[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 98 KB, 608x1000, aynrand.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21858433 No.21858433 [Reply] [Original]

>Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving one's happiness.
Why would anyone oppose this? And why does this simple belief make people so angry?

>> No.21858436

>>21858433
prioritizes individualism over the well being of others, encourages narcissism<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

>> No.21858439

>In fact, we have shown that in the order of nature pleasure depends on operation, and not the converse. So, if operations are not the ultimate end, the pleasures that result from them are not the ultimate end, either; nor are they concomitant with the ultimate end. It stands to reason that the operations which accompany the above-mentioned pleasures are not the ultimate end, for they are ordered to certain ends that are quite obvious: eating, for instance, to the preservation of the body, and sexual intercourse to the generation of offspring. Therefore, the aforementioned Pleasures are not the ultimate end, nor are they concomitants of the ultimate end. So, felicity is not to be located in these pleasures.

>> No.21858444

>>21858436
Everyone prioritizes their individualism over the well being of others, whether they want to admit it or not

>> No.21858457

>>21858433
I like the Rand Ideal.

But happiness is a plebian goal

>> No.21858550

>>21858433
The thought of treating other people as ends in themselves rather than means to their own ends makes people absolutely furious.

>> No.21858756

>>21858433
>achieving one's happiness.
vs
>achieving everyone's happiness.
>no greater moral goal

>> No.21858891

>>21858436
It's only narcissists which abuse others to survive, that's why they hate it.

>> No.21858907

OP rekt by the bot

>> No.21858910

>>21858433
I believe in achieving happiness for my people. The others can suffer.

>> No.21858921

>>21858433
Is that objectivism or hedonism?

>> No.21858991

>>21858921
Rand specifically criticizes hedonism. Her notion of happiness is spin on Aristotlean flourishing. Being "happy" for her is essentially acting according to the best of one's rational abilities in ways that further one's life, because that's the ultimate standard of value for human beings. An hedonist's pleasure may come from self-destructive activities, so Rand would call him an addict chasing fake happiness.

>> No.21858994

Rand criticized collectivism with incredible insight which is why she's still hated, but then she went too far into the opposite direction. We should forget about her "objectivism" and remember her criticisms of leftism.

>> No.21858998

>>21858994
Her criticisms of leftism are inseparable from objectivism. She criticizes leftist epistemology from her own epistemology, so if you use her criticisms of it, you're either using her epistemology, or you need to show how your own epistemology leads to the same criticisms. Same for her ethical criticisms of leftism, and her aesthetic criticism, and so on.

>> No.21859040

>>21858998
Wouldn't this be true of everyone's criticism of everything

>> No.21859054

>>21859040
Actually yes

>> No.21859376

>>21858433
because objectivism is uncompromisingly anti-christian. so those people must side-step into lolbertarianism

>> No.21859570

>>21858433
>Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving one's happiness.
literally just hedonism with a lolbertarian paintjob

>> No.21859574

>>21858436
Who doesn’t, at the heart of it all?

>> No.21859581

>>21858444
This

>> No.21859691

>>21858444
>What is sacrifice?

>> No.21859704

>>21858433
The problem with this is that only women seek happiness or "fight" for it.

>> No.21859733

>>21858433
Are people strung out on opiates not happy?

>> No.21860130

>>21858444
>>21859581
And the purpose of moral philosophy is to provide the framework for forcing people to live in a functional and sustainable civilized manner.

>> No.21860174

>>21858433
It’s literally just a woman’s standard way of thinking but stretched out for an unbearable amount of text

>> No.21860187

>>21858444
it's not black and white
some people will intuitively risk their well being in saving others from dangerous situation

>> No.21860194

>>21858433
brainlet here
whats the difference between rand and egoism/stirnerism again?

>> No.21860205

>>21858433
Any Rand and Objectivism also holds that if you can take a lollipop from a child then not only are you obliged to but in doing so you become morally superior to the child.

Right wing narcissists

>> No.21860412

>>21858433
is there any good critique of objectivism that is focused on its ontological and epistemological ideas?

>> No.21860515

>>21858433
Because Rand is ok with child rape and murder since her hero William Hickman did. It's always the ugly cunts.Basis for all of her views.

>> No.21860568

>>21858433
>Why would anyone oppose this?
Who? The dimwits itt? The question lies in how you define happiness, what you should do to achieve it and in the definition of notions implied in explaining it.

>> No.21860620

I used to like Ayn Rand up until I discovered she had a cult following and was basically a Russian KGB operative commie. Coherentist.

https://youtu.be/aJyShzXob8I

>> No.21860638
File: 280 KB, 783x541, Screenshot_20230401_150201.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21860638

You'll stop taking her seriously when you watch this interview. Bitch doesn't even know what planet she is on. The host has to remind her she is on TV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj-UvNXorb4

>> No.21860639

>>21860194
Rand is pure self interest for material gain and supports maintenance of the market system, while Stirner rejects the market as a dogma. Rand affirms the existence of an objective reality that can be found via reason, while egoism denies the possibility or relevance of any objective knowledge or all encompassing morality. Stirner is living in accordance with what you value and following your desires whatever they may be without regard for societal expectations or structures.

