/lit/ - Literature

>>22343381
She mogs the fuck out of Nietsche. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6gV1MUSXMg
The philosopher that solves the problem of Induction will be an Objectivst 200%

>>22252935
Lol

All on really needs from Atlas is the speeches of Rearden, d'Anconia, and Galt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1-_k6mKSxk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_EaVWMMoqM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ2_ZxveT6U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDOfOu2_hkI
If any of you ever wish to listen to the audiobook version of the full book: make sure to pick Christopher Hurt's reading. His is the best.

>>17406871
Cute lads, ok Egoists. Terrible about the whole lack of integration thing.

>>17412600
>What's your opinion on Ayn Rand
Avowed Objectivst. Emphatically positive.
>and why does it triggers so much on lefties and nazis
Both are variantions on collectivism. Rand is the the most potently anti-collectivist philosopher to ever live. That's the long and short of it.

>>17402304
But I'm an Objectivist anon. (not him)

>>17388461
Aristotle.

>>17045909
The potent man's philosophy

>>13584553
This but hard-unironically

>>13435111
Floating and detached from reality. All Kant amounts to is a cthulu-tier construction where all he did was flex his imagination and prose. -Imagination- is precisely what you do not apply to reality. The categories are meticulous and even fascinating, but that never made them true. Kant did to philosophy what science fiction does to technology.
>>13435175
>>13435210
Integrated and goldpilled. Coining this now.

>>13428527
Listening to top lass do a talk at the ford hall forum with my favorite red wine. Doing immaculately.

>>13396078
Objectivism untangles the cthulhu tier morass that Kant, Hegel, and co unleashed and gave Aristotlean reason teeth again.

>>13392536
I'll give you my copypasta
>The Objectivist Theory of Concepts
>solved the "Problem of Universals"
>the discovery of the intrinsic/subjective/objective trichotomy
>the formulation of psycho-epistemology
>the identification of several new logical fallacies
>Rand's Razor
>providing LfCap's (Laissez faire Capitalism) then lacking philosophic base and further developing it
>the, not solving, but invalidating of Hume's Is/Ought problem
>coining of the meta cognitive tool of critique; the "Anticoncept"

Academia doesn't like her for a reason I have named this phenomenon "Collectathon Philosophizing".

>>13257532
What made you think we went anywhere?

Rand is unironically the best, she accomplished:
>The Objectivist Theory of Concepts
>solved the "Problem of Universals"
>the discovery of the intrinsic/subjective/objective trichotomy
>the formulation of psycho-epistemology
>the identification of several new logical fallacies
>Rand's Razor
>providing LfCap's (Laissez faire Capitalism) then lacking philosophic base and further developing it
>the, not solving, but invalidating of Hume's Is/Ought problem
>coining of the meta cognitive tool of critique; the "Anticoncept"

>>12856268

>>12848226
Found.
>The Objectivist Theory of Concepts
>solved the "Problem of Universals"
>the discovery of the intrinsic/subjective/objective trichotomy
>the formulation of psycho-epistemology
>the identification of several new logical fallacies
>Rand's Razor
>providing LfCap's (Laissez faire Capitalism) then lacking philosophic base and further developing it
>the, not solving, but invalidating of Hume's Is/Ought problem
>coining of the meta cognitive tool of critique; the "Anticoncept"

Dark Ages 2 is coming lads. She warned you.

>>12467284
Uh buddy, how incomparably new do you have be to not understand that /lit/ is a Randian-accelerationist crypto-objectivist board?

>>12407077
I took the bait. What is the next step of your master plan?

>>12390530
>nobody likes Ayn Rand
More of us everyday skipper. We'ree playing the long game.

>>12358517
I am the greatest of /lit/ Randfags
Know who is among you.

>>12320548
>more rand posters
Fret not anon for I am here

Philosophy is more fundamental than science. You can be human and not be a scientist, which is subdivided into specialized fields of study (physics, chemistry, biochemistry, psychology, and so on), but there is no such thing as an a-philosophical human in the sense that people have ideas about the nature of existence (metaphysics), the nature and means of knowledge (epistemology), a code of values to guide your choices and actions (ethics), the nature and purpose of government (politics), and the nature and purpose of art (aesthetics). Most people get their ideas about these five subdivisions of philosophy second-hand, from the culture into which they are born, grow up, and become educated in, but you will not find a person who doesn't have some idea or opinion about these topics, even if their idea is that it is all subjective nonsense detached from reality. Since Aristotle (the father of logic and the scientific method) discovered the science and method of reason, that method was complete, at least deduction was complete. He didn't fully develop induction, which was advanced further by Francis Bacon ("Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.") and John Stuart Mill, who had bad/incorrect ideas about ethics and politics, but had good ideas about induction. With Objectivism, specifically Rand's theory of concept formation, and solution to the so-called "Problem of Universals", a more thorough understanding of induction became possible, further advanced and developed by Leonard Peikoff, her intellectual heir, with the help of physicist Dave Harriman (The Logical Leap).
I recommend you read Peikoff's book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and then Atlas Shrugged to see the principles applied by characters in a novel (how they work in real life). After that Philosophy: Who Needs It (general introduction to philosophy), Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (Rand's theory of concepts), The Virtue of Selfishness (Ethics), Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (Politics), and The Romantic Manifesto (Aesthetics). This integrated view of existence and set of principles, the purpose of which is to guide human thought and action, is the philosophy of Objectivism. Its identity and purpose becomes known by study, which you dear reader may simply not be inclined to do. Perfectly understandable. But if my assertion is correct; that Rand's philosophic system constitutes the first successfully formulated metaphilosophy, maybe deeper readings will lead you to conclude (as I have) that this fantastic bitch is the coolest cat in phil. Or further cement that other maymay that my like are cultists/dogmatists/ideologues/ect. Fuck you too skipper.

So million dollar question: are the things meme'd here (and elsewhere) about Rand true or is it more that r/philosophy has a large presence here and wants discussion of the woman and her system curtailed in all possible ways since outright banning of her isn't viable here like it is on their censored shitholes.