Find a flaw PROTIP: you can't

File: 168 KB, 750x500, ayn_rand.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 04:48:13 2015 No.6767957 [Reply] [Original]

Find a flaw

PROTIP: you can't

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:02:33 2015 No.6767992 rational self bump

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:17:40 2015 No.6768014 bump

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:19:24 2015 No.6768015 She hurts my slave morality. We are all equal and need to share.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:23:07 2015 No.6768019 >>6767957 What's more interesting than proving her wrong is whether her writenings helped you to achieve your goal of whatever. Protip: Just do it

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:25:07 2015 No.6768023 >>6768019 >proving her wrong proving what wrong, exactly?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:25:09 2015 No.6768025 Atlas Shrugged is about a man uncovering a international corporate conspiracy to avoid making a profit.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:25:37 2015 No.6768026

>>6767957
>Believed smoking tobacco was good for you

>Thought every other philosopher except Aristotle was wrong

>Believed Relativity was a made up fairy tale purely because she was too stupid to understand it

>Objectivism hurr durr

Oh and to top it all off she took the classic free market fundamentalist position of ignoring market externalities.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:27:05 2015 No.6768028 >>6768026 >Believed smoking tobacco was good for you [citation needed] if straight faced making shit up and summarizing complex arguments into contemptuous slander is the best bantz you have to throw at rand, you're not going to do well in this thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:30:33 2015 No.6768034 >>6768026 >ignoring market externalities That's a good thing. Go hug a tree, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:38:32 2015 No.6768041 >>>>6768028 She believed smoking was symbolic of man's control over nature. Honestly, I shouldn't need to cite to someone who has actually read her work because huge sections of her books describe her views on smoking.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:38:44 2015 No.6768043 File: 43 KB, 494x278, 140426-ep04-jared-1024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:39:34 2015 No.6768047 >>6768034 Read some Economics and Enviromental Science faggot. Or are all those numbers 2spooky4u?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:41:16 2015 No.6768051 >>6768041 she believed smoking was beneficial in the way stims were beneficial. She recognized they were destructive, healthwise, but ultimately allowed her to produce more value than she would have without them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:42:27 2015 No.6768053 >>6768047 >waaah save tha environment!!! puffs on joint

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:42:45 2015 No.6768054

>>6768028
Honestly though the fact that she doesn't appear in any respectable journals or courses in Philosophy should be an indicator that her views aren't taken seriously. People outside the States grasped this concept long ago, but Republicans just cannot let her ability to answer none of the important questions in philosophy ever go.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:44:27 2015 No.6768057 >>6768051 So as I said, she thought tobacco use was good for you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:45:16 2015 No.6768061 >>6768057 >>6768057 Do you believe amphetamine use is bad for you?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:45:31 2015 No.6768062 >>6768054 Because People are too concerned with Spooks like Equality and Identity Politics, a true sign that we are in the times of the Last Man.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:45:57 2015 No.6768063

>>6768053
You're a moron. Pick up an environmental science journal or go take a community college science class and learn about the scientific method, then come back. Or you could produce evidence that Global Warming isn't happening.

Hint: youtube videos are not evidence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:46:15 2015 No.6768064 Aristotle was a faggot

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:46:38 2015 No.6768065 >>6768054 pretty sure socrates' ideas didnt show up in the daily tablet in ancient greece

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:46:40 2015 No.6768066 >>6768023 Her

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:48:33 2015 No.6768072

>>6768061
What does that have to do with anything? My original point was that she thought tobacco was good for you, which is true. She believed the benefits of using it outweighed it's effects on your health. Ergo she believed tobacco was good for you, making me right and the person who called it slanderous and asked for a citation wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:48:57 2015 No.6768074 >>6768061 Only if I want them to be.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:49:24 2015 No.6768075

>>6768063
>implying I think global warming isn't real
You totally misread my point, you are absolutely blinded by Ideology. I'm telling you that the environment is unimportant to the Self, concerning yourself with it is nothing more than Life Denying. When you allow your Self to be ruled by contingent Externalities you hand over your own Autonomy to the faceless abyss left in the absence of God. You are a slave to your World, when you should be your own Person.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:50:06 2015 No.6768077 >>6768065 Pretty sure this is not Ancient Greece and renowned Philosophers can easily submit their ideas to a well established academic community. Nice false equivalency though, dumbass

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:50:25 2015 No.6768079

>>6768072
IT doesn't matter if it's true or not. Do you think amphetamine use is detrimental to ones existence? That is the question. Do you think smoking is detrimental to ones existence, fundamentally?

Smoking provides a calm, a high, do you not think that this has a greater benefit in some peoples lives than the 1/70 chance of getting cancer?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:51:33 2015 No.6768082 >>6768077 so because other people aren't telling you she's got valid ideas, she doesn't have valid ideas nice one, really making anti rand morons look great, do yourself a favor and take a logic 101 course at your local cc

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:53:45 2015 No.6768086 >>6768077 so because most people feel one way about something, it is ultimately the right way to feel about it you a democrat?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:54:52 2015 No.6768088 >>6768079 Now you're switching topics. I made a single stand alone point that she believed tobacco was good, which is true. End of discussion. In order to say anything of value you need to prove that she disliked tobacco and that my statement was wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:56:23 2015 No.6768092 >>6768086 >>6768082 If you think academic consensus and popular opinion are the same thing, I'm not surprised that you think objectivism is a valid philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:57:05 2015 No.6768093 >>6768088 no I'm not. Somebody says that smoking has benefits that can outweigh the costs, and you use it as a criminalizing statement without justification

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:58:14 2015 No.6768094 >>6768075 So you don't believe people should be held accountable for the conditions they force on others via negative externalities? I bet you drive a Hummer and go to non-smoking areas just to smoke don't you?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 05:58:32 2015 No.6768095 >>6768092 sorry name a significantly more academically reputable philosopher born in the last 80 years with a similar scope on philosopy as rand oh wait youre just tossing buzzwords around

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:00:04 2015 No.6768097 Ayn Rand I-n Rand Ein Rand An edge

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:00:50 2015 No.6768098

>>6768093
How retarded do you have to be to believe that teaching people that focusing is better than lung cancer isn't a valid criticism of Rand? You want a better way of focusing? Sleep well and eat something with decent iron content. Or you know, get lung cancer instead.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:02:02 2015 No.6768099

>>6768094
>So you don't believe people should be held accountable for the conditions they force on others via negative externalities?
No, I do not. Imposing laws one the Self, the Ego, is Life Denying and a Signifier of Slave thinking. Debasing the Self with these regulations, allowing for contingent Externalities, rather than for the eternal Ego, is destructive to the noble Civilisation and is surely to blame for our current Cult of the Last Man.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:02:13 2015 No.6768100 >my ego is really weak so I need to be recognized as an egoist in the society >I would like to masturbate in a room where everyone is masturbating

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:02:50 2015 No.6768101

>>6768098
Because the value and achievement that can be attained with things like stimulants can bring a greater quality of life than an extra 5-10 years when you're senile?

