Can anyone actually refute Ayn Rand on this board? I know you all hate her because most of you are Marxists, but can you place your irrational psuedo-religion aside to actually prove her wrong? I doubt you can but I'll be amused to see you ingrates try.

File: 22 KB, 200x244, 432.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:19:59 2014 No.5656111 [Reply] [Original]

Can anyone actually refute Ayn Rand on this board? I know you all hate her because most of you are Marxists, but can you place your irrational psuedo-religion aside to actually prove her wrong?

I doubt you can but I'll be amused to see you ingrates try.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:21:55 2014 No.5656116 Not anymore. The entire board was trolled into adopting both egoism and Marxism, so a select few could laugh hysterically at the contradiction.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:23:28 2014 No.5656119 >>5656111 there are more important aims in life than power

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:24:46 2014 No.5656120 >>5656119 Like power and money and intellect and supreme sovereignty of the self? You should read Rand.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:30:22 2014 No.5656132 Objectivism = I got mine, fuck everyone else

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:32:25 2014 No.5656137 File: 1.69 MB, 383x576, 476234897.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5656111 >>5656120 >he thinks there is any real wisdom in ayn rand >he thinks she ever made an argument to disprove in the first place

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:34:57 2014 No.5656139

>>5656132
"Achievement of your happiness is the only purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values." - Rand

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:36:05 2014 No.5656142 >>5656111 Individuals do not exist

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:37:04 2014 No.5656143 >>5656111 Selflessness is in my self interest. I'm getting off on being a saint, so fuck her!

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:37:11 2014 No.5656144 >>5656139 Were you trying to disprove what I said?

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:37:29 2014 No.5656146

>>5656137
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

-Ayn Rand

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:37:38 2014 No.5656147 >>5656139 >circular argument, the quote

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:39:18 2014 No.5656150 >>5656139 >happiness >not mindless self-indulgence I'm sorry, what? How are those different things? Besides, claiming that achieving happiness is somehow the purpose of all human life is ridiculous.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:39:53 2014 No.5656151 >>5656139 Riddle me this, if it's everybody for himself why should I care about what she has to say? Why should I support her ideology?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:41:14 2014 No.5656156 >>5656146 >the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases But what if it makes the Government happy? >a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority The majority just wants to be happy, Rand.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:42:15 2014 No.5656158 >>5656151 If she only cares about herself, why did she even bother to "help" other people by spreading her ideology?

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:42:29 2014 No.5656159
File: 203 KB, 936x1540, Thomas_Aquinas_in_Stained_Glass.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5656150
She's seriously just parroting Aristotle and Aquinas. The only difference is that Aristotle said that knowledge was the teleological point of life [obtained through empirical study], Aquinas said knowledge was the teleological point of life [obtained through mystical union with God in the next life], and both listed happiness as the inevitable side-effect of that, and arguably the primary goal in the first place.

Secondly, there is a mile-thick wall separating pleasure [a sensation] from happiness [a state of being].

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:42:42 2014 No.5656160

>>5656146
Honestly, I'm not trying to be a fedora here, but since you asked us to disprove Rand, it's embarrassing that you yourself cant produce a single argument from her.

Those are just claims, and pretty basic ones if you're a libertarian to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:43:06 2014 No.5656161 >>5656158 Because it benefits her. If her ideology influences political thought then the rights for the individual, herself, will increase. God you people are fucking stupid.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:44:02 2014 No.5656164 >>5656139 If happiness is to fulfill your wishes and desires, and unhappiness is to not get what you want, isn't the one the happiest who only wishes what he has?

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:44:55 2014 No.5656168

>>5656151
>>5656158
Because you fool, thats the point. There are times when helping other people is in your self-interest, that is the entire point of societies forming, is because the collective individuals believe they are getting a better deal in society than in a state of nature. This is basic Aristotlean politics.

Why on earth would people form together into societies if they thought that societies were against their best interests? And before you say biology, why would grown adults stay in society then? Why would societies grow beyond the tribal level?

Society endures, because, and real shocker here, cooperation is founded in mutual benefit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:45:03 2014 No.5656169 >>5656161 Why should I care about what benefits her?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:46:09 2014 No.5656171 >>5656168 Yeah, and? Isn't her whole point that we shouldn't cooperate like that?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:48:14 2014 No.5656173 >>5656119 >there are more important aims in life than power She doesn't want power, she wants freedom "Do not ever say that the desire to 'do good' by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives."

