/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13112499]

You can't prove her wrong.

[Anonymous No.13112500]

That's because she proved herself wrong.

[Anonymous No.13112503]

i can't prove anything

[Anonymous No.13112516]

[Anonymous No.13112518]

>>13112516
a logical gentlesir

[Anonymous No.13112523]

>>13112518
indubitably
Edit: Thanks for the gold, kind stranger!

[Anonymous No.13112540]

>>13112499
sneed

[Anonymous No.13112671]

>>13112499
Doesn't mean she was right.

[Anonymous No.13112693]

Giving everyone their own moral authority isn't sustainable. There's a reason why we are social typically with cohesive morals within society, religion, etc, and not each living in their own hole. Of course we could "reason" that we live to our means rather than ends as Rand suggests, then we end up with anomie, etc.

[Anonymous No.13112708]

>>13112499
life expectancy in russia plummeted after communism.

[Anonymous No.13112715]

*prove her so irreparably wrong (over a century before she was even walking) that she can't even respond other than than ad hominem attack on my person being "the most evil person who ever lived"*
Nothin personal, bitch.

[Anonymous No.13112745]

>>13112499
Individuals do pursue their own self-interest but are also extremely tribal. We possess innate programs which essentially come online in certain situations which have us act in the interest of our ingroup. These motivations interact in complex ways and sometimes compete. Rand's work can never address this properly because it was written before the psychological research above was published. Utopian individualism is just as wrongheaded as utopian collectivism.

[Anonymous No.13112807]

>>13112745
>Rand's work can never address this properly because it was written before the psychological research above was published

Cite 20 research papers that conclude this then reproduce these results 50 times in a lab.

[Anonymous No.13112828]

>>13112499
Of course it is, we cannot even prove Zeno was wrong.

[Anonymous No.13112932]

>>13112499
*completely disproves her ideology
Nothing personal kiddo

[Anonymous No.13114156]

>>13112499
Low key her best book. Reading her talk about tapdancing in this can make anyone at least consider converting to Objectivist. Warm and fuzzy is what I'd describe the feeling as.

[Anonymous No.13114344]

>>13112499
bitch was on welfare

[Anonymous No.13114352]

>>13112499
Go full Striner or go home

[Anonymous No.13114358]

>>13114344
Opting out of being taxed isn't permitted champ.

[Anonymous No.13114371]

>>13114358
How can one declare altruism a sin and at the sametime happily accept neetbux stolen from the labour of others?

[Anonymous No.13114373]

>>13112516
/thread

[Anonymous No.13114406]

>>13112499
She literally used government medical in the years before her death. She proved herself wrong.

[Anonymous No.13114425]

>>13114352
Love is contextual, Stirner disintegrates it's profundity here and Rand would laugh in it's face for thinking this is an egoist sentiment. There is no such thing as "love" as-such. You love ideas, people, and expressions of character. *Certain* ideas, people, and expression of character. And you bar this extension of feeling to louts that corrupt it and do not deserve it. The world is made worse by spreading this facsimile of love to as wide a area as possible, not better. Dissolve the standards by which a thing is assessed and you negate it.

[Anonymous No.13114528]

>>13114371
Which would only matter, and would only be the hypocritical moral indictment you want it to be, if the amount collected exceeded the amount she had been taxed over the course of her life. Statists seem to have this notion that enemies of their system must ineffectually martyr themselves in some backwards "take a stand™" lip service that doesn't really even get at the concept in play. The actual, contextually valid way of assessing this is understanding the injustice of coercive taxation is only compounded by also refusing to collect partial recompense where possible. My Tax "return" should return 100% if I haven't explicitly used any government money.
Hell I'd say an Objectivist that calculated the total amount of taxes he paid over the course of his life then, at age 65, purposefully infected himself with survivable but expensive to treat diseases and burned through the state's welfare until it matched 1:1 the money stolen from him would be a true expression of Oist heroism and an ACTUALLY effective protest to the immorality of the program.

[Anonymous No.13114904]

>>13112693
It's sustainable when philosophy is taught as crucial to people's development and it's purposefully deteriorated in academia. The fact that Rand's "psycho-epistemology" yet isn't common vernacular is an sad state of affairs.

Subjectivist and disintegrative thinking methods are so commonplace you simply because take it for granted. Another means and criteria of assessment are possible.