This is why objectivism doesn't sit well with you, you think your life inherently has equal value at all stages. It's the same situation, would you rather try to make it big and follow your dreams, knowing you could end off worse than when you started, or live a life of mediocrity?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:03:04 2015 No.6768102 >>6768095 What does that have to do with anything? She writes on all of the main areas of philosophy therefore she's a great philosopher? And I need a course in logic?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:04:09 2015 No.6768104 >>6768095 Zizek

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:04:35 2015 No.6768105

>>6768102
no, your argument is literally "nobody important says shes a good philosopher", I am asking you to provide me somebody from the past 80 years (from the time period she was born) that is an example of a good philosopher being recognized to the levels ayn would if she were a "great philosopher" as you say

youre the one who provided the standard, flesh it out you incompetent turd

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:05:42 2015 No.6768107 Stirner>Rand

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:05:43 2015 No.6768108

>>6768099
So actually then you're an assailed. Who saw th one coming. Honestly, basic economics as well as environmental science all offer sound logical reasons as to why your philosophy is wrong. I can lead a horse to water but you have to make the effort yourself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:05:45 2015 No.6768109 >>6768104 Don't be silly, he's just a pop-psychoanalyst and cultural critic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:06:11 2015 No.6768111 >>6768104 >Why does ayn rand not revered among marxist philosophers? >"Show me somebody who is" >posts marxist philosopher

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:06:48 2015 No.6768113 >>6768109 Rand is just a butthurt Russian

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:08:28 2015 No.6768120 >>6768105 Really? Shall I start with A? I'll be here until tomorrow. In logic, computer science, neuroscience ect. There's renowned work all over the place. Pick up a journal and find out for yourself you lazy fuck.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:09:12 2015 No.6768123 >>6768053 MORON O R O N

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:09:29 2015 No.6768124

ayn's position on smoking is the same as her position on dexedrine (stimulants), that they can bring an enhancement to ones ability to produce value and abide by objectivist doctrines, for a minimal or even nonexistent cost

paul erdos felt the same way, look at where he'd be without coffee and stims

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:10:04 2015 No.6768125

>>6768108
You can state your 'facts' about the Environment, but they do not state why the Environment needs to be helped. It doesn't because it can't. Your appeal to some vague, Utilitarian Morality is just a sign of your Last Man-ness, projecting Idols and Spooks in defence of the Ideology that blinds you. You can turn yourself in and be a Slave to the Environment, surrendering your Autonomy to a faceless entity like a Christian Slave. I, on the other hand, am a free Thinking Individual, I do not allow myself to be ruled by Spooks, I do not Worship and I most certainly do not grovel to the faceless abyss like you, the sad Slave of the decadent Society.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:10:13 2015 No.6768127 >>6768065 Is this a troll?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:10:44 2015 No.6768128 >>6768120 >make the argument for me, you lazy fuck

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:11:39 2015 No.6768133

>>6768101
Again, the argument hinges on the idea that one needs tobacco to focus, which is nonsense. If you do, fine, but she advocated it as a way of focusing generally, not just to her. If you don't think that's a flaw in thought you really do need to get your tongue out of her ass.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:12:12 2015 No.6768134 >>6768123 Utilitarian Slave.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:12:38 2015 No.6768135 >>6768133 cite the place where she made the blanket statement that everybody can benefit from cigarettes, and didn't just explain her own benefit from them

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:14:27 2015 No.6768136

>>6768125
Again proving that all objectivity end up being assholes. The environment needs saving because man is not above nature. He depends on it and therefore should protect it for himself and the future. If you see no value in helping future generations you betray what you are at your deepest roots: an animal who wants to spread his genes and protect his offspring.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:14:42 2015 No.6768138 >>6768133 why are you even discussing this? objectivism has no position on smoking, this thread is about objectivism

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:15:19 2015 No.6768139 >>6768134 Not even a utilitarian. You're just an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:16:20 2015 No.6768141 >>6768105 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Saul Kripke, Jurgen Habermas, Herbert Marcuse, Martin Heidegger

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:16:27 2015 No.6768142 >>6768136 Objectivists*

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:17:28 2015 No.6768145 >>6768138 No it's about finding flaws with Ayn Rand.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:18:29 2015 No.6768148 >>6768141 but none of these people have received as much praise as rand hurr >>6768145 you know this thread isnt about rand, shes a cunt

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:19:11 2015 No.6768149 >>6768135 Her fucking novels you idiot. She believed smoking was ultimately good as it was symbolic of man's control over nature regardless of its effects on health or concentration. Have you read Atlas Shrugged?

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:19:15 2015 No.6768150

>>6768135

not him but nobody benefits from smoking. Her health was "objectively" damaged by smoking. People who are addicted to something will make up all sorts of rationalizations about their substance use, often making the argument that they couldn't work as hard without it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:19:46 2015 No.6768151 >>6767957 Her head is shaped weird.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:20:19 2015 No.6768154 >>6768148 Read the OP you thick fuck.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:20:46 2015 No.6768155

>>6768149
you're a moron
>The alertness that smoking can induce is a very useful state to be in for most productive tasks, and so if one had no reason to think smoking was otherwise harmful, one would have good reason to conclude that smoking was likely to be beneficial, and that smoking was essentially virtuous. This is the basis for Ayn Rand's treatment of smoking in her novels, besides the fact that she liked the symbolism of a person being able to hold fire at his fingertips, representing man's control over nature.

you just spliced two ideas and put them together to make a false statement

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:20:53 2015 No.6768156 Difference between Rand and Stirner in one sentence? Hard mode: No spooks

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:21:46 2015 No.6768158 >>6768150 >nobody benefits from smoking so you're saying a man who discovers great value in his life under the influence of stimulants, who dies at 65 as opposed to 70 because of it, did not benefit from stimulants? That's what you're saying right now

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:21:54 2015 No.6768159 File: 59 KB, 300x420, H.-J._Zillmer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6768150 >Her health was "objectively" damaged by smoking.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:22:49 2015 No.6768162 >>6768148 >but none of these people have received as much praise as rand You're saying that, of all people, Ayn Rand should be judged not by the quality of her work but by the opinion the general public has of her?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:23:15 2015 No.6768163 >>6768125 Honestly how is it possible to be this much of a total cunt.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:24:26 2015 No.6768165 >>6768158 Yes, that's what he's saying, you dolt. If you think smoking cigarettes actually makes your life more enriched you should probably just chainsmoke for the rest of the moments you have available to you.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:27:08 2015 No.6768171

>>6768136
>Again proving that all objectivity end up being assholes.
Ah, so now you make the Moral claim that I am an Asshole. You see, this is nothing but an Idol you follow, a faceless one, unlike that of the Royalty, the Republic or the Judeo-Christian God, as they are all absent in our World. You are simply claiming that all who do not follow your Ideology are in some way wrong or mean, just as a Jew, Christian or Mohammedan might claim that those who contradict their Ideology are Heretics or Infidels. You are also similar to the Abrhamics in that you desire punishment and torment for those outside of your Slave Ideology, this shows that you are a Zealot.
>The environment needs saving because man is not above nature.
This is not a claim you have backed up at all. It tells me two things, that you are a Misanthropic individual, who debases Man in an attempt to distance yourself from Man-ness and the responsibilities associated. Secondly it tells me that you only view the issue from a Collectivist point of view, you are a Slave, therefore, to numbers. You, making these bold claims, says that you are concerned with the Other more than the Self, a product of the bastardised Christian slave morality still lingering in the West. You later debase man by stating
>an animal who wants to spread his genes and protect his offspring.
Dragging your Human responsibility down to that of Biological Praxis, self evident to the Animal, but alien to the Man. You are a modern Nihilist, convinced that you hold values, but a Nihilist none the less.
>He depends on it and therefore should protect it for himself and the future.
Man depends on the Self, again you are attempting to stave off the buzzard of Responsibility by liberating yourself from Man-ness. You have a great misconception for what Man is. Man is not a biological machine, Man is the Individual and Ego contained within the body.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:27:29 2015 No.6768172

