/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1575660]

I'll just leave this here...

[Anonymous No.1575665]

That guy is HAWT.

[Anonymous No.1575670]

im not an objectivst, but i just dont get why ppl hate her so much. there are tons of philosophers i dont totally agree with but do i hate them all? of course not

[Anonymous No.1575677]

This thread is a tribute to the Horndog

[Anonymous No.1575682]

Am I in /lit/?

[Anonymous No.1575689]

>>1575682

not really, since this is more of a philosophical thread

[Anonymous No.1575690]

>>1575670
>im not an objectivst, but i just dont get why ppl hate her so much. there are tons of philosophers i dont totally agree with but do i hate them all? of course not
>tons of philosophers
>philosophers
aaaaaaand there's your answer. She isn't a philosopher. Ayn Rand is a cunt and a piss poor writer.

[Anonymous No.1575691]

hipster trash

[Anonymous No.1575692]

>>1575670
This one was so stupid and illogical that you can't help it.

[Anonymous No.1575696]

[Anonymous No.1575701]

>mfw subject/object duality

[Anonymous No.1575702]

>>1575690

If she's a poor writer, then why have her books sold so incredibly well? And what is a philosopher but someone who seeks truth? Ayn Rand sought truth with a zeal unknown to many of her contemporary "philosophers", many of whom couldn't decide for sure whether they even existed, or whether reliable knowledge was attainable.

[Anonymous No.1575727]

>>1575702

because idiots like you read her

[Anonymous No.1575730]

>>1575702
>If she's a poor writer, then why have her books sold so incredibly well?

By that logic, the bible would be the best piece of literature ever written.

She just like any other shitty female writer who loses themselves in their book. Except her fantasies include government systems and society, rather than sexy vampies.

[Anonymous No.1575738]

>>1575730
>Except her fantasies include government systems and society, rather than sexy vampies

I lol'd.

[Anonymous No.1575746]

>>1575730

The Bible is actually very well-written. It might be a steaming pile of nonsense, but it's managed to attract several billion people to Christianity over the ages. So my point about Ayn Rand's writing abilities is justified.

The fact that she sold so well despite her "unsexy" topics only furthers my point above, and also speaks to the power of her ideas.

[Anonymous No.1575761]

>>1575746
>implying people read the Bible because it is well written
Oh wow. That is seriously the only reason you could think of for why people read the Bible? I feel bad for the both of us.

[Anonymous No.1575764]

>>1575746
She is still a bitch.

[Anonymous No.1575768]

>>1575746

In much the same way sensationalism sells. amirite?

[Anonymous No.1575769]

>>1575746
>The Bible is actually very well-written. It might be a steaming pile of nonsense, but it's managed to attract several billion people to Christianity over the ages.

[Anonymous No.1575772]

>>1575761

I made no such implication. People certainly could read the Bible because it is well-written. But since translations have made it rather stale over the centuries, they could also read it because it gives meaning to their existence, or because they think it holds valuable truths, or because they're just plain curious.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1575782]

1/4

Should I post the rest?

[Anonymous No.1575786]

>>1575782
Sure, why not

[Anonymous No.1575787]

>>1575727
>>1575768
>>1575764

Why is it that critics of Ayn Rand always resort to ad hominem attacks against her and her adherents, but seldom address the merits of her ideas? If she was such a flimsy philosopher, you should have no problem tearing her belief system apart. Perhaps some part of you recognizes the truth of her philosophy but violently rejects it, because it goes against so much of what you presently believe. Or perhaps you don't really know what Ayn Rand stood for, and are basing your opinion of her on faulty information.

[Anonymous No.1575797]

>>1575782

please do

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1575808]

>>1575772
>2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1575812]

>>1575786
>>1575797
Will do.

2/4

[Anonymous No.1575814]

>>1575787
I call her a bitch and never say anything about her philosophical ideas. That is not an ad hominem attack. I personally think she was a bitch and her being a bitch shouldn't affect the merit of her ideas.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1575821]

3/4

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1575826]

4/4

[Anonymous No.1575824]

>>1575808

Implying that this one tiny segment is representative of the whole Bible...

[Anonymous No.1575836]

Ayn Rand, further evidence that no man (or woman) is either a saint or a devil.
Atheism: Cool
Egoism: Not cool

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1575838]

>>1575814
Calling someone a bitch is an ad hominem attack... tat is the very definition of what an ad hominem attack is.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1575844]

>>1575824
>implying you weren't just served
People read it because they are believe it is important to read, not because it is well written. Try sitting down and reading the King James Bible for once. You could completely rewrite it and it would be just as interesting if not more so.

[Anonymous No.1575848]

>>1575838
Why don't you try googling it, Mr. Logic?

