that academics will give her a more fair examination in the future.

[Anonymous No.12255898]

[Anonymous No.12255903]

[Anonymous No.12255908]

>>12255898
I would report you, but Emily Bloom is such a beuty

[Anonymous No.12255909]

[Anonymous No.12255913]

[Anonymous No.12255916]

[Anonymous No.12255947]

Must you?

[Anonymous No.12255960]

>>12250638
>talk yourself in circles trying to make it okay to be an asshole
>be a favorite of robber barons and corporate psychos
>convince yourself infidelity is okay
>fuck up all your personal relationships
hmm, Ayn, maybe you're not onto something here after all.

[Anonymous No.12255964]

>>12252553
La Vey was a comfy fuckwit who tried to sound heavy but came off as dull. He lost his sense of humor and only really appealed to edgy kids, so yeah, pretty much the same as Rand.

[Anonymous No.12255979]

>>12250638
I agree that she was smart and passionate for being a female but she was still wrong.

[Anonymous No.12255999]

>spends her life deriding big government and people looking for handouts
>dies after spending her retirement receiving handouts from big government

what did she mean by this?

[Anonymous No.12256003]

[Anonymous No.12256017]

>>12255960
But anon she took great care to denigrate the irrational traditional sort of whim centric "Egoism" formulated in the past, ie "being an asshole". It is the development of the ego that makes things like true generosity and benevolence possible in the first place. It is the egoistic kindness that is the truly potent kindness and not a mindless routine.

[Anonymous No.12256041]

>>12255964
LaVey famously said his satanism was "Ayn Rand's philosophy with ritual added" but he only said that to ride on the wake of Objectivism's potent iconoclasm to Christianity in America. In actual form Laveyan satanism is a tired rehashing of Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.12256048]

>>12255999
she was just taking back what was rightfully hers and proving how broken the system is

[Anonymous No.12256056]

Mods do your job and axe this smut

[Anonymous No.12256065]

>>12255979
About?

[Anonymous No.12256070]

>>12250672
I wish there were more rebound women in academia so that I could use the word bitch more

[Anonymous No.12256108]

[Anonymous No.12256228]

[Anonymous No.12256230]

>>12256056
I can not be stopped.

[Anonymous No.12256254]

>>12256230
how many shekels are you getting paid

[Anonymous No.12256310]

>>12255691
As a philosopher, Rand is pretty bad. Even other American libertarians (e.g. Nozick) had strong criticisms of her work, and many apolitical philosophers have pointed out that her reasoning is, if nothing else, messy.

Pic related is a good starting point for understanding why Rand's arguments don't really hold water. She's more rhetoric than hard-and-fast logic, and even the most generous possible interpretations of her rhetoric are full of holes.

[Anonymous No.12256579]

>>12255691
>jewish/leftist
tinfoil get out

[Anonymous No.12256582]

>>12256310
Nozick mentioned nothing of Rand's trichotomy nor did anything but vaguely dismiss the Objectivitist Theory of Concepts.
>messy
>full of holes
Give as a rough outline of this mess and these holes anon.

[Anonymous No.12256823]

>>12252555

Stirner would take a massive shit on Rand's Objectivism.

[Anonymous No.12256981]

>>12256823
Rand>Stirner as Rand's undergirding validation of egoism and individualism, the supremacy of reason, are what make these things objectively unassailable. Stirner's egoism has far less defenses and contradictions throughout as it practices what Rand termed "whim-worship" ad nauseum. Furthermore the Anticoncept>the Spook because the former is an actually useful (and historically revolutionary) tool for assessing bad ideational beleifs/philosophic logical fallacies and the latter is a barely useable whim-centric absurdity. Stirner pretty much amounts to an attempt to validate the self by bruteforcing whim-worship. Your impression might be Stirner represents a sort of "purer" Egoism than Rand but the fact that Rand delves deeper into Egoism's causal foundation means the opposite is true and the result is more powerfully validated.

[Anonymous No.12256982]

she's not a philosopher. she's a polemicist

[Anonymous No.12256993]

>>12256982
One does not invalidate the other. If the philosophic paradigm of a given age is deeply corrupt; controversy is bound to follow.