>>6768165
then I have nothing more to say to you if you're straight faced trying to tell me that somebody who is for sure able to produce a higher quality of life in exchange for taking a small risk at a few years of shortened lifespan is not a benefit

we have kids like you in my engineering program, whining about us who are able to outperform all else because we abuse stimulants

in the end I get the job, I get the position, I get the career and I am ultimately happire and more successful than you

and what do you get? Actually, with stims, you don't get anything, LOL! We'll live the same amount of time and I'll just be more successful!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:28:03 2015 No.6768174 >>6768171 You aren't Nietzsche, stop pretending you are

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:28:16 2015 No.6768178 >>6768139 >>6768163 This is how Scientist, Humanist Analytics react to the Abolition of Idols? Not surprising in the least tbh.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:29:16 2015 No.6768180 >>6768174 Do you have no rebuttal at all? I have learned from Nietzsche, he was a Great Man and Thinker, but I do not imitate him.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:35:26 2015 No.6768191

>>6768178
You aren't abolishing any idols, you're claiming that global warming is a myth.
>>6768180
I don't need to rebut you, you haven't made substantial claims beyond 'What you're doing resembles Judaeo-Christian moralizing,' which isn't even a proper criticism.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:38:38 2015 No.6768198

>>6768158
>>6768172

m8 smoking can take a lot more than 5 years off your life, and can make your last years a painful hell. What value can you discover under the influence of stimulants that you could not discover while healthy? It's not a small risk either. One of my friends died in a police station because he had been abusing stimulants, namely cocaine.

Shit's not good for you. But I'd almost rather die from cocaine intoxication than lose my jaw to mouth cancer or be paralyzed by a stroke.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:40:17 2015 No.6768202

>>6768191
>You aren't abolishing any idols, you're claiming that global warming is a myth.
I am not. I am claiming the fact that the climate is changing is not grounds to succumb to Collectivist Slave Morality.
>I don't need to rebut you, you haven't made substantial claims beyond 'What you're doing resembles Judaeo-Christian moralizing,' which isn't even a proper criticism.
Yes it is. Can you not see through your own Ideology even with My help?

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:40:32 2015 No.6768203

>>6768198
>What value can you discover under the influence of stimulants that you could not discover while healthy
>what value could you discover while under the influence of something that makes you able to focus and concentrate more, as opposed to when you're not under the influence of these drugs?

>its not a small risk either
><inserts anecdotal experience>

>more blanket statements

you're an idiot and you just put rand critics into a grave they're never going to climb out of. goodbye

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:43:47 2015 No.6768213

>>6768202
>I am claiming the fact that the climate is changing is not grounds to succumb to Collectivist Slave Morality.
Boo hoo. Someone initially mentioned climate change in relation to economic analysis, not in relation to combating the phenomenon democratically. This objection doesn't even make sense in this context.

Why do you capitalize so oddly? Is English not your first language?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:43:59 2015 No.6768215 >>6768198 do mankind a favor and please dont breed

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:45:01 2015 No.6768217 I forgot how awful objectivists could be until I opened this thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:45:48 2015 No.6768219 >>6768217 too bad objectivism is the philosophy of alpha males now fuck off outta here little hapa dweeb

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:46:43 2015 No.6768223 >>6768156 Stirner isn't proscriptive.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:47:47 2015 No.6768226

>>6768213
>combating the phenomenon democratically
Again, Collectivist Slave Morality.
>This objection doesn't even make sense in this context.
How so? You are obviously a Moralising Last Man bent on attaining the Fruit of your Nihilism, as you pray for power to the Abyssal Vacuum of Collectivism.
>Why do you capitalize so oddly? Is English not your first language?
Not a student of Philosophy? Unsurprising.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:48:04 2015 No.6768227 File: 14 KB, 680x489, 1425171349082.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6768219 >being this haunted

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:48:59 2015 No.6768229 File: 338 KB, 1237x867, 1431825593955.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6768219 >Objectivism >Alpha

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:50:13 2015 No.6768238 >>6768226 Read my post again. You're obviously illiterate. Most Philosophers don't capitalize every single Technical Term they Use, not in English and not for several centuries now.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:51:44 2015 No.6768242

>>6768238
You haven't amounted a single Argument for why your Morals are so important that Humanity needs to bend to your whim Collectively, to dispel Climate Change.
>Most Philosophers don't capitalize every single Technical Term they Use, not in English and not for several centuries now.
Are you an Analytic, Anglo Meme Master?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:52:03 2015 No.6768244 >>6768219 >I need to abide by the alph/beta dichotomy to justify my belief that objectivism is correct

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:55:30 2015 No.6768251

>>6768063
>>6768075
>>6768063
Global Warming isn't happening. There has been no warming in the last 20 years and the impact of the previous 20 years of warming has been oberblown, neglecting other causes.

Even in the apocalypse rhetoric, "Climate Change", a much more fluid notion, has replaced the infamous "Global Warming".

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 06:57:18 2015 No.6768254

>>6768242
>Someone initially mentioned climate change in relation to economic analysis, not in relation to combating the phenomenon democratically.
You're right, I haven't put forward an argument in favor of my morals because my claims are about your misunderstanding of someone else's claim about the uses that environmental science's tools can be put towards in economic analysis, and not about an ethical or moral obligation to fight climate change.
>Meme Master?
I appreciate the analytic method. Philosophy isn't just about overturning idols and exorcising spooks.
If anything, you're the meme master. Are you an objectivist?

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:00:25 2015 No.6768256

>>6768254
>our misunderstanding of someone else's claim about the uses that environmental science's tools can be put towards in economic analysis
No, their claim was that because of what we can 'deduce' from Scientific 'facts' we can see that we are Duty bound to act against Climate Change Collectively.
I appreciate the analytic method. Philosophy isn't just about overturning idols and exorcising spooks.
Ha!
>Are you an objectivist?
Self applied Labels are Dogma.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:09:50 2015 No.6768271 File: 68 KB, 699x699, 1434532138595.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6768256 >Self applied Labels are Dogma. Do you generally approve of Ayn Rand's philosophy?

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:11:23 2015 No.6768274

ITT : confirmation that Rand is an amazing pleb filter.

I'm triggered by how some /lit/izens can't go above Ayn Rand but by screaming "you're an asshole" in a more or less refined way.