[Anonymous No.1575852]

>>1575814

Ad hominem is Latin for "against the man". So calling Ayn Rand a bitch is technically an ad hominem attack, though I will concede that such attacks are usually used to avoid discussing the merits of an opponent's ideas.

[Anonymous No.1575859]

>>1575848
I was gonna do a lengthy answer to show why Boomer was wrong, but I'll just thank you fellow anon for this and leave it at that.

[Anonymous No.1575860]

>>1575838
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Ad+hominem&l=1
no.

[Anonymous No.1575865]

>>1575844

I was put through 12 years of Catholic schooling, so I'm actually quite familiar with the Bible. I'll admit that parts of it are quite dull (ie. the Book of Numbers), but other parts are rather interesting (the Book of Job, Song of Songs).

[Anonymous No.1575874]

>>1575852
6/10

[Anonymous No.1575876]

>>1575852
Well I guess literally it was an ad hominem attack. Although using the modern definition, calling her a bitch was not an ad hominem.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1575896]

>>1575865
My physics book is interesting, that doesn't mean it is well written.

[Anonymous No.1575903]

>>1575896

Why not?

[Anonymous No.1575906]

Ad hominem is exclusive to a personal attack against the person you're arguing against. A personal attack against the subject is something else entirely.
"I like how good computer programs are at Othello. I think computer programs are useful tools for society to learn about itself."
"Fuck the people who write computer programs. They're worthless faggots who live in their parents basement."
The second statement is not an ad hominem. It's an attack on the person. An attack, which, is at least to some extent a valid argument. Saying someone is a bitch might imply that said individual produces ideas which are not good for the whole of society because they're spiteful. While it is not an argument against her political ideas, it is an argument against following her ideas blindly.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.1575939]

>>1575903
Info can be interesting.

[Anonymous No.1575956]

>Objectivism is a philosophy created by the Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905–1982).
>Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness,
Yup
> that man has direct contact with reality through sense perception,
yup
> that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic,
okay
> that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest,
Hold on there bucko. Placing one's own interests above another's = being an asshole, which is the opposite of a good thing.
> that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism,
Shitty system for a shitty morality
>and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.
Uh... okay.

[Anonymous No.1575958]

>>1575939

Yes, but in addition to having interesting content, the Bible is devoid of those characteristics which might make an interesting piece of writing "poorly written" (ie. obvious grammatical errors).

[Anonymous No.1575963]

http://www.parmistan.com/atlas.shtml

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1575984]

>>1575956
The reason behind "looking out for yourself" in the objectivist philosophy is because the line on "self sacrifice" and "altruism" has to be drawn somewhere. We cannot all give ourselves up for everyone, then only the few selfish pricks that opt out of the system benefit.

But if we are all trying to build ourselves up and take care of ourselves, we are all fine. Looking out for yourself does not imply harming others, in fact just the opposite. If you needed to exploit another in order to take care of yourself, then you didn't really take care of yourself.

Then comes the next part in the philosophy, having a civilization. The point of a civilization is everyone working to take care of everyone. There is no "self sacrifice", only personal responsibility and "self interest used for the good of all". Trying to do things on your own sucks ass. Really, we can all survive better if we are all working together to be the best we can be.

This philosophy was made up as a counter to "The Philosophy of Altruism", a philosophy the purported everyone sacrifices everything for the good of all. This is a philosophy she defeated, and now a days her philosophy makes less sense because all we have left is the actual word "altruism" and it's true meaning, and it sounds like she argues against that.

[Anonymous No.1576001]

>>1575963

Best reviews ever.

[Anonymous No.1576009]

>>1575956

So the pursuit of happiness somehow makes me an asshole? Since most people pursue their own rational self-interest, that would make most people assholes by your reasoning. Also, my self interest is usually not mutually exclusive with other people's self interest- quite the opposite, in fact. If I start a business to make a profit for myself, I must hire other people to help me run it. This situation benefits both me and my employees.

In some situations, of course, furthering my own interests does harm other people. If I keep my prices low at my business, this works against the interests of my competitors. But does this make me an asshole? Hardly. And in fact, by keeping my prices low, I am forcing my competition to cut their prices as well (or go out of business), thus helping consumers and making the economy more efficient.

The pursuit of one's rational self-interests, far from harming others, usually has a beneficial impact on society. In situations where this is not the case (ie. murdering my parents for inheritance money), the person in question is usually committing a crime, of which Ayn Rand certainly would not approve.

[Anonymous No.1576021]

Ayn Rand is a Master Troll. Respect.

[Anonymous No.1576016]

You can judge a book both on it's writing style (which the bible or scientific textbooks lack) or on the value of the content within. Something can be poorly written but still be interesting, but a book about nothing, written with flair vigour is also worth your time.