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:49:14 2014 No.5656175 >>5656169 In that case you would already be an Objectivist

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:49:15 2014 No.5656176

>>5656171
No. Her whole point is that people forget the "why" of society forming, and get really messed up ideas in their heads.

She says somewhere that nobody ever enacted a tyranny by saying "Think of yourselves!" its always shit like "Think of the children!" or an appeal to some collectivist value.

In other words, when people forget the individual in favor of the Group-As-Abstract, you get insane bullshit that is against the long-term self-interest of every single person in the society.

Aristotlean ethics are pretty similiar, with a focus on the individual first, and his life, and his character, and THEN going on to society and politics. Aristotle had ethics come BEFORE politics, and his ethics consisted of, basically "How to be happy, or Good, which is the same thing". And his politics was "How do we use society to make the people in society happier?"

Rand is seriously just an edgier Aristotle mixed with libertarianism and atheism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:50:27 2014 No.5656178 >>5656173 >stupidity >a motive What the fuck am I reading

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:51:04 2014 No.5656181 >>5656168 >Society endures, because, and real shocker here, cooperation is founded in mutual benefit. or, cooperation is founded in government force and endless bureaucracy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:53:26 2014 No.5656184 >>5656178 What leads /a/ or whatever board to shut themselves in their bedrooms for years with nothing but Cambodian Cartoons?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:54:07 2014 No.5656185 >>5656169 Because it also benefits you too, dweeb. It's in your self-interest to help others. I've been on this thread for five fucking seconds; I don't even know who Anne Rayn is

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:54:28 2014 No.5656186

>>5656176
>In other words, when people forget the individual in favor of the Group-As-Abstract, you get insane bullshit that is against the long-term self-interest of every single person in the society.

A totally unsubstantiated claim, just like everything else she says.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:54:55 2014 No.5656187 >>5656184 Fear of the outside world and social interaction?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:56:36 2014 No.5656189 >>5656175 If that's all it takes to be an objectivist the expression is totally meaningless, because if I can do what I want I could also be an objectivist communist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:56:56 2014 No.5656192 Ayn Rand on communists: "Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter."

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:58:38 2014 No.5656194

>>5656186
I'd argue its not at all unsubstantiated. Ethical and political systems that focus on the individual instead of people-groups and the like are much less likely to commit injustices. The entire system of individual natural rights is based on this idea, which goes back to our philosophical and cultural foundation that every person has worth.

Its when you start thinking of Persons as People that you get problems. You generalize. You lose discretion. And you commit travesties.

And thats ignoring the simple matter of collectivism often promoting the "good" of people who don't even exist. They promote "society" or "the future" and push policies that hurt the people in their society. Every tyranny is founded, ultimately, on the idea of the suppression of the majority of the individuals, the de-facto COLLECTIVE itself, in the name of particular values held by those in power.

History bears out, that government and justice founded on the individual is much better than government concerned with the Group-As-Abstract.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:58:49 2014 No.5656195 >>5656189 that's why aynal rand is a hack

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:59:51 2014 No.5656197 File: 1 KB, 240x26, i dont like your maymay.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5656192

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 05:59:55 2014 No.5656198 >>5656185 No it doesn't. It's a stupid ideology that just doesn't fucking work and her notion of freedom is mainly about laissez faire captitalism, which practically means no freedom to the average wage slave.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:01:46 2014 No.5656199 File: 19 KB, 720x352, original.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5656192 >the looter approaches

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:02:33 2014 No.5656203

Does anyone mind finding that poll that asked philosophers to nominate the top three worst philosophers of all time? Rand came in first or second.

I am interested in looking at it and with that in mind, why do you guys believe that to be the case (namely that the decent majority of professionals seem to really dislike her)

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:04:05 2014 No.5656206 >>5656198 Can't handle the egoism. Read Stirner again.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:05:59 2014 No.5656207 >>5656203 Because her entire philosophy is a cop-out. She was greedy and narcissistic so she created an ideology that requires no effort on her behalf under the pretense that it's the right way to do things.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:07:00 2014 No.5656208

>>5656194
>Ethical and political systems that focus on the individual instead of people-groups and the like are much less likely to commit injustices.
Source required.

>which goes back to our philosophical and cultural foundation that every person has worth.
If you think this is our philosophical tradition you are just plain wrong. Greeks didn't give a shit about the "individual" as such.

