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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 72 KB, 288x362, rand3.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
929272 No.929272 [Reply] [Original]

Disregarding her book, what is wrong with Rand's philosophy of objectivity?

>> No.929278

it's basically another name for existentialism.

>> No.929277

A lot. More than can be explain in a post on 4chan, anyway. So do your own research you cunt.

>> No.929283

>>929272
Everything

>> No.929282

It's atheistic

>> No.929279

nothing. people can never logically refute the philosophy, they just attack the book

>> No.929281

>>929272
leave the philosophy to the boys, sweetheart

now put this bag over your head and take your top off

>> No.929288

It's associated with economic conservatism, which is at odds with liberal intellectual institutions.

>> No.929290

It basically says, "hey look over there at objectivity, now look back, everything I support is now A-OK, if you disagree then you're a Liberal know-it-all who doesn't understand mahz philosophy of objectivity."

>> No.929291

>>929272

OP, most people haven't even read the book and if they did they just didn't understand the complexity and comprehensiveness of her thoughts.

>> No.929301

>people should work for their own profit only
>science and art above all. education lauded
>free market

I don't see a problem.

>> No.929303

Stop it, please. No one likes these threads, not even the ones who continue to comment.

>> No.929307

Ayn Rand was a truculent, domineering cult-leader, whose Objectivist pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents with heroic fiction about righteous capitalists.

>> No.929306

>>929272
Nothing really. People just have a hard-on for discrediting her, listing absolutely no proof. It's sort of like an "educated" tradition to insult hard work and the existence of clear perspective.

People work hard and are paid for their efforts. They build a system competitively offering their services. Elitist fags rage hardcore because they produce nothing.

>> No.929308

>>929291

Ayn Rand was a genius. She doesn't need to explain shit, anyone who doesn't see that she is correct is an obtuse moron, nuff said.

>> No.929313

>>929307

Exactly. We've already seen the path/trend unfettered capitalism follows. It will tear the society apart or it will morph itself into a super state capitalist monstrocity on behalf of the capitalists.

>> No.929315

>>929272
if I'm gonna listen to a female philosopher, she better be hot as hell

not some huge-nosed jewess

>> No.929316

>>929306

Ayn Rand sat in a chair and didn't do field research of any kind. She werkt reel hared!

>> No.929317

Objectivism is a "popular" philosophy, which originated in the writings of novelist with no formal background as an academic philosopher

Doesn't that say it all?

>> No.929318

Rand only started a philosophy so she could have followers and be the Queen of something. Objectivism doesn't exist for any philosophical purposes.

>> No.929323

There are three ways in which she sabotaged her own efforts.

1. Endorsing atheism.
2. Attacking the contemporary intellectuals and academia/philosophers
3. Being a woman.

>> No.929327

op you wont get any straight answers

there are people that have written entire essays just to attack her writing style

its all bullshit by any other name

>> No.929347

in my experience, people who object ayn rand are wormy, blind motherfuckers, even without her brilliant ideas, she is a fucking outstanding author.

>>929272>>929272>>929272

>> No.929346

>>929327
Everything else about her has been thoroughly discredited; no intellectual background, never performed research... she just abused a thesaurus and someone made the mistake of givine her a pen and paper.

Only rich kids take anything she says seriously.

>> No.929359

>>929346
She wrote a fictional story in which she incidentally expressed her views on life. When did she ever try to pass herself off as accredited?

>> No.929369

>>929359

Her horde of fantards certainly try to.

>> No.929371

Because if everyone if Ayn Rand's Philosophical Society was the way that she wanted her characters to be, Things would be exactly the way they are.

>> No.929377

>>929277

Because asking people who seem to have an opinion for a specific clarification is not research. You have to realize that bullshit like "the Internet/4chan is so terrible for real discussion...but I continue to go here because it's so random LOL XD" is normative - you make everyone else collectively dumber and less likely to engage you.

>>929279

Yes, people can never logically refute her philosophy, they only fixate on a longform exposition of some other philosophy that her characters happen to talk about for monologues spanning the length of a novella. People are so close-minded.

>>929288

Best post ever.

>>929306

Yes, it's all just her clear perspective that pisses people off, not their legitimate disagreements with a philosophy which seems cynical, simplistic, and reactive.

>>929313

>Exactly. We've already seen the path/trend unfettered power follows. It will tear the society apart or it will morph itself into a monstrocity on behalf of the powerful.

Fixed. Cultural dweebs aside, the real disagreement is whether the State is as an entity more just and efficient at allocating power than the free market. There's no such thing as the "end result" of a pure philosophy - it's not a matter of causality - the nicest people on Earth wouldn't turn into the Lord of the Flies just because there was private property - scarcity, greed, bad incentives, cynical legal systems, and short-sightedness are more likely factors for a society's decline. I happen to be a fairly radical libertarian, and yes, private property does matter - but it's a lot more complicated than "capitalism is a malevolent virus"

>> No.929379

>>929371

This.

>> No.929629

Holy balls, /lit/, she's obviously polarized the hell out of you. Why is this? Is there no one who has read her, but has only a moderate opinion of her? Or is it because these threads only attract the comments of the fanatics because it's already been do over discussed?

>> No.929635

>implying batshit insane shit deserves a moderate treatment just because it has a cult following on the internets

>> No.929907

We all know this is not going to end well. Why don't we just let this thread die?

>> No.929917

>>929907

...

>> No.930014

>>929346
>>929346
>>929346
>>929346

truth.

A = A... until you get to the planck level or account for special relativity.

morality is socially constructed and concerns many more matters than just self-interest. people do not conceive of morality outside of society.

she was an armchair philosopher and even refused peer review.

>> No.930016

She went into a deep depression after publishing her book

she's so deep

>> No.930019

>>930014
Given that most of her work was a giant "fuck you" to everyone since Aristotle, that's understandable. Peer review would have turned into a "NO U" session.

>> No.930022

>>930019
You mean exactly like it has?

>> No.930031

>>930019

it's still part of the academic process. she refused one of the basic means any discipline has to improve upon itself, critique, and better understand the world.

>> No.930041

So now we require our philosophers to be academics? Sure is college liberalism in here.

>> No.930046

Rand is horrid, just ask chomsky

>> No.930055

I don't think her philosophy holds up. IIRC the assumptions of objectivism are like badly diluted empiricism, but I'm not sure.

>> No.930088

>>930041

we require philosophers to allow their work to be critiqued if they want to be taken seriously.

it's very childish to pretend you are immune to bias.