[Anonymous No.13114973]

>>13114904
>It's sustainable when philosophy is taught as crucial to people's development

This is literally the way every extremist cult thinks. Hitler was famous for remarking that after a generation of total Nazi rule over all spheres of life, especially education, no German would be able to conceive of a worldview outside of National Socialism.

Society-imposed morality and the partial rejection of egoism and subjugation of the self in order to exist in a larger community are not "philosophies" that kids learn in school. They are evolutionarily acquired traits of most higher order organisms. They're the reason we stopped swinging from the trees and built the first cities. The only way a primate ever reached the state of development and comfort where it had the knowledge and free time to conceive of a concept like "rugged individualism" was through a long process that did not involve rugged individualism.

[Anonymous No.13115092]

>>13114973
Nice that, from the get-go, I'm made aware of what kind of intellect I'm dealing with when I'm shown my adversary's first instinct is to make a Hitler comparison. To a philosopher that explicitly repudiated both Nationalism and Socialism in every context no less.
Extremism, like centrism, is an anticoncept. Imagine thinking commenting on virtue-selfishness's and laissez faire's "extremity" to the current mixed economy paradigm is making a worthwhile point at all. All you are counting on is people's apprehension with the word extreme to color peoples reaction to to an interplay of concepts you haven't, and don't want others to, explicitly define.
https://courses.aynrand.org/works/extremism-or-the-art-of-smearing/
The reason we stopped swinging from trees is the conceptual faculty. The question is whether a society *coerced* morality is ultimately effective and epistemologically correlative. Ever ask yourself WHY many of the silcon valley giants are starting to realize in horror what social media (specially one that stesses primacy of the social) is doing to people?
The fact that the mold of society falls into a certain pattern initially is simply the default. You do not have accept the default and only small minds do.

[Anonymous No.13115271]

>>13115092
>I'm made aware of what kind of intellect

My reference to Hitler was factually correct and entirely appropriate. Attempting to dismiss an argument because it happens to reference, for convenience, a cliched but well-known subject, is just sloppy evasiveness and pomposity.

>Extremism, like centrism, is an anticoncept.

lol, this is the ultimate in philosophical skepticism. Like many ambiguous but useful shorthand concepts, extremism can be well-defined. In this case, it merely means any zealous exponent of a philosophical plan to remake society in a fundamentally different way. It's not necessary to provide this definition explicitly, because most casual readers will arrive at some similar formulation simply from the context of my post.

>All you are counting on is people's apprehension

This is whining about perceived polemical language, not an argument.

>to an interplay of concepts you haven't, and don't want others to, explicitly define.

This is rhetorical obscurantism.

>The question is whether a society *coerced* morality is ultimately effective

This is an attempt to introduce a distinction without a difference. Socially-imposed morality IS society "coerced" morality. Every single member of society is also "coerced" by the threat of punishment into following the law. The fact that human civilization has existed for tens of thousands of years under a perpetual state of socially "coerced" morality is empirical proof that it is "effective." Conversely, the fact that there is no known civilization on Earth which has survived and thrived under a state of pure egoistic morality tends to militate against its potential effectiveness.

>social media

Polarization of a society along relevant socio-political lines is nothing new. Mass appeals to logical fallacy, demagogy, identity politics and group think are all well-studied by social psychologists. None of this reflects mass abandonment of most peoples' fundamental moral and philosophical worldview. In fact, referencing social media actually undercuts your argument, because social media doesn't lead to individualistic morality but rather stratification into ever more homogenous tribal groups. Social media has produced ever-more coerced morality, with intersectionalists and alt-righters bullying each other into ever greater conformity with snarl words like "bigot" and "cuck".