>>6767957
Rand was against anarchists, and yet her political views can't grasp the friend or foe distinction and the problem of the occupation and organisation of land.
>Her esthetic theories are underwhelming too.
>A bit heavy on the fedora scale.
>Her following quickly became a cult.
>Her conception of architecture, btfo by Le Corbusier

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:12:58 2015 No.6768279

>>6768271
I approve of Individualist Egoism, so I do in parts. I identify more with the Strong Business Owner than the Poor, Weak Worker. The Business Owner does not let Money rule him, he rules it. The true sign of a Great Man is how much He is Controlled, the Greater the Man, the less Control he has over Him and the more He exerts over Others.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:13:25 2015 No.6768283
File: 46 KB, 520x441, cdcsmoking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6768203

You don't have any academic sources that say cigarettes and other stimulant drugs improve concentration. So don't lecture me about anecdotes. It's simply a medical, scientific, fact that cigarettes, cocaine, amphetamines etc are very bad for the health. Next time you buy cigarettes look at the warning labels - they're not bullshitting. These drugs are dangerous, unhealthy and addictive, and whatever nebulous "benefits" they offer are negated by their toll on the body.

Grow up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:16:59 2015 No.6768293 File: 26 KB, 345x504, 1427158856256.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6768279 >Subjugating yourself to concepts like the "Great Man" and the "need" to exert control over others. Why do you hold spooks above your own interests?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:17:00 2015 No.6768294 >>6768279 I think that overall we're on the same page; we probably have identical objections to Marxism.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:20:00 2015 No.6768304

>>6768293
I can see that you totally misunderstood Stirner. Stirner does not support the Total Abolition of Spooks, He supports the Recognition of Spooks, but supports the utilisation of them to fulfil the Ego in pursuit of Self desires.
>>6768294
I hope so. I see Marxism as a Collectivist Slave Morality with no firm Basis for its underpinning assumptions. Like Science it is built on Sand.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:23:28 2015 No.6768314

>>6768304
>I can see that you totally misunderstood Stirner. Stirner does not support the Total Abolition of Spooks, He supports the Recognition of Spooks, but supports the utilisation of them to fulfil the Ego in pursuit of Self desires.

Hardly I never said that spooks are inherently wrong or that you should discard them just because they are spooks. What I criticized was how you hold these interests above you own which is demonstrated by your notion of the great man.

>but supports the utilisation of them to fulfil the Ego in pursuit of Self desires.

Yep which is something you just cant do when you cling to fixed ideas, holding spooks above yourself.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:42:56 2015 No.6768352

>>6768314
>What I criticized was how you hold these interests above you own which is demonstrated by your notion of the great man.
It is not at all. The Great Man is the personification of the fulfilment of the Ego, Great Men are those who lifted themselves above Morality and Collectivism. I would sooner call Myself a Nietzschean than a Stirnerist.
>Yep which is something you just cant do when you cling to fixed ideas
That is not true, One requires Goals, otherwise One becomes blinded by Ideology. By setting the Ideal of a Man, the Overman, One clears, from the Path of Life, the Fog of Ideology.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:47:20 2015 No.6768363

>>6768352
If you think you need something beyond yourself to fullfill your ego chances are you are serving its interests and not your own.

> Fog of Ideology.

Notions of control and an ideal man represent a far greater fog of ideology than the thought of Stirner.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:50:02 2015 No.6768367

>>6768363
>If you think you need something beyond yourself to fullfill your ego chances are you are serving its interests and not your own.
Ah, but can the Ideal not be set by the Ego, no? The Pursuit of Overmanhood is Rationally Egoistic in of Itself.
>Notions of control and an ideal man represent a far greater fog of ideology than the thought of Stirner.
No, they are the Absence of Ideology, the Sun shining through the Fog.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:51:09 2015 No.6768370 >>6768367 >Pursing an 'Ideal' You call yourself a Nietzschean?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:53:59 2015 No.6768374 >>6768370 No, I Said I am closer to a Nietzschean than a Stirnerist. Nietzsche had no problems with Ideals, though, you probably didn't even understand Him.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:56:30 2015 No.6768380 >>6768079 Yoga would outweight smoking both in health and psychological benefits - promoting smoking over the million of alternative methods that give the same benefits without the health detriments is a simple but clear failure on her part.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:58:23 2015 No.6768385 >>6768374 Explain your whole understanding of Nietzsche. Now it's on you to show that you actually get him.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:59:26 2015 No.6768387

>>6768367
>Ah, but can the Ideal not be set by the Ego, no? The Pursuit of Overmanhood is Rationally Egoistic in of Itself.

Of course but the fact that it is couched so strictly in another terms and definitions tends to suggest otherwise.

>No, they are the Absence of Ideology, the Sun shining through the Fog.

Just because I call a dog a duck does not mean that it will quack. There is nothing in the terms you described above that suggest it would be an absence of ideology. The strictly defined ideals that are external to yourself certainly do not indicate an absence

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 07:59:32 2015 No.6768388 >>6768380 He's probably being paid by a cigarette company. >Standing up for the brown Jew >2015

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:00:01 2015 No.6768389

>>6768075
>I'm telling you that the environment is unimportant to the Self, concerning yourself with it is nothing more than Life Denying.

Maintaining the environment is essential to life itself. Your self is dependent on society, which is dependent on the biosphere.

>I'm telling you that the environment is unimportant to the Self, concerning yourself with it is nothing more than Life Denying. When you allow your Self to be ruled by contingent Externalities you hand over your own Autonomy to the faceless abyss left in the absence of God.

Your self quite simply IS ruled by these things. You have no autonomy in matters of things this high above your scale.

>>6768251
>There has been no warming in the last 20 years

There has been a consistent warming trend that has continued since the late 90s. The "noughties" (I hate that word) were the hottest decade on record.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-basic.htm

>Even in the apocalypse rhetoric, "Climate Change", a much more fluid notion, has replaced the infamous "Global Warming".

They're virtually synonyms, dude. Global warming denial is the creationism of geology. The fact that you faggots whine about being "persecuted" in the scientific community instead of presenting decent peer reviewed opposing evidence is a big red flag that you're on the same level as alt medicine hippies and every other bullshit peddler.

>>6768095
Ayn Rand isn't a philosopher, just a plagiarist with a cult of personality.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:00:34 2015 No.6768390 >>6768367 You're defending Nietzsche's ideas with Plato's terminology, which doesn't make sense at all

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:04:38 2015 No.6768399

>>6768385
Just read the Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche, I co-authored it.
>>6768387
>Of course but the fact that it is couched so strictly in another terms and definitions tends to suggest otherwise.
Are you saying that, in the absence of Ideology, the Ego cannot set its Own Ideal? You are laughably naive when it comes to Theory.
>There is nothing in the terms you described above that suggest it would be an absence of ideology
I hope you realise I am Speaking of Ideology in the Althusserian sense.
>>6768389
>Maintaining the environment is essential to life itself. Your self is dependent on society, which is dependent on the biosphere.
That is Life Denying, Self imposed Totalitarianism. Your Life is Yours, You need not limit the Ego with Imaginary concepts such as the necessity for Life to inhabit the world.
>Your self quite simply IS ruled by these things. You have no autonomy in matters of things this high above your scale.
A Spook is all you speak.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:05:38 2015 No.6768401 >>6768390 You obviously Understand not Nietzsche nor Plato.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:07:10 2015 No.6768405 File: 993 KB, 250x250, 1435086085739.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6768399 >Just read the Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche, I co-authored it.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:08:50 2015 No.6768407

>>6768399
>Are you saying that, in the absence of Ideology, the Ego cannot set its Own Ideal? You are laughably naive when it comes to Theory.