>They promote "society" or "the future" and push policies that hurt the people in their society.
This is the REAL naivety of what Rand believes. What you are describing is simply the very nature of language - every word is an abstraction, even "individual."

If atrocities are committed because of linguistic abstractions, then they are not avoided simply through individualism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:07:33 2014 No.5656209 Rand is refuted by the existence of economic externalities and the tragedy of the commons problem. Without an outside authority, situations where these exist lead to bad results for society as a whole when people act in a self-interested manner.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:09:17 2014 No.5656211 >>5656206 Am I the only one who thinks it's completely retarded when turbo egoists like Rand whine about noncompliance? >you're total assholes for not supporting my selfishness

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:11:55 2014 No.5656216

>>5656111
>When the first academic book about Rand's philosophy appeared in 1971, its author declared writing about Rand "a treacherous undertaking" that could lead to "guilt by association" for taking her seriously.

Even to people who take her seriously, she's still shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:12:33 2014 No.5656217 >>5656207 Was she a diagnosed psychopath? Most of her crap sounds like something you'd expect from a guy like Patrick Bateman. No empathy whatsoever.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:13:27 2014 No.5656220

>>5656208
>Source required.

I would say the source would be that the west in general, with its rich tradition of individual rights, in general seen more satisfied and happy populaces, with less arbitrary abuses of power and denials of justice than other places. I'm afraid I don't have a more through source than that. I can't exactly pull up a "Justices per year" chart comparing say, America to Imperial Russia.

>If you think this is our philosophical tradition you are just plain wrong. Greeks didn't give a shit about the "individual" as such.

I disagree entirely. Virtue ethics is almost entirely concerned with the individual. As, for that matter, is Christianity, which you'd be hard pressed to deny is part of our philosophical tradition.

And the problem isn't in the language, its in the rhetoric. This should be obvious. The problem is the violation of principles and actual, existing person's liberties and happiness, in the name of rhetoric appealing to "Goodness", "Rightness" or "The children" or "The people".

In short, is the separation of what is regarded as right political action, from the actual benefit of anyone living in the society presently.

I'm not an objectivist myself, if I've appeared that way. I'm more of a classical liberal politically, and an Aristolean in ethics, but I hate when people go "Erg! That person is promoting self-interest! Clearly he thinks everyone should be dicks!"

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:17:19 2014 No.5656224 >>5656217 >No empathy whatsoever. >Argues for the freedom of every individual.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:18:55 2014 No.5656229 What do you call an Objectivist from outer space? Ayy Rand

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:19:44 2014 No.5656231

>>5656220

I think comparing Rand to Ethics or Christianity solely on the grounds that they're concerned with the individual is disingenuous.

Ethics and Christianity are concerned with the duties of the individual towards other people. That's a completely different perspective to Rand's idea that people have a duty only to themselves. They're incompatible ideas.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:20:03 2014 No.5656233 >>5656224 How can her form of ultra-capitalism work without slave labour or something along the same lines? The freedom to be poor and hungry isn't much of a freedom

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:22:39 2014 No.5656237 >>5656224 >argues for the freedom of every individual She truly is a bodhisattva of compassion. >To say "I love you" one must know first how to say the "I". I guess that's something might as well Jesus could've said.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:24:04 2014 No.5656240 >>5656237 top laf >>5656224 "you are free to lack empathy!"

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:24:25 2014 No.5656241

>>5656231
Saint Thomas Aquinas clearly did not think so. You see, the ideas are tied together by two things.

1. That we ought always to act in our own Good, that is to say, our self-interest. And

2. That that often involves helping and working with other people.

And on an unrelated point, I think that ethics has nearly nothing to do with your business towards others. Rand was in many ways a virtue ethicist such as myself, and she said the person who really needs morals is the person living alone on an island. Its when you live alone that you really need wisdom, courage, fortitude, self-control, and so forth. Its when you live with others that you can engage in vice freely, because others will pick up the slack.

I think that its absolutely horrible to think morals have much of anything to do with other people. There are four cardinal virtues, and only one of them deals with our relationships with others. The rest are personal qualities primarily.