[Anonymous No.1576029]

Obligatory.

[Anonymous No.1576035]

>>1576016

Unless we regard the quality of being "interesting" as a sufficient condition for a work of literature to be considered "well-written". Although a given book might have flaws (ex. a physics textbook filled with dry prose, or a poorly-edited novel), if it is able to transcend these flaws and be "interesting", then perhaps it is "well-written" by default, as the holistic judgement of the book is positive despite it's flaws.

[Anonymous No.1576044]

Sure is lit in here.

PS: Rand is a faggot.

[Anonymous No.1576055]

Everyone knows Mr. Rand was in to men.

[Anonymous No.1576058]

I never read books that try and sell me something (in this case objectivism). I learned my lesson with Lord of the Flies.

[Anonymous No.1576059]

I have report everyone ITT for being off-topic. Thanks for playing, good night.

[Anonymous No.1576068]

>>1576059

[Anonymous No.1576071]

>>1576055

If you could provide me with links to Internet sources to back up this claim, I'd appreciate it. I'm not being sarcastic btw, it really would be interesting if that was true.

[Anonymous No.1576073]

>>1576058
Her/his books don't try to sell you anything. They try to shove up your ass all the way into your head.

[Anonymous No.1576077]

>>1576071

He's a woman.

[Anonymous No.1576078]

>>1576071
see
>>1575821
He is drooling over that dude.

[Anonymous No.1576083]

"Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived. Atlas Shrugged is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world. Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme arbiter of any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or appropriate to man's life on earth."
-Alan Greenspan, AKA the man who sat idly by while banks were deregulated, leading to the eventual pillage of our economy

Considering how much Ayn Rand's ubermensch blabber about fighting the "looters" in Atlas Shrugged, you'd think Greenspan might've..uh...fought the looters?

[Anonymous No.1576090]

>>1575963
It has a 100+ page speech in it?

[Anonymous No.1576097]

>>1576083

According to Newsweek, that quote is attributed to Nathaniel Brandon back when he still followed Ayn Rand, not to Greenspan.

[Anonymous No.1576101]

>>1576073
Then when it's starting to poke it's way through your mouth, Rand picks up a copy of her bloated book and beats it back down your throat a billion times. All the while delivering a philosophical diatribe as if it were part of a casual conversation between old friends. THEN she swoons over your bloodied corpse because you truly loved her, your love was forbidden! But then she loved another man! BECAUSE HE HAD IDEAS! but you were okay with that! BECAUSE YOU LOVED HER COMPLETELY! and she didnt feel bad about it! BECAUSE JOHN HAD IDEAS!

[Anonymous No.1576103]

>>1575660

NO U

[Anonymous No.1576112]

>>1576090
Yep, that's where I quit the book too. I wanted to quit so many times before that but I told myself I had to finish. The speech was too much, though. It happens when the strikers, led by John Galt, finally rejoin the world. Galt gets on the radio waves and basically becomes Rand's mouthpiece for 100 pages, spouting off repetitive Objectivist bullshit for what seems like an eternity.

[Anonymous No.1576110]

>>1576090
Her whole book is pretty much just that. Most of the characters in it are simply mouthpieces.

[Anonymous No.1576143]

>>1575677

Mayhaps the Horndog will find this thread, and find it pleasing to him. I pray that my efforts are not in vain.

[Anonymous No.1576166]

>>1576143
see
>>1575696
if anything, the filename

[Anonymous No.1576174]

[Anonymous No.1576194]

Everybody knows Rand sucks dick, stop getting suckered.

To the retard who used her book sales as a measure of her validity: Bantam posted a list of the Top 100 books as chosen by it's readers in 2000. Rand had 2 books in the top 10. Ron L. Hubbard, the founder of fuckin' Scientology, had 3. THE PUBLIC CANNOT BE TRUSTED YOU FUCK.

[Anonymous No.1576204]

>>1576194

Her validity as a good writer, not the merits of her ideas. That is a separate issue. Not that I would expect you to be able to make fine distinctions

[Anonymous No.1576230]

>>1576204
My apologies, I didn't think her validity as a "good" writer was even up for debate...she's fucking atrocious. The ineptitude of the bloated diatribes she calls "books" led me to believe you were arguing the value of her philosophical beliefs (which are also fucking atrocious).

Regardless, the fact that you used book sales as a gauge of her validity in ANY category leads me to believe you are a full blown retard. Nicholas Sparks, self help gurus, and Ron L. fuckin' Hubbard regularly top the best sellers list...None of them are good writers.

[Anonymous No.1576250]

>>1576230

Hubbard was an excellent writer and an even better troll. That's why Scientology has flourished so nicely

[Anonymous No.1576318]

>>1575808
i think that's pretty sexy.