Nope just that the way you define/describe your ideal gives reason to belived that its a fixed idea that has not come from the ego.

>I hope you realise I am Speaking of Ideology in the Althusserian sense.

It wasnt clear, a fact made a bit harder by your haphazard use of capitalization

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:10:18 2015 No.6768413

>>6768407
>Nope just that the way you define/describe your ideal gives reason to belived that its a fixed idea that has not come from the ego.
It is a Fixed Ideal, a Perfectly placed Ideal. Placed strictly in the absence of Ideology and the fulfilment of the Ego.
>It wasnt clear, a fact made a bit harder by your haphazard use of capitalization
Do you not know the popular Philosophy of 20th Century France?

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:10:32 2015 No.6768415

>>6768399
>That is Life Denying

It's the purest affirmation of life there is.

>Self imposed Totalitarianism.

An oxymoron if there ever was one. This literally means "stop liking things I don't like, you're not free!"

>Your Life is Yours

Property is a spook. In reality, there are many natural and social forces that exert influence and brute coercion over your bodily autonomy.

>You need not limit the Ego with Imaginary concepts such as the necessity for Life to inhabit the world.

It's not "necessary", but it's what most people want, and the many are stronger in power than the few. The continued existence of human society and a diverse biosphere is pleasurable to me, I don't need to justify these preferences to force them onto you if enough people agree with me, especially powerful people.

>A Spook is all you speak.

Nothing is less of a spook than power.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:11:32 2015 No.6768418 >>6767957 Hottest gargolye ever.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:15:13 2015 No.6768428

>>6768413
>It is a Fixed Ideal, a Perfectly placed Ideal.

Then it sense it seems identical to Christianity, Humanism and all those other haunted constructs.

Placed strictly in the absence of Ideology and the fulfilment of the Ego.

How does what you say represent this absence in the Althusserian sense.

>Do you not know the popular Philosophy of 20th Century France?

I do not, can you explain its relevance to you capitalizing the word speaking in >>6768399?

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:17:09 2015 No.6768433

>>6768415
>It's the purest affirmation of life there is.
No, it is slavery. It is Living Your Life for something else rather than for Yourself.
>An oxymoron if there ever was one. This literally means "stop liking things I don't like, you're not free!"
No, it means you are, due to your Judeo-Christian Morals, grovelling to a faceless abyss and spending your life in subservience to a non-sentient entity.
>Property is a spook.
Property is power, the Ego is property of the Self.
>It's not "necessary", but it's what most people want, and the many are stronger in power than the few. The continued existence of human society and a diverse biosphere is pleasurable to me, I don't need to justify these preferences to force them onto you if enough people agree with me, especially powerful people.
Simply a Weak Utilitarianism.
>Nothing is less of a spook than power.
Power in numbers is a Slave Morality Spook.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:21:19 2015 No.6768442

>>6768428
>Then it sense it seems identical to Christianity, Humanism and all those other haunted constructs.
No, as those value the Ideal of the Slave, not the Individual.
>How does what you say represent this absence in the Althusserian sense.
Because the Ideal is breaking free from the subconsciously imposed Rules of the Culture to Identification only with the Self.
>I do not
I recommend you start with Hegel and Nietzsche for background then read the Existentialists, the Structuralists, the Post-Structuralists and the Feminists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:22:00 2015 No.6768443 >>6768442 The individual-collective dichotomy is much more Randian than Nietzschean.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:24:13 2015 No.6768450 >>6768443 It is not a Dichotomy, but a Spectrum.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:25:31 2015 No.6768453 >>6768450 So why do you have such a knee-jerk objectivist reaction to anything that acknowledges that groups aren't always purely negative entities?

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:26:04 2015 No.6768456

>>6768442
>No, as those value the Ideal of the Slave, not the Individual.

If the ideal of the slave brings greater fulfillment of desire than alternatives why should it be looked down upon?

>Because the Ideal is breaking free from the subconsciously imposed Rules of the Culture to Identification only with the Self.

But cannot those ideals associatied with master morality constitute rules of culture?

>I recommend you start with Hegel and Nietzsche for background then read the Existentialists, the Structuralists, the Post-Structuralists and the Feminists.

That seems a tad excessive to merely understand why you capitalized the word speaking.

On an unrelated note what are your thoughts on Schopenhauer and Wittgenstien?

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:32:18 2015 No.6768469

>>6768453
Because they are Life Denying, Nihilistic entities that only destroy the Greater Individual.
>>6768456
>If the ideal of the slave brings greater fulfillment of desire than alternatives why should it be looked down upon?
Do you seriously not Know the Failings of Utilitarianism?
>But cannot those ideals associatied with master morality constitute rules of culture?
No, they are Opposed to Ideology, the Culture is not that of an Individual, Culture is formed by the Collective.
>On an unrelated note what are your thoughts on Schopenhauer and Wittgenstien?
I can see the Merit in his Will, but not in the Bitter Tripe he spewed due to his jealousy of Hegel. Wittgenstein was an autistic, blind Analytic who could never appreciate Theory of Culture, Genealogy or Psychoanalysis no matter how much he tried.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:35:51 2015 No.6768475

>>6768389
Are you sincerely linking to the "ocean are keeping the heat" theory? This is the creationism of geology.

Anyway it won't matter long since you will die from baddies like me consuming power and finding ways to circumvent your precious special taxes.

Feels great bringing Armageddon.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:38:09 2015 No.6768479

>>6768469
>Do you seriously not Know the Failings of Utilitarianism?

I wasn't referring to the fulfillment of desire of the collective but of the individual which is quite against utilitarianism.

>I can see the Merit in his Will

He covers a fair bit in those two books which areas in particular hold merit?

>Wittgenstein was an autistic, blind Analytic who could never appreciate Theory of Culture, Genealogy or Psychoanalysis no matter how much he tried.

Is there anything to be gained from reading his work?

Another tangent any thoughts on aquinas and aristotle?

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:46:43 2015 No.6768493

>>6768479
>I wasn't referring to the fulfillment of desire of the collective but of the individual which is quite against utilitarianism
Uh, no, it is a form of Utilitarianism.
>He covers a fair bit in those two books which areas in particular hold merit?
His criticism of those who Claim that simply controlling their Will is Freedom. This blends nicely with the Idea of Attainment of Will.
>Is there anything to be gained from reading his work?
No.
>Another tangent any thoughts on aquinas and aristotle?
Total butchers. One is a Life Denying Christian slave, desperately twisting what he knows into a defence of Ideology while Aristotle systematically set back Western Thought For 2000 years.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 08:55:05 2015 No.6768504
File: 600 KB, 700x6826, th.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6768493
>Uh, no, it is a form of Utilitarianism.

So any ideology that maximises self pleasure is a form of utilitarainism?

>His criticism of those who Claim that simply controlling their Will is Freedom. This blends nicely with the Idea of Attainment of Will.

Do you agree with Schopenhauers metaphysics?

