/lit/ - Literature

>>21507116
>>21507076
To give further example, liberty is important, not its own sake but to be obtain happiness, as one cannot obtain happiness without freedom. When one is in a nazi concentration camp where their life is not their own, they desire to escape because they lack the capacity to choose and value; freedom becomes a prerequisite for living and happiness. It FEELS as though liberty should be sought as an end in itself because it is fundamentally tied on an ontological level to how we operate, but it can't be argued as an end in itself. Nor does Ayn Rand defend it on those terms. I do believe that anarcho-capitalists defend it on those terms with idiotic concepts like self-ownership which is wrong.

>>21507120
I will. Enjoy repeating that Ayn Rand is too simple to ever be right about anything because only complex things can be right. I might be the world's best critic of Ayn Rand. While you're at it, mention how her books are for children and quote critics who say that her books are fantastical or some bullshit.

>>20725654
Objectivism, obviously, is the correct of the two. Nearly all arguments against Stoicism can be taken wholesale from Nietzsche while also criticizing their metaphysical positions to further flesh out his views by targetting the fact that they only act the way they do as a result of Plato.

See Peikoff on Stoicism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqBsVM0vVLQ

The difference is that stoicism argues correctly that the only thing one can control is one's actions, but that one must remain emotionless to be constant with the stoa/fixed formed of reality. The process you achieve this is by imagining bad events in your life, suffering internally so that you don't evoke any emotional outburst when it does occur; it's essentially bravado by showing to others that you cannot be hurt and value nothing.

The biggest problem with stoicism is that there is an implicit moral obligation to live by duty rather than values. If you listen to anyone talk about stoicism, they talk about how you have responsibilities and duties to act proper for whatever, which is code for living altruistically to some standard that serves others.

Ayn Rand argued that emotions are linked to values and that trying to stip or reduce one's emotional reactions is psychologically destructive and against one's self-interest. You can argue that there is overlap between stoicism and objectivism in regards to not feeling emotional about things you can't control but you see it often in her fiction where her characters *will* react to bad news even as they try to compose themselves. For example, Roark hearing that he lost the bank gig almost makes him fall down. Or Dagny hearing that the government enacted some shit regulation that will fuck her company.

The true problem with objectivism is through Ayn Rand's non-fiction that argues to be 'rational at all times' which can create the perspective that reason and emotions are exclusives, even though she never says this. Basically be a Vulcan at all times, which creates the appearance of being stoic. But, of course, what Ayn Rand meant was to just be logically consistent with your ideological perspectives on life and be honest to yourself and others.

>>20730345
That's wrong, and you're ignoring neo-objectivists. There are a bunch of people who aren't Rand stands who have said something new. Although you are right that a lot of objectivists just stand Rand but there is some introspection in furthering what she stood for, and it's reductive to diminish their positions and writing.

>>19777831
Sorry, those posts were pretty rambly; I have to properly organize my thoughts on intellectual property in the future. Ownership is that which an individual uses through physical force and the signalling of physical force to exclude others from access. Property is that which other individuals recognize through legitimacy, the signalling of physical force or physical force as yours.

Locke argued that by interacting with reality to some capacity, you intrinsically own it and it becomes your property but there is no fairness that something is yours just because you touch it. If you collect materials in a forest and utilize your physical strength to prevent others from taking them from you, you own it, and if everyone recognizes through signalling that you are physically strong, it is seen as property. So if you were to build a house, such signalling would be the fence around your house, the warning sign on the fence that your house and land are private property and any trespassers will be shot on sight, and the state police paid through taxes or paid private police paid through a contract that protects your house, and the contract that signals to people that you have ownership, and if everyone knows and utilizes that ledger and other forms of signalling of physical force, it is seen as a form of legitimacy that you own that property. However, these are mere signals that you in fact have ownership. A thief could evade the police, understand the risk by reading the private property sign jumping the fence and breaking into your house to steal your property. The fact that you worked for it, build it yourself etc has no legitimacy, only signals of physical force and if someone ignores those, physical force itself. If the thief comes into your house, the final claim that you have ownership is secondary tools like a gun, knife etc that increase your physical strength, and your body itself to expel the thief.

To summarize: the objectivity of physical force and the contextual signalling of that force are the essence of ownership, and when recognized by others, become property. This is a theory that is similar to Stirner but he merely argued that only physical force mattered when that is wrong; humans operate on unconscious levels through norms and signalling which also acts as a method to create social order. If you're curious about that last point, I highly recommend the book Elephant in the Brain by Robin Hanson. In my opinion, understanding signalling game is a must for all autistic people and a key factor in the human condition that other philosophers gloss over because it isn't self-evident or observable. It arguably also explain positions that Ayn Rand criticized but lacked an understanding of why people act the way they do. For example, people seek out prestige for signalling recognition and the admiration of others. Why? She can't say. Hanson figured it out by tying the fact that humans are apes and it is a part of our nature.