[ 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: 72 KB, 288x362, rand3[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2871345 No.2871345 [Reply] [Original]

So I'm working my way through The Virtues of Selfishness and Philosophy, Who Needs It?
It seems as if Ayn Rand's ethics are basically a bunch of Freudian concepts (and all the other burgeoning psycho(logy/-analysis) of her time).
It seems to me that when she describes selfishness, egotism, and rationalist thinking, that she is really describing human nature (the ways things are) rather than good ethical choice-systems (the ways we ought to act).
What are your thoughts, /lit/?

>> No.2871355

Normative systems are a waste of time and pure intellectual masturbation.

Also, Ayn Rand is fucking shit.

>> No.2871363

Don't take Ayn Rand seriously. Try Aristotle instead.

>> No.2871365

Maybe she's saying the way we ought to live is the way we are naturally inclined.

>> No.2871367

>>2871355
I get that impression too. I'm reading her purely out of curiosity and to get a better idea of 20th century philosophy.
Now what is a normative system, and what is the alternative?

>> No.2871370

>>2871365
That's what I thought! But she poses her life-as-an-egoist as something that someone must strive for and have as complete as possible awareness over.

>> No.2871375

>>2871363
I read that Ayn Rand recommends only the "three A's":
Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand

>> No.2871376

Objectivism = bad interp of Nietzsche's ubermensch

He discusses not adopting universal ethical systems and living for yourself as such. She takes that to mean "do whatever the fuck you want to in order to benefit yourself"

>> No.2871378

>>2871365

We're not naturally inclined to fly, yet we have airplanes

>> No.2871381

>2012
>advocating hedonistic tendencies

>> No.2871383

>>2871367
A normative system of morality is one that attempts to impose an "ought to" paradigm. It is not compatible with humanity, and is mainly interesting as an intellectual exercise. When normative systems are attempted in real life, they uniformly fail (see: communism, the war on drugs).

The alternative is a system of morality based on the vague notion of "human nature." Most of us inherently know some things are wrong: murder of our kin, incest, cannibalism, and so forth.

>> No.2871396

>>2871383
Gotcha, so normative systems probably always have some defined ideal.

>> No.2871402

I don't know any of her political philosophy, but objectivism is often likened to libertarianism

do you guys know if objectivism is anti-authority, or anti-state?

>> No.2871409

>>2871396
Exactly.

>> No.2871416

>>2871402
>I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Seems kinda like a retarded philosophy imo. Its not a realistic philosophy nor feasible

>> No.2871449

>>2871355
i wish this post could be stickied

>> No.2871675
File: 290 KB, 600x447, haters gonna hate1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2871675

I had only vaguely heard of Ayn Rand before came to ths board but all her haters here made me wonder what the fuss was all about so read a couple of her books. She makes a lot of sense, more sense than any leftist i have ever heard and more sense than most of the jesus loving conservitards out there. I agree with 99% of what i've read of her work.

>> No.2871696

>>2871675
Many criticize her because all she does is promote ignorance/greedy/selfish behavior wish results in violence/hate/suffering and more.

>> No.2871728

>>2871376

Nietzsche: "conviction is a more dangerous foe to truth than lie,"

*Ayn Rand explodes*

/thread

>> No.2871733

>>2871696
She implies that all those values would lead to a self-regulating society which is basically bullshit and has already been disproved.

>> No.2871772

>implying her philosophy is for everyone and not just for people strong enough to be proud and not douches.

>implying anyone in /lit/ knows what poverty is like, what it must feel like to flee from your homeland and lose everything you ever had or to feel oppression constantly.

>> No.2871776

>>2871402

Objectivism, politically, is Minarchist, so it is not Anti-State as much as it is Anti-Intrusive State, although that's a bit of an oxymoron.

>> No.2871780

>>2871367

Normative systems of ethics describe the way people ought to act while Descriptive systems of ethics describe the way people do act.

>> No.2871799

To understand Ayn Rand you must first understand that her philosophy is a direct response to the spread of communist/marxist ideals in Russia. This being said Rand's work lacks structure and Comits a few logical fallacies namely black and white thinking. If you want to read some philosophy similar to Rand just read up on pragmatism. It makes a lot more sense.

>> No.2871801

To me, she seems like a failed 20th century philosophy student. One that barely grasps Nietzsche.

>> No.2871833

I only have a novice understanding of philosophy, but the problem I see with Rand is that she has such a hard-on for objectivism and the will of great men and what-not...

The problem with that is that the reason there is oppression of others is BECAUSE of these great men's ability to have their will's realized.

Some men are great at killing and slavery and death...if objectivism was a good idea then those people would be free to oppress others.

There has to be some defense of the weaker, right?

Anyways, utilitarianism is gay because caring about everyone means no one is happy and muh rights, muh freedoms.

Kant seems the best so far, but it is only situationally applicable because real life is closer to utilitarianism.

I wish I understood sternerism....

>> No.2871838
File: 212 KB, 979x833, stirner13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2871838

>>2871833

>> No.2871841

>>2871838

Nigga i aint gon read all dat shit,

Just tell me what to think already.

>> No.2871876

>>2871841

It's a pretty good book. I'd recommend reading it. Ultimately, Stirner asserts that the individual should pursue his own rational self interest, and should break free from the bonds of "spooks" such as morality and society. Out of a set of possible choices, the only "right" one is that which maximizes the satisfaction of your own self interest.

>> No.2871899

>>2871876
this is dumb though, what about addiction?

this is an extreme case, but you see what i am getting at. self interest is very often irrational

>> No.2871910

>>2871876

That seems reasonable.

>>2871899

Addiction isn't satisfying, and people make mistakes...I'm sure it's like stepping off a bridge and then you realize you didn't want to commit suicide but it's too late...your body is committed even if the mind is no longer willing.

>> No.2871911

>>2871899

>this is dumb though, what about addiction?

That's where the term "rational" comes in. Fulfilling short term desires that result in ruin is not in your rational self interest. So, while shooting up with heroine might be fun in the short run, if I rationally consider it, I see that it is ultimately an inferior route to take. Stirner did NOT simply doing whatever you want at any time.

>> No.2871914

>>2871911

*ahem*....he didn't advocate simply doing whatever you want.

>> No.2871923

If only Ms. Rand read some Hume. If she did, she clearly did not understand it.

>> No.2871929

>>2871923
>Hume
If she did she would probably never admit it. She used to say only that Aristotle was the only philosopher that influenced her.

>> No.2871975

>>2871929
I cant say I'm surprised. Her whole philosophy is based on being "independent" and "self-appreciating" type of thinking.

>> No.2873954

>>2871383
>murder of our kin

>murder of a innocent fellow human being that has done no harm to you*