>Total butchers. One is a Life Denying Christian slave, desperately twisting what he knows into a defence of Ideology while Aristotle systematically set back Western Thought For 2000 years.

Are there any good works on this subject? which writers or essays caused you to form this opinion?

How do you deal with metaphysical arguments like pic related. I have a hard time distinguishing between genuine reasoning and word games/sophistry.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 09:02:53 2015 No.6768516 >>6768493 >Aristotle systematically set back Western Thought For 2000 years No one but John Green and people obsessed with spooks like 'progress' takes this argument seriously in 2015

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 09:13:36 2015 No.6768544

>>6768504
>So any ideology that maximises self pleasure is a form of utilitarainism?
Yes, as Pleasure is bunk.
>Do you agree with Schopenhauers metaphysics?
No, but they are well argued.
>Are there any good works on this subject? which writers or essays caused you to form this opinion?
Robert Anton Wilson is a good start.
>How do you deal with metaphysical arguments like pic related. I have a hard time distinguishing between genuine reasoning and word games/sophistry.
He makes too many Assumptions and applies Rules to that which he doesn't Understand.
>>6768516
Only Analytic Scientismos sheep like Aristotle.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 09:18:40 2015 No.6768556 >>6768095 Timothy Leary.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 09:19:31 2015 No.6768560 >>6768544 >Only Analytic Scientismos sheep like Aristotle The coauthor of the Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche has to resort to ad hominem attacks on people who aren't Aristotle to make a point about Aristotle's philosophy? I'm quite surprised by this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 09:21:23 2015 No.6768563 >>6768560 Aristotle's Philosophy is Life Denying, Totalitarian and Presumptuous. It started the Cancer of Knowledge known as Science and has done nothing but Decay Man.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 09:23:37 2015 No.6768569

>>6768563
That's weird because most scholarship attributes Aristotle with the effective invention of libertarian politics while accusing Plato if totalitarianism. Not even just analytic philosophers, libertarians, individualists, and egoists acknowledge this. It's immanent in their politics. You're objecting to Catholic uses of Aristotle's system, not Aristotle himself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 09:29:19 2015 No.6768581 >>6768569 Science is Totalitarian, you Last Man. I don't care what Libertarians think, Collectivism is a Scourge.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 09:30:38 2015 No.6768586 >>6768544 >Robert Anton Wilson is a good start. You dont mean the Illuminatas and promethius rising author do you?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 09:32:08 2015 No.6768594 Who would have thought a thread about Ayn Rand would be the most intellectual thread on /lit/...

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 09:32:10 2015 No.6768595 >>6768581 >Science is Totalitarian What's wrong with totalitarianism, from a Nietzschean perspective? It isn't necessarily collectivist. Can't a 'great man' use the state to further his own greatness?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 09:33:43 2015 No.6768601 >>6768586 That's Him. Read His Essays, they are sound. >>6768595 You idiot. It is Totalitarian in the Sense that it claims to Be the only source of Knowledge.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 09:37:17 2015 No.6768608

>>6768601
>It is Totalitarian in the Sense that it claims to Be the only source of Knowledge.
I don't really think that's true. Science itself can't make any claims, and the people it speaks through usually acknowledge that it's only one way of knowing about the world. The only people who don't acknowledge that kind of thing are either posing epistemological obstacles on purpose or idiotic. I think you're setting up a strawman.
Define 'totalitarian' and define 'science,' please; you've been using the terms rather broadly.
>inb4 "lel >definitions" or "lel >analytic"

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 09:44:06 2015 No.6768629 >>6768608 Science as in the Scientific Method and Totalitarian as in all encompassing.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 09:47:02 2015 No.6768639

>>6768629
Explain to me the scientific method. It doesn't claim to be all-encompassing, it draws explicit boundaries between what it knows and what it doesn't know, as well as what it can and can't do.
A large part of the purpose of analytic philosophy is criticizing the scientific method and its results. By writing off that entire side of an artificial divide that barely existed in the first place and is at this point nothing but a meme on /lit/, you're doing your own position (the scientific method is all encompassing) a great disservice.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 09:57:28 2015 No.6768661

>>6768639
>Explain to me the scientific method.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=The+scientific+method
>It doesn't claim to be all-encompassing, it draws explicit boundaries between what it knows and what it doesn't know, as well as what it can and can't do.
It is used as an all encompassing Ideology when in reality it is NOT Objective, NOT Human and Not Useful. It can only say what happened when they performed Experiments, not what will Actually happen, see the Problem of Induction. Science is Wrong on Everything.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:01:34 2015 No.6768669

>>6768661
>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=The+scientific+method
Your reluctance to offer your own explanation seems to indicate a lack of comprehension.
>It is used as an all encompassing Ideology when in reality it is NOT Objective, NOT Human and Not Useful
So your issue is with an ideology and not with the method itself? Why are you complaining about the method, then?
>It can only say what happened when they performed Experiments, not what will Actually happen, see the Problem of Induction
Like I said, analytic philosophy, which you write off, acknowledges this both implicitly and explicitly. Hume is an analytic saint.
>Science is Wrong on Everything.
Then how are we posting on a website that only exists because science made personal computers and the Internet a reality? This claim seems really overblown.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:08:14 2015 No.6768687

>>6768669
>Your reluctance to offer your own explanation seems to indicate a lack of comprehension.
Why should I have to explain a rudimentary concept we both understand?
>So your issue is with an ideology and not with the method itself? Why are you complaining about the method, then?
My issue is that the Method is Totalitarian and that it reduces the Human to the Inhuman.
>Like I said, analytic philosophy, which you write off, acknowledges this both implicitly and explicitly. Hume is an analytic saint.
Hume totally rejected Science.
>Then how are we posting on a website that only exists because science made personal computers and the Internet a reality? This claim seems really overblown.
The Self of an Other made that possible, not Science.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:13:44 2015 No.6768705

>>6768687
>Why should I have to explain a rudimentary concept we both understand?
For the sake of clarity, it makes sense for us to try to talk about the same thing.
>My issue is that the Method is Totalitarian and that it reduces the Human to the Inhuman.
This is why I want you to explain your understanding of the method more. I don't know what your premises are; how did you come to this conclusion? I literally want you to walk me through your reasoning.
>Hume totally rejected Science.
No, not really. Source, please?
>The Self of an Other made that possible, not Science.
But that self used the scientific method to do so. You can check pretty much any source you want, this is an established and unarguable historical fact. Computers wouldn't be possible without the scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:19:28 2015 No.6768719 File: 186 KB, 1177x437, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6768705 Deluded Ideologue. I needn't argue with you. You can have your Autistic Science, I will have Real Human Feeling.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:20:42 2015 No.6768721 >>6768719 Cool, you've resorted to pure memes. I guess that means I win.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:26:35 2015 No.6768735 >>6768721 No, it Means you have a different Opinion and I wish not to Convince you of your wrongdoing. If you can't see past the obvious failure of Science then I see no Point in in engaging in a Discourse with you.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:31:18 2015 No.6768740

>>6768735
>the obvious failure of Science
The scientific method does exactly what it claims to and nothing more. You're a memer. Enjoy your continentalism, it's obvious that you define yourself in contradistinction against analytic philosophy, which you see for some unsubstantial reason as a tool of scientism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:33:31 2015 No.6768742 >>6768740 >The scientific method does exactly what it claims to No, as it does not view anything objectively.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:47:06 2015 No.6768759 >>6768742 I really don't think you understand how 'science,' as you broadly understand it, actually works or what its aims are. If you'd explain your understanding more, I might change my mind and we might be able to come to something like an agreement.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:47:22 2015 No.6768760 >>6767957 She looks like a man

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:47:40 2015 No.6768762

>>6768735
>>6768719
>>6768687
>>6768661
>>6768629
>>6768601
>>6768581
>>6768563
>>6768544
>>6768493
>>6768469
>>6768442
>>6768433
>>6768413
>>6768399

Just stopping by to say that this person sounds incredibly autistic. Reminds me of looking at a comments section and seeing that weird internet archetype of a profile picture of a 50 year old woman typing things like "the WRITER of this article is a FIEND who doesn't understand basic PRINCIPLES of knowledge. I don't waste my TIME with such PHILISTINES because I have UNDERSTANDING and self-respect."