[Anonymous No.13115892]

>>13115271
A metaphor is a fact now is it? Said metaphor that I specifically attacked the root of when I identified the corruption present in the term extremism, upon which your comparison rests. Which proceedly to brush aside when;
>calling extremism an anticoncept="the ultimate in philosophical skepticism"
Objectivism is at root antithetical to skepticism, Rand did not wax *skeptical* about the word extremism, she and I explicitly repudiate it as a pseudo-phil word. A criticism you don't seem willing to address directly, one which is fleshed out fully in the link provided.
>not necessary to provide this definition explicitly, because most casual readers will arrive at some similar formulation simply from the context of my post.
Oh really now? You know where and how people will take concepts as long as they only know and experience them as polemical shorthand and guarantors of effortless morality? Especially when they are never shown what applying appropriate contextuality looks like? They can be trusted to arrive at the right conclusions concerning assessing the world by reference to the anticoncept? Even when in the course of their contemplations they can be observed to add their own contradictory rationalizations to it, all the while your sort never stresses the need for potency of their method; they just need to be furnished with the criteria by which they are told to judge?
They. do. not. need. to explicitly know and apply their terms and to what they refer. It "isn't necessary".
Gotcha. Protip: Ayn Rand wasn't just tacking "ist" onto a polemical "irrational" when she calls your sort irrationalISTs.

[Anonymous No.13115917]

>>13112715
Once you realize that "existence exists" is a philosophically worthless proposition, you can safely ignore her, considering it's the basis of her entire philosophy. She was somehow enamored of the argument "A = A," which is equally meaningless.

[Anonymous No.13116163]

>>13115271 p2
>This is whining about perceived polemical language, not an argument
It is when I explicitly identify the opperant concept at work in the polemic.
>This is rhetorical obscurantism.
Demanding that explictness and contextuality be treated as mandatory is hardly obscuratism. Perhaps you're unclear as to what I was getting at? Expand on your issue with that statement so I can better my delivery. I may have waxed unknowingly esoteric but will need to be made aware of where your misunderstanding lies.
Otherwise I have no clue why in fuck yoj would call that line obscurantist.
>This is an attempt to introduce a distinction without a difference. Socially-imposed morality IS society "coerced" morality
Fair but inaccurate. That was me just replacing it with a word I prefer you had used. "Coercive" doubles as an indicator of my general assessment of any social-primacy morality (in addition to identifying what imposition of anything in politics will consist of; coercion.) That's all I meant.
>Conversely, the fact that there is no known civilization on Earth which has survived and thrived under a state of pure egoistic morality tends to militate against its potential effectiveness.
A similar sentiment I'm sure the crown felt toward the american revolution.
>In fact, referencing social media actually undercuts your argument, because social media doesn't lead to individualistic morality but rather stratification into ever more homogenous tribal groups. Social media has produced ever-more coerced morality, with intersectionalists and alt-righters bullying each other into ever greater conformity with snarl words like "bigot" and "cuck".
Exactly the point I had in mind.
>None of this reflects mass abandonment of most peoples' fundamental moral and philosophical worldview
But not this however. People are retreating more and more into nihilism and subjectivism, and needless to say know Objectivism has a profound issue with this. I would say it's both a partial abandonment of philosophy in people and the adoption of (unworkable) socially-cozy corrupt ideas and criteria of assessment.
The whole eurofaggot "muh burgers" posting in a joke because they are FAR worse, BUT they are actually vaguely identifying stultification of philosophy in the university system and downwards.

[Anonymous No.13116197]

>>13115917
Are you joking? As long as religion and Hegelian "synthesis" hold sway as ideas it is hardly a useless thing to identify.
Existence exists means the objectivist "Primacy of Existence" as distinct form the primacy of consciousness. Clearly you've failed to grasp this. or just weren't even aware of the latter (PoE).

[Anonymous No.13116261]

>>13112499
>Proof is in the pudding.
She died in poverty, a victim of her own ideology, mooching off the government she hated so much.

[Anonymous No.13116311]

>even a foul beast like her can get laid but a perfect gentleman cant

[Anonymous No.13117425]

>>13116261
It gets tiresome refuting this

[Anonymous No.13117457]

>>13116197
There are somewhat coherent materialist and empiricist positions that don't hinge on a palpable tautology, you know. If existence exists in the strict sense of the word, then it would be a particular object within itself, which is impossible. If "existence is existence," that's wonderful, but patently worthless as a ground. And Kant never doubted that "things exists," Kant describes how to attain certain, objective knowledge at the end of the First Critique. It is unfortunate that neither you nor Ayn bothered to actually read it.

[Anonymous No.13117602]

>>13114156
Funny, I just stole that book a few days ago

[Anonymous No.13117947]

>>13115892
>Which proceedly to brush aside
Holy fuck
*Which you proceeded to