And in any case I was answering that other anon, who said that individualism wasn't a major part of the West's philosophical tradition. Which is clearly a falsehood.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:24:50 2014 No.5656242 >>5656233 Why are you knee-jerking against egoism if you haven't read her then? She detailed how a spectrum of middle class would evolve instead an upper/lower binary.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:27:21 2014 No.5656246 >>5656242 I don't have time to waste reading that Explain briefly how it would work

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:28:08 2014 No.5656247 >>5656208 >Source required. Nazi Germany and the soviet union are proof that disgusting acts of violence are usually committed when a large amount of people (a group) stands behind the act as a backer.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:28:24 2014 No.5656249 >>5656240 >"you are free to lack empathy!" but not "you are free to be a communist"

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:28:42 2014 No.5656250

I wish she had an editor...

I honestly think more people act like they read her than actually have.

But really, people that have read it. You've never dealt with a 'looter' that plague her characters? Like at work or school whatever.

It just seems so many of the boards express great angst towards them while boasting of their own intelligence and merit.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:29:12 2014 No.5656251

>>5656220
I'm not going to go into the discussion about history, that would take us too far. I'm just going to say that I consider your view about the "the west" as being a haven of freedom and happiness to be completely, and historically, false.

>Virtue ethics is almost entirely concerned with the individual
No, it certainly is not. It is concerned with the qualities you would have to act out in order to live up to your essence as zoon logikon.
The modern concept of the individual making free decisions is an early-late modern concept. To the greeks, character was fate. If you were a slave, it was rightly so, for you were made to be one. There is no "individual" inside a slave capable of deciding otherwise.

>And the problem isn't in the language, its in the rhetoric.
You are begging the question of whether "individualism", "free choice", "liberty" and "happiness" are not just as rhetorical as the generalizations you dislike.

Furthermore, an appeal to rhetoric does not disprove the fundamental point that all words are abstractions, rhetorically employed or not. "Free choice" is just as dangerous as "the common good" if employed by a dictator.

>Clearly he thinks everyone should be dicks!"
I know this is not what she is saying, though I think what she is saying is almost just as shallow.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:29:38 2014 No.5656253 >>5656224 >implying She was a staunch statist, and no statist can actually argue for the freedom of every individual, because there is no such thing in a society governed by laws.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:29:46 2014 No.5656254

>>5656237
>"I love you" one must know first how to say the "I".
Exaclty.

"Love is an expression of one's values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another."

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:30:15 2014 No.5656256 >>5656250 Isn't the looter just following their bliss and trying to realize their happiness?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:32:16 2014 No.5656260 >>5656242 >She detailed how a spectrum of middle class would evolve instead an upper/lower binary. As in, socialism? lmao Ayn got cognitive dissonance

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:32:43 2014 No.5656262 >>5656249 You are free to be an individual communist. Reject money and private property and go and go and hunt in the Canadian wilderness.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:32:59 2014 No.5656263

>>5656242
Are you saying in an objectivist society there would losers? Because I'd reckon where there is winning there also will be losing. I for one don't mind people winning, but it seems most reasonable to balance things a bit. Saying a slight curve in terms of the distribution of wealth is fine to me, but I hate that the winner takes it all crap. If life is a game, this is a stupid way to play it. Takes the fun out of it, and ironically the ultra rich can't even enjoy their winnings. That said, it's crap to assume welfare was introduced as a nice gesture. It was a compromise so the rich wouldn't get their throats slit in their sleep.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:34:45 2014 No.5656264 >>5656256 Yes, but Rand was a dumb cunt which is evident when you analyze her work further.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:35:07 2014 No.5656265 >>5656260 Socialism doesn't mean one large middle class of varying wealth. Socialism means kneecapping the prosperous so they kneel with the lazy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:35:14 2014 No.5656266 >>5656247 And you don't think any atrocities were committed without these? The United Kingdom ring a bell? Spanish civil war? The inquisition? Mongolian empire? Hell, even Vietnam, Irak 1 and 2? There were other centuries than the 20th you know.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:35:15 2014 No.5656267 >>5656254 Pompous bullshit. Love isn't about getting something. That isn't the point.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:36:25 2014 No.5656271

>>5656256
I suppose. I don't really go to deep into her philosophy.

The thing is, I think you're clumping her different ideas together.

As while the looters are seeking their own happiness, they do so without creating any value.

There was a very crude website I remember reading.

It talked about the basic types of people.

Something like 'helpers' 'takers' etc. With 'stupid' being a category.

People that just acted without thinking of their own or others good. Destructive etc.

I can't recall the site now...