>> No.21860661

>>21860639
so they both place primacy on the individual and self interest, but one thinks they have the answers for all of humanity and is concerned with that while the other rejects that notion

>> No.21860670

>>21860661
I suppose you could sort of frame it like that, although this is a fairly simplistic and crude description of the two schools of thought.

>> No.21860685

>>21860670
hey dude i never claimed to be smart i was just curious. yeesh

>> No.21860686

>>21858433
Extreme individualism denies human nature. We are fundamentally a society building species, the "happiness" of one individual massively depends on the conditions of the society around them. Only misguided or wicked people enrich themselves with no thought to their community, society, or country. The Objectivist could never understand that true happiness comes from elevating those around you, from helping and empowering your fellow man.

>> No.21860696

>>21858433
The oversocialised lie to themselves and hate honesty

>> No.21860700

>>21860685
That is fine. You are still learning, and I am trying to teach.

>> No.21860708

>>21860700
uh ok
you seem a bit arrogant mate

>> No.21860713

>>21860638
She is basically autistic, but that's not surprising

>> No.21860716

>>21860708
Espousing knowledge may sound arrogant to the ignorant

>> No.21860722

>>21860716
oh brother
forget i even asked anything

>> No.21860734

>>21860722
I'll admit I may have come off as somewhat condescending, but rest assured that is not my intention. I bid you good day, sir.

>> No.21860754

>>21859570
see >>21858991
>>21860205
This is the opposite of Objectivist ethics, but you know that.
>>21859733
Her 'happiness' is Aristotelian eudaimonia, so no.
>>21860686
First valid criticism of Objectivism in this thread.

>> No.21860755

>>21858444
Jesus didn't

>> No.21860795

>>21860515
When will this meme end? She recognised his *arguments* as correct, but she also stressed that his actions were the opposite of what he claimed. She describes her heroes as deeper than Hickman because she recognised that for him, it was a shallow word salad attempting to excuse behavior that not only hurt the child, but himself. I mean the woman's rejection of our community-building biological instincts is retarded enough, we don't have to interpret her letters in the least probable way in addition.

>> No.21860883

>>21860754
I watched that interview posted itt and Rand literally says that the concept of deriving happiness from making others happy is absurd to her. I think this indicates that she is actually a sociopath, in concrete terms she lacks the capacity for true empathy. Therefore it seems her philosophy is tailored to the sociopath, since she also confirms her own mind is the only guide she has for reasoning, thus if she truly is a sociopath, it follows that her philosophy will be sociopathic in nature. Sociopaths are a small fraction of the population, yet she seems to be saying her philosophy is universally applicable, which means she is extremely myopic and lacks a circumspect view to the fact that others may find happiness in different ways than she does. Hearing her speak you can definitely tell she is an extreme narcissist too, which may not be a crime per se, but when it clouds one's view of an issue and restricts one to only take into account one's own perspective and discount others, it most certainly is a grave intellectual crime.

>> No.21860905

>>21859691
>he thinks suicide isn't selfish
LOL

>> No.21861233

>>21860734
What the fuck is this le classy gentlesir larp kek<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

>> No.21862508

>>21859570
Rand hated libertarians and saw rothkike as an larping anarchist incel.

>> No.21862517

>>21858436
If everyone is prioritizing their own well being, then doesn’t that mean everyone will be happy? I don’t see the problem.

>> No.21862533

I just came into this thread to say that my favorite passage from Atlas Shrugged was around page 126 back in high school, there's a well-crafted prose sentence about a guy looking out at the snowy street at night and realizing happiness can hurt. I want to hear a solipsist reconcile this here<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

>> No.21862630

>>21860883
Deriving happiness from making others happy without the additional guidance of reason is the philosophy of the enabler. And once reason comes into play, you have to come to terms with the core of Objectivist ethics, the reason it is so profoundly offensive to the average person: Human beings are ends in themselves, not means to be used. That means you neither get to dodge your own self-esteem by deriving your happiness from pleasing others, nor violate the rights or autonomy of others for your own narcissism.

>> No.21862767

>>21860905
What if you sacrifice your life (commit suicide) to save the life of another?

>> No.21862792

>>21862630
>And once reason comes into play, you have to come to terms with the core of Objectivist ethics
Are you suggesting Objectivism has a monopoly on reason? Because... uhh... that would be one hot take.

>> No.21862805

>>21862792
Rand might say so, I wouldn't. Probably not unusual for a philosopher to think their philosophy is the most reasonable, even if not the only reasonable.

>> No.21863163

Reminder lolberts belive in freedom of movement aka open borders

>> No.21863175

>>21860755
Jesus did nothing to really help people, he just gave their guilt a new direction

>> No.21863182

>>21858433
>written by a russian jewish woman, who later became an american citizen and roastie'd her way around
Better question, who wouldn't oppose this?

>> No.21863236
File: 43 KB, 480x603, Hans.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21863236

>>21863163
>I do?