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:48:00 2015 No.6768763 >>6767957 She didn't know that she knew nothing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:52:30 2015 No.6768769 >>6768759 No, I don't need to Justify myself. >>6768762 Nice one, Bertrand. Go play with you Trains now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:53:20 2015 No.6768771 >>6768769 >No, I don't need to Justify myself. I guess you're fine with me judging you to be a philistine then, Bernd.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:53:24 2015 No.6768772
File: 599 KB, 548x900, 1421284987614.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Constitutional Anarchocapitalism only works if everyone is honest in their dealings.

Is everyone honest in their dealings?

>No?

Then there is your flaw.

Also, objectivity as a characteristic of a fiat marketplace. LOL.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:54:37 2015 No.6768774 >>6768771 Scientists are Philistines. I am well read in Philosophy and The Humanities.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:54:52 2015 No.6768775 >>6768772 Nice pic

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:56:40 2015 No.6768779 >>6768774 That doesn't mean you aren't a philistine. And I'm not claiming scientists aren't philistines. You seem to be really hung up on quite a few abstractions.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:57:57 2015 No.6768780 >>6768774 >>6768779 Will you guys stop saying the word 'philistine'? You're making my penis go soft & I'm trying to masturbate.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 10:59:48 2015 No.6768782 >>6768779 I am not a Philistine, My posts prove that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 11:04:28 2015 No.6768794 >>6768782 They pretty much prove the opposite. If you're not a philistine, you're at least an obscurantist and a contrarian. Neither is much better than a philistine.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 11:09:17 2015 No.6768810 >>6768794 >you're at least an obscurantist and a contrarian. Such is the criticism from an Analytic on what he does not Understand.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 11:09:17 2015 No.6768811 >>6768782 >not a philistine >last 7 hours spent arguing on the internet I've got some bad news for ya, Phil.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 11:10:18 2015 No.6768818 >>6768811 Yes, engaging in Intellectual Discussion makes One a Philistine. Solid Reasoning right there.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 11:16:48 2015 No.6768827

>>6768810
You're one to talk about not understanding.
>>6768818
From engaging in a particular discourse on a basic level, it does not follow that one is knowledgable about that discourse. You've continuously failed to demonstrate anything resembling an ability to argue. When asked to back up a point, you can only insult your opponent; calling someone an analytic isn't even an insult, and dismissing the scientific method while refusing to explain your understanding of it is strong evidence of your stupidity.
These aren't ad hominem statements; at this point, I just mean these things as insults. You can't be reasoned with. You're probably a troll. 7/10.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 11:21:20 2015 No.6768840 >>6768818 Suggest a brief reading list to help me shed my slave mentality and achieve apotheosis.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 11:33:42 2015 No.6768879 >>6768840 Stop reading and start conquering.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 11:37:41 2015 No.6768895 >>6768879 Nice reading list. What does the act of conquest as such have to do with intellectualism as such?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 11:52:15 2015 No.6768939 >>6768895 Power is knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 11:54:53 2015 No.6768949 >>6768939 So the most powerful man on earth is necessarily an intellectual? What if he's illiterate and has no interest in learning?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 11:56:59 2015 No.6768957 >>6768949 He can do whatever he wants.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 11:58:39 2015 No.6768962 >>6768957 Yeah, but is he an intellectual?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 12:04:12 2015 No.6768989 >>6767957 >jewish nose >doesn't smile >masculine face >nasty hair >couldn't even write a sentence worth reading if her life depended on it Would not bang.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 12:13:43 2015 No.6769025 >>6768962 If he wants

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 12:19:41 2015 No.6769047

>>6769025
But he doesn't, in this hypothetical scenario. Your claim that power is knowledge seems to be one that you admit is accidental, and not essential, to the nature of power; otherwise, you wouldn't claim that it's a matter of his wanting to be an intellectual, rather than a matter of his simply being one. It also seems like knowledge is an accidental and not essential element of power.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 12:22:24 2015 No.6769054 >>6769047 Absolute Power allows for absolutely anything. That is the Ego at Will.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 12:25:35 2015 No.6769065 >>6769054 OK, but is this man an intellectual? It's a simple question, can you give me a yes or no answer? >That is the Ego at Will. You haven't used this term before, could you explain the concept a little?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 12:30:54 2015 No.6769083 >>6769065 If he so wishes he is an Intellectual. The Ego at Will is The Ego achieving Total Dominance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 12:31:11 2015 No.6769084 >>6768687 >rudimentary concept It's not rudimentary. At the very least one should provide an operational definition.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 12:34:08 2015 No.6769098

>>6769083
>If he so wishes he is an Intellectual.
The answer is no, then.
>The Ego at Will is The Ego achieving Total Dominance.
Could you expand on this a little more? Why do you now refer to the 'will' as being the thing or state that the ego has to be 'at' in order to 'achieve' 'Total Dominance?' Total dominance of what? Everything that exists? Surely, only a Hegelian Absolute Ego could actually attain this state, and I doubt you buy into Hegelianism that much.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 12:37:16 2015 No.6769107 >>6769098 The End Game of the Ideal Man is to achieve Dominion over all things. To assume the position of God.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 12:38:22 2015 No.6769110 >>6769107 >The End Game of the Ideal Man is to achieve Dominion over all things. What does this mean, in practical terms? Doesn't that seem a bit life-denying and totalitarian? >To assume the position of God. This sounds like literal insanity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 12:45:56 2015 No.6769134 >>6769107 Sounds like busy work. You should focus on your studies and make friends for now. Those might take to high places when you are big. But it's summer, so I get you want to chill with your internet pals, and that's OK.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 13:08:07 2015 No.6769221 >>6769110 No, the Will to Power is Life Affirming. Read Nietzsche.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 14:27:20 2015 No.6769503

>>6768433
>No, it is slavery. It is Living Your Life for something else rather than for Yourself.

You're the only one making imperatives here, bucko. It's a very convoluted way of saying "stop liking what I don't like."

>No, it means you are, due to your Judeo-Christian Morals, grovelling to a faceless abyss and spending your life in subservience to a non-sentient entity.

If I aim to preserve the condition of my car, am I grovelling in subservience to it?