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:36:50 2014 No.5656272

>>5656251
>being a haven of freedom and happiness to be completely, and historically, false.

I have no illusions about that. The only thing I am upholding is that societies that judge people on an individual basis, and make the protection of the individual a high priority are more just than other societies. I'm only stating the ideals, and the the modern western world, and to a lesser extent the western world in general, in many cases, was closer to those ideals than other places.

>The modern concept of the individual making free decisions is an early-late modern concept. To the greeks, character was fate.

I disagree entirely. Otherwise they wouldn't have had long debates on such simple concepts as "Can virtue be taught?". Although the idea of unchangeable fate was present in Greek culture, I'd call you a bold faced liar if you tried to deny that they also had a notion of individuals, and their deeds and accomplishments.

In any case we were discussing virtue ethics, not merely greek culture. And Virtue Ethics itself, IS primarily tied to individuals, their character, and their happiness.
>>5656251
I will concede that this is a danger in using abstractions in general [though I will agree all words are abstractions]. However I would argue strongly that abstractions that say things like "Think for yourselves!" and "Question authority" and "You have inalienable rights" are much less likely to be used by a tyrant than "Its for your own good" and "Its for our future!" and similar things.

I can't speak for Rand, and her interpretation of enlightened self-interest [I don't know it], but I will defend the idea that everything one does should ultimately be for one's own Good.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:40:41 2014 No.5656276 How is this bitch any different from anarcho-capitalism and related fedora-tier ideology? Objectivism more like objectively shit

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:45:29 2014 No.5656281 Capitalism is hierarchical and therefore inherently incompatible with true freedom.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:49:31 2014 No.5656282

>>5656272
>I can't speak for Rand, and her interpretation of enlightened self-interest [I don't know it], but I will defend the idea that everything one does should ultimately be for one's own Good.

The problem with "everything one does should ultiately be for one's own Good" is that it's really just a half baked idea and Rand doesn't follow through with premise. In the sense of what do I really want and why, what for. If you did follow through you would end up with something that resembled buddhism I believe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:50:57 2014 No.5656283 >>5656281 The goal should be to leave scarcity behind. But I guess this would be in conflict to her self interest.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:51:00 2014 No.5656284 >>5656111 >mother of libertarianism >on welfare in her final years

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:52:19 2014 No.5656287
File: 71 KB, 585x400, 1413157379706.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Truthfully, I've never read any of her work or have the slightest idea about any sort of themes that she explores in her work.

Plus, I have little to no interest in her work now that I've seen pic related... Just fucked that book for me.

And I don't really like female authors particularly, not really my schtick (I say that without any intended misogyny).

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:52:22 2014 No.5656288 >>5656283 How would scarcity be left behind without the poorly-paid black people harvesting resources?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 06:55:24 2014 No.5656293 >>5656287 >don't really like female authors much Same poster again. With that said, I think Sylvia Plath is amazing and wish I could have married her. But otherwise, my point still stands.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 07:16:04 2014 No.5656312
File: 13 KB, 200x274, russell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5656265
>A system where individuals are paid directly according to the value of their labour means everyone gets to be lazy

Ayy lmao.

>It would be utterly absurd to maintain that the men who inherit their great wealth deserve better of the community than those who have to work for a living. I am not prepared to maintain that economic justice requires exactly equal income for everybody. Some kinds of work require a larger income for efficiency than others do.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 07:21:16 2014 No.5656316 >>5656284 It makes much more sense than something like Zizek going to Starbucks. It was in her best interests so she did it.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 07:24:43 2014 No.5656320

>>5656139
>>5656146
And here are the major contradictions: combining the "I can do everything I like." of moral nihilism with the "You should not do everything you like." of moral prescriptivism in one philosophy is absurd, since the two standpoints directly contradict each other. Unless this is a personal statement that was only fitting for herself, it is simply not correct, and if it is that hyper-individualistic, I see no point in publishing it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 07:32:08 2014 No.5656331 >>5656316 did Zizek go to Starbucks? sellout

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 07:34:23 2014 No.5656334

>>5656168
>why would grown adults stay in society then?
Because to reject society in the modern day is practically suicide. If you aren't vilified by a police force or securing body, then you will most likely die due to a lack of knowledge on how to live extraneous to the world. Due to decreasing rates of intensified and general religious worship - the things that started civilisation - there is a correlating decline in the willingness of most people to conform, and to empathise with others; understandably, as there is no real reason to do so now. This would obviously make society fall apart at the seems, but self-sufficiency has been bread out of all schools and, for the most part, familial traditions to the point where the average individual has minimal information on survival tactics and the world around themselves on a non-scientific basis. This is now the primary adhesive for the Western world, as after spirituality and religion lost their reservation so do the things they inflict, such as morality and inherent codes of conduct.
People still love to go camping and hunting, to grow gardens in their back yards, to sew, knit and crochet their own clothes, because it is difficult to turn our backs on where we came. The idea of working for oneself, and to an only slightly lesser extent, one's family is intuitive in human nature. The treatment of 'society' as a collective organism, is not - though it can be learned, it won't be present from birth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 07:39:54 2014 No.5656340 >>5656334 I can hear your dumb hick accent as I read this conservative bullshit

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 07:40:40 2014 No.5656344 >>5656340 Not that guy, but what is bullshit about it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 07:53:12 2014 No.5656358 File: 28 KB, 326x251, rand.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5656320 >And here are the major contradictions top Kay ee kay

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 07:54:37 2014 No.5656359

>>5656111
As someone who actually believed in that stuff about 15 years ago, what brought me away was a realization that you do need a social safety net (healthcare, social security, unemployment). Not for the "welfare queens" but for normal people during an economic bubble bursting. 2008 was a far gentler crash than 29 in the US (or the early 30s in germany).

The next problem is that you need "perfect" leaders like Roark or Galt or whatever, and I have literally never met anyone who embodies the ideals of objectivism ever.

The final problem is that within an economic system, people will always behave irrationally (read "Devil Take the Hindmost" and "Irrational Exuberance").

What does work is nordic social democracy that operates without deficit spending. Iceland pre-2008 thought they were the first "end of history" society, and their fall was that they became MORE venture capitalist. Furthermore, objectivism does not really lend itself to Green Politics either, and that will be necessary in the coming century.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 08:00:10 2014 No.5656365

>>5656359
>and I have literally never met anyone who embodies the ideals of objectivism ever.
While I agree with you generally, this is a fellacy. "I don't know it so it does not exist."
The actual problem is that, even if someone like that exists, no one is immortal and finding the perfect replacement once the perfect leader dies will be problematic, especially since people change over the generations so apparently.

This system might work, with the right leader. But it won't work forever, not consistently.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 08:02:41 2014 No.5656366 >>5656340 I thought I came off more anarchistic than anything, but if I'm conservative then that's all there is to it I guess.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 08:04:38 2014 No.5656369 >>5656365 >the perfect leader Shouldn't the perfect leader, by definition, be incapable of dying?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 08:06:30 2014 No.5656371 >>5656369 Well, then it must be a machine.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 08:06:51 2014 No.5656372
File: 5 KB, 200x175, stirnerrrrrrr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

"Oh, Randy randy roo. I do. I do. I completely agree with you, however, and this is a monumental however, you can't mix my beloved egoism with politics. The serfdom get so flustered, you see. Let them embrace egoism on it's own terms, Randy, and the progression to basking in the self-created Ubermensh paradise of libertarianism will follow naturally. It is, after all, the only natural path for the egoist to walk down without making an intellectual bonfire of the self-liberation he has discovered... Ahh.... 'He', has discovered. HE. The biggest however of all. You are not a he, Randykins, you have a vagina. You cannot take to the podium and preach to the peasants while in possession of that moist orifice of yours. They wont stand for it, old girl, in fact, they will fucking lynch you for it. Stand back. I have this covered. Step down. Let them read me, and I can hold their little pandies as we walk towards Milton Friedman. I know you mean well, I really do, but you're just going to make the kids rebel, make them fly hazy-eyed to the shackles of that loathsome cycle and hammer."

-- Max Stirner

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 09:04:35 2014 No.5656465

>>5656224
>>5656217
>all these people not reading her
>all these people entirely misunderstanding her philosophy of mutual self-interest
>i remember back when lit actually read things

i think it's time i just go back to /fit/

HURDUR AYN RAND HATES PEOPLE HELPING EACH OTHER

>>	o !!r3+23beQiOG Thu Oct 30 09:12:28 2014 No.5656491 Does ayn rand really equate 'self interest' with 'power and material possessions'?