>Property is power, the Ego is property of the Self.

Property is power, and other people have enormous power over you. You can try to magic it away with your mind all you want; the state doesn't tremble at your egoist worldview.

>Simply a Weak Utilitarianism.

Hardly, it's explicitly anti-human.

>Power in numbers is a Slave Morality Spook.

Hardly, or else collectives wouldn't be able to coerce individuals. I am willingly in line with this system because it suits me, you protest because it's not in your preferences, but I hardly see the movement getting weaker and things get more desperate. To be overtly selfish as an "omega male" is only possible in an environment of relative prosperity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 14:32:05 2015 No.6769527 Racist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 14:34:12 2015 No.6769536 She and all her disciples are horribly cruel. Possibly even directly Satanic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 15:52:38 2015 No.6769831 >>6769221 Life-affirming actions can be signs of insanity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 15:53:31 2015 No.6769833 >>6769831 >if you don't agree with me you must be mentally ill hello Scholmo

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 15:55:12 2015 No.6769843 >>6769833 I'm Catholic, actually.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 15:57:27 2015 No.6769849

>>6769843
>>6769833
Besides, my initial claim was that for a human being, aiming to
>To assume the position of God
is probably a sign of insanity, or at least some kind of mental imbalance. It certainly doesn't seem like a healthy goal.
And you still haven't answered my questions from >>6769098 satisfactorily.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 16:06:47 2015 No.6769880

>>6768283
>You don't have any academic sources that say cigarettes and other stimulant drugs improve concentration. So don't lecture me about anecdotes. It's simply a medical, scientific, fact that cigarettes, cocaine, amphetamines etc are very bad for the health. Next time you buy cigarettes look at the warning labels - they're not bullshitting. These drugs are dangerous, unhealthy and addictive, and whatever nebulous "benefits" they offer are negated by their toll on the body.

lol

>You don't have any academic sources that say stimulant drugs such as ADDERALL and DEXEDRINE improve concentration.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 16:08:29 2015 No.6769885 >>6769880 Post some sources, then

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 16:11:33 2015 No.6769899 >>6769885 im not evenm that guy you fucking retard,but u cant seriously be saying adderall/dex doesnt temporarily enhance your cognitive capability

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 16:13:58 2015 No.6769903 >>6769885 sure you dumb fucking idiot http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3489818/ if you were oblivious to this god damn you must be fucking retarded

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 16:21:26 2015 No.6769931 >>6769903 >>6769899 Way to get mad

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 18:13:53 2015 No.6770430 >>6769899 Define 'cognitive capacity'

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 18:17:12 2015 No.6770445 >>6768079 >smoking feels gud so it is gud How are people this stupid?

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 18:23:05 2015 No.6770464

>>6770445
strawmanning his point invalidates your own, he's being reasonable. His point simply runs contrary to the anti-smoking propaganda maschine

smoking tobacco absolutely does things in the brain that can be useful. It can stave off hunger and keep the mind sharp when it otherwise might dull. Whether or not its advantages outweigh its costs is a difficult calculus that changes in each individual instance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 18:26:30 2015 No.6770476 >>6770464 Do you have data to back up your claims? Do you think those very minor benefits (tobacco costs more than rice and other stimulants are less dangerous) make up for the risks of tobacco, which include stroke, blindness, death, etc.?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 18:33:00 2015 No.6770496 >>6768171 >Man-ness Dude Existence precedes essence Idiot

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 18:33:41 2015 No.6770503

>>6770476
you're assuming everyone has access to/knowledge of other stimulants, among other assumptions.

to say that tobacco is 100% across the board net negative every time no matter what the context is pretty fucking absurd mate.

a hunter drinks a dilute concoction of nicotiana rustica once in the bush in order to aid his hunt and provide for his tribe, which of late have gone hungry. The hunt is a success thanks in part to the CNS stimulation of the herb. He suffers no ill health effects and never uses the herb again.

there's a thought experiment example

satisfied?

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 18:34:55 2015 No.6770508

>>6768172
>in the end I get the job, I get the position, I get the career and I am ultimately happire and more successful than you
Nice standard. Typical STEMfag, disregarding everything but money and equating eudaimonia with employment and financial success.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 18:36:12 2015 No.6770510 >>6767957 Literally everything she did was garbage. She's so easy to destroy and it's been done so many times that I won't even bother.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 18:37:16 2015 No.6770514 >>6770503 >to say that tobacco is 100% across the board net negative every time no matter what the context is pretty fucking absurd mate. Not as absurd as claiming that it's never negative, which seems to be what you're doing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 18:38:38 2015 No.6770516 >>6770514 I'm a different dude, dude. >>6770464 was my first post ITT at the end of it I said: "Whether or not its advantages outweigh its costs is a difficult calculus that changes in each individual instance."

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 18:42:54 2015 No.6770529 File: 150 KB, 245x320, stirner3.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6767957 Superior

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 18:48:28 2015 No.6770549 >free will exists top jej

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 18:53:20 2015 No.6770569 >>6767957 Nietzsche fanfiction written for used car salesmen.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 18:53:55 2015 No.6770573

She's kind of backwards in her knowledge of psychology to me. The data has shown that kindness, compassion, and charity lead to happiness better than having a lot of money. There are poor people who've had fantastic, immensely happy lives because of their giving personalities and their connection to other people, and there have been people who have committed suicide even though they were rich, and kept everything they had for themselves.

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 20:14:42 2015 No.6770908

>>6767957
>Fanfiction tier writing
>depth of a 15 year old
>Only insight comes from 1920s Russia bending her over and fucking her
>Generally just edgy and entitled
>"Hurr sweat of my brow don't owe anything to anyone else"
>Collected Social Security

Like really just watch interviews of her or read some of her more personal writings, she just comes off as clearly retarded and so dead set on this philosophy 101 idea that she can't understand how stupid it sounds when you take a step back.

Objectivism is basically the philosophy of jamming your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when someone tells you the town is on fire.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 20:19:28 2015 No.6770918 >>6770529 That means so little. I hope he's better than John green too.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 20:22:53 2015 No.6770931 >>6769880 Why not just exercise, eat healthy food, and get more sleep if you want concentration rather than running the risk of getting addicted to amphetamines?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 20:27:26 2015 No.6770952 >>6770931 Because, anon! >muh stimulants >muh concentration >muh nutrition

Anonymous Thu Jul 2 20:55:25 2015 No.6771071

>>6768125
Look at it this way: when you are all on the same lifeboat, you best not be poking holes in the raft. Animals and plants are important because they help stabilize the planet's O2 content so that we can, among other things, breathe and eat. If we destabilize the environment which plants and animals live in the the point where they cannot or will not adapt, then the plants and animals die. Do this enough and there will be no more plants or animals left to restabilize the environment.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 21:03:46 2015 No.6771099 >>6770931 For the same reasons people take shortcuts through dangerous neighborhoods. Time can be a factor, the alternative to not using can be worse.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 21:09:17 2015 No.6771116 >>6771099 But what about cost?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 22:05:36 2015 No.6771321 >>6771071 I'll Do what I Want.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 2 22:07:10 2015 No.6771327 File: 589 KB, 742x772, 1434988058076.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6771321

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