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 09:30:06 2014 No.5656549

>>5656111
>anyone who works hard is successful
>if you arent successful you just arent working hard enough

The problem with this school of thought is that it ass-pats all rich people, even if they're lazy sacks of shit who owe their seven figure salary to nepotism, brown-nosing, or genetics. It also doesnt believe that hard working individuals can be unsucessful, which is sort of crazy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 09:54:28 2014 No.5656644 >>5656111 >Hiding behind unfalsifiable arguments is a good thing

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 09:55:29 2014 No.5656650

>>5656365
>>5656365
Point taken. Another problem that your post makes me think of is that you need a dictatorship of an objectivist god-king (who will die) for it to "work" minus the kleptocracy that occurs during dictatorships just one generation. An objectivist democracy would never work

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 09:56:30 2014 No.5656659 >>5656371 Underrated post. Objectivism could work if we were ruled by carefully programmed machines (although probably not AI).

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 09:57:37 2014 No.5656665 >>5656644 >philosophy >falsifiable lel

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 10:02:49 2014 No.5656673

>>5656491
I think what her detractors fail to take into account is that her philosophy derived from childhood trauma under the Bolsheviks. She thinks in extremes because she suffered under the opposite extreme.

I find in her works that she believes that greed and a powerful ego are the primary drivers for positive growth and creativity, and should thus be encouraged.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 10:27:34 2014 No.5656735

>>5656673
The thing is that, in theory, I don't think she is all that wrong. Her ideas are rather close to Stirner in that regard, jokes aside. The problems with Rand arise when she taps into politics, and trying to turn her theory into practice.

Being a selfish cunt will get you far, and society is a structure to udnermine the individuum for the sake of the many. (Very, very superficially spoken.) So far, Stirner and Rand agree. But Stirner leaves it at that. Rand is retarded by trying to turn it into a new model of society.

o !!r3+23beQiOG Thu Oct 30 10:29:16 2014 No.5656742

>>5656673

That's an interesting point, thank you.

And regarding your second point, I guess she's right in the way that yeah, they're useful for positive growth until [/unless] you personally transcend them. Which could possibly account for the charges of 'philosophical immaturity' of her work.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 10:58:54 2014 No.5656847

>>5656735
Yeah I dont think objectivism works on the macro-scale, but for individual business owners, artists, and majority shareholders of private companies it is very useful.

Where it completely falls apart is when you apply it to the stock market, publicly held companies, social services, etc. Example of the ideal objectivist at this point is Elon Musk (who is btw a philanthropist and thus suffers in Rand's eyes, since even the poor should be supporting "great men")

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 15:48:31 2014 No.5657838

libertarian fag here. but even i think she comes across cunt-y. there are ways to talk about acting in self-interest and mutual benefit without alienating the shit out of ppl.
also she said some nasty stuff about homosexuals and called religious ppl morons (so much respect for freedom).
recently-ish one of the objectivist society fags declared we (western society) deserved the oil in the middle east b/c we refined it and they weren't gonna do anything with it.. which is really a fucked up evaluation of the situation.

selfishness has such a negative connotation. i dunno why you would use that fucking word to lead off a philosophical movement.

um but also i think its hilarious how many liberal fags loved the fountainhead when i was in hs just b/c their beloved teacher turned them on to it. mindless fucking ppl.

um and i also don't believe society would collapse if "atlas shrugged". what kind of self centered view of the world is it to believe only a small proportion of ppl really matter and everyone else is a parasite. eat a dick, you old bag. everyone has value and once we remove more of the barriers that divide us we'll be able to finally leave all this earth bullshit and explore space, nigga!

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 15:51:59 2014 No.5657850 I don't care about her philosophy, I just think she's a shitty writer.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 15:57:24 2014 No.5657874 Because he uses a metaphysical thingy "reason" to explain the existence of a material world outside of reason It's a failure.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 16:06:43 2014 No.5657933 >her "ultimate value" is utterly retarded >whole argumentation crumbles no problem, op.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:22:08 2014 No.5658271
File: 3.43 MB, 3365x4001, Allan_Ramsay_-_David_Hume,_1711_-_1776._Historian_and_philosopher_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5656111
It's odd that she was willing to acknowledge that people are alone in the world, and that they need no one else, yet still thought that an individual's life has a purpose. Why not let go of all of that nonsense, not just some of it? Rand was a dumb dick, indeed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:37:02 2014 No.5658342 Yeah, the role of art in life is not to transform metaphysical value judgement. The role of art is to allow humans to indulge in our delight of looking at and recognizing intricate patterns and concepts.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:39:25 2014 No.5658361

>>5656132

No, objectivism is the pursuit of one's own happiness. It just shows what a greedy miscreant you are that the first thing that jumps into your mind when you hear "pursuit of your own happiness" is screwing everyone else over. Altruism often is the path to one's own happiness.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:43:38 2014 No.5658382 Remember when Rand said that stealing the land of the Native Americans was ok because they were savages? She did not make this statement in like the 1600's or whatever, she did it in the 20th century.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:56:01 2014 No.5658434

>>5658361
The doctrine doesn't say to NOT pursue your happiness if your happiness consists of 'doing whatever I can to achieve what I want, even if that includes screwing else over'. Objectivism doesn't even acknowledge the idea that you can be screwing someone else over, though, because if everyone is pursuing their own self interest, then they should all be happy (even if they really are screwing each other over). U feel me?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:57:42 2014 No.5658445 >>5658361 Also, I thought altruism was something not found in an objectivist's planned course of action (unless it makes them happy)? Or are you just talking about smoething other than Objectivism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:58:16 2014 No.5658448 >>5656111 What's there to refute? Everything she wrote was a watered down version of better philosophers before her Try asking the same question about an original thinker, like Stirner or Nietzsche, /lit/ loves to argue about them

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 17:59:37 2014 No.5658455
File: 12 KB, 300x219, doubles.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5656111
>Can anyone actually refute Ayn Rand on this board?

Here's why:
Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined. As a more formal fallacy, it refers to the fine art of generating an ostensibly "correct" conclusion, but from premises known to be wrong or inapplicable.

The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:05:11 2014 No.5658480

>>5658434

That's because its in everyone else's interest to make sure you don't. People who want to screw others over will do in any political system. You can say "we need a government to stop people screwing others over in their own self interest", but then the government screws you over by taking your property without asking and reducing your freedom.

>>5658445

Objectivism has no planned course of direction, except every individual doing what makes them happy. Are you implying altruism can't make you happy, or that people who are altruistic don't do it because it makes them happy?

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:27:34 2014 No.5658574
File: 5 KB, 252x257, please ladies one at a time.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5656111
For one thing her entire philosophy did not contain any reference to UPB, ergo it is not universally preferable and so is not UPB. We can thus ignore it.

Heh heh, it's like a, you know...BOOSH BOOSH BOOSH *punches the air a few times* knock out right?

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:36:36 2014 No.5658616

>>5657838
>what kind of self centered view of the world is it to believe only a small proportion of ppl really matter and everyone else is a parasite. eat a dick, you old bag. everyone has value and once we remove more of the barriers that divide us we'll be able to finally leave all this earth bullshit and explore space, nigga!
Don't you think this is an extremely idealistic point of view? Be rational.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:39:56 2014 No.5658633 >>5656111 >most of you are marxists First time on /lit/? Just because we know about marxism and we did read Marx doesn't mean we are marxist. There are some, but the majority isn't.

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:46:23 2014 No.5658663

>>5658480
Why would it be in other peoples' self-interest to make sure I don't screw them over? Your statement suggests that they ought to act in a certain way, namely not be screwed over by anybody. But what if that person's happiness consists of being screwed over by others. I admit that is a ridiculous example and might even be invalid, but how does your statement change that the doctrine's implication is that any action is a moral action as long as it embodies your path to happiness? Or do you agree with me and are just saying that the doctrine still makes sense, because everyone can act in a self interested way and block my attempt to screw them over?

Anonymous Thu Oct 30 18:53:53 2014 No.5658696

>>5658480
You said 'Altruism often is the path to one's own happiness' to deny the claim that Objectivism says "I got mine, fuck everyone else etc'. What I'm saying is that, although altruism may be the path to happiness for many, it's just a coincidence that it is a path that doesn't involve shitting on someone else's life. But that does not embody the implications of Objectivism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 20:02:34 2014 No.5659037 >>5656316 Wait are you being serious?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 20:07:09 2014 No.5659056 >>5657838 >ppl >b/c >um please do not write like this

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 20:14:39 2014 No.5659092 >>5656116 >implying the board is a discrete entity with a monolithic set of beliefs

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 30 21:02:08 2014 No.5659293 NOBODY reads her metaphysics, not even her fans, so literally nobody is qualified to talk about her theory

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature