/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11955149]

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.

[Anonymous No.11955184]

>>11955149
>but there is no such thing as an a-philosophical human
*BLOCKS YOUR PATH*

[Anonymous No.11955198]

>>11955149
>be woman
>be jewish
>say every other philosopher is shit except aristotle
>say kant is literally the worst
>money is the greatest good
>unable to write more than two characters in your books
>one of your disciples causes housing crisis
>your other disciple demands pre-emptive nuclear strike against entire country on live television; gets banned for life
It's hard to imagine screwing up this badly

[Anonymous No.11955201]

rand is only read by silicon valley tofu eaters and jewish think tank members

[Anonymous No.11955211]

>>11955184
I actual see promise in the NPC maymay my memelord friend. It, unlike "sheep" "cuck" even "sjw" and whatnot actually converges on the crucial ego aspect of man's nature.
But it is just a maymay. People don't have that inner monologue as much as their more deep thinking counterparts, but they do do it. Their error, as Rand argues, is one of evasion and failure to integrate.
It's not having "no philosophy" but rather having no integration.

[Anonymous No.11955223]

Man the word censorship has a really loose definition these days.

[Anonymous No.11955228]

>>11955198
>say every other philosopher is shit except aristotle
And Aquinas and Locke and Paine and Spinoza and still others. She sees wisdom in many philosophers but when their errors are grave enough she recognizes integrating them with the system she built was not called for.
And starting from scratch as she did she knew that only Aristotle warranted credit as a fundamental ingredient of hers.

[Anonymous No.11955250]

>>11955228
my feeling is that she constructed her philosophy around the fantasy of her ideal lover. a very tough looking, capable, masculine, wealthy businessman. that is why in her books she is only capable of writing two characters, namely, the rich, deal-making chad and the spindly, two-faced, weakling who would be a let down in the bedroom. Dagny from atlas-shrugged is obviously a representation of her, and the whole book is about her finding her dream man who rails her under the rail station.

[Anonymous No.11955258]

>>11955149
Whoa, whoa, whoa there buddy. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa... Whoa.. WHOA.

Whoa..

Chew you have any snatisfacts to snack that up?

[Anonymous No.11955275]

>>11955250
Correct. It is here you should understand the difference between aesthetic romanticism and naturalism.
This entire link should prove enlightening
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/romanticism.html

[Anonymous No.11955367]

Furthermore I think it warranted to list Rand's historic achievements as a challenge to those who like to claim Rand it inconsequential as a philosopher.
Rand's *great* historic distinction is that she was the first to discover to what degree the contextuality of concepts matter.
>The Objectivist Theory of Concepts
>solving the "Problem of Universals"
http://www.peikoff.com/opar/universals.htm
>the discovery of the intrinsic/subjective/objective trichotomy
>the formulation of psycho-epistemology
>the identification of several new logical fallacies
[Stolen Concept Fallacy, Package-Deal Fallacy, Floating Abstraction Fallacy, Frozen Abstraction Fallacy (aka Context Dropping Fallacy), Reification of Zero Fallacy (not hers truly but given further philosophic significance by her), Rewriting Reality Fallacy]
>Rand's Razor
>providing LfCap's then lacking philosophic base
>the, not solving, but invalidating of Hume's Is/Ought problem

[Anonymous No.11955394]

>>11955223
Lmao if you don't think leddit is censored to fuck you're deluded.

[Anonymous No.11955495]

>>11955201
me too tho

[Anonymous No.11955574]

>inb4 Stirnerfags

[Anonymous No.11955598]

>>11955149
Why is Gaetano so /aesthetic/?

[Anonymous No.11955728]

>>11955275
>With the resurgence of mysticism and collectivism, in the later part of the nineteenth century, the Romantic novel and the Romantic movement vanished gradually from the cultural scene.
Fucking this. It's a goddamn tragedy that everyone ignores.

[Anonymous No.11955772]

I'd like also to note that while people like to focus on the metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and political parts of her philosophy; by ignoring the aesthetic branch of the philosophy (as is often done) they miss a profundity to be found therein and an answer to the assertion that Rand's prose is somehow notably inferior because of how she juxtaposes her heroes and villians.
The rest of Rand's philosophy is argumentatively amazing but it is the aesthetics branch that really drives home how COOL Objectivism can be. No joke. Rand's aesthetics completes her philosophy and makes it come full circle.
From Peikoff's OPAR:
>"An art work does not formulate the metaphysics it represents; it does not (or at least need not) articulate definitions and principles. So art by itself is not enough in this context. But the point is that philosophy is not enough, either. Philosophy by itself cannot satisfy man's need of philosophy. Man requires the union of the two: philosophy and art, the broad identifications and their concrete embodiment. Then, in regard to his fundamental, guiding orientation, he combines the power of mind and of body, i.e., he combines the range of abstract thought with the irresistible immediacy of sense perception. Ayn Rand summarizes in a definitive formulation: Art is a concretization of metaphysics. Art brings man's concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts. This is the psycho-epistemological function of art and the reason of its importance in man's life (and the crux of the Objectivist esthetics). Here again we see man's need of unit-economy. Concepts condense percepts; philosophy, as the science of the broadest integrations, condenses concepts; and art then condenses philosophy—by returning to the perceptual level, this time in a form impregnated with a profound abstract meaning."
That's fucking cool.

[Anonymous No.11956351]

>>11955149
Thought that pic was sam hyde for a sec

[Anonymous No.11956368]

>>11956351
Lel which Hyde pic were you thinking of?

[Anonymous No.11956526]

Can we skip to the bit where you complain about the vast leftist conspiracy which stops Rand being taught in universities? Because every academic in the world is on it, and you aren't allowed to criticise Kant or something like that? That's my favorite part of these threads

[Anonymous No.11956541]

>>11956526
Sure... that noise is, like, super wack and stuff. All my gal wants to do is talk metacapitalist phil yo, is that so bad?

[Anonymous No.11956545]

>>11956526
cant wasn't leftist

[Anonymous No.11956559]

>>11956526
The greatest trick the state ever pulled was impregnating the meme that conspiracy theorizing, conspiracy theorizing as such, conspiracy theorizing in any capacity or context whatever; is absurdist.

[Anonymous No.11956653]

>>11956559
You think there's a state conspiracy to make us all believe conspiracy theories are silly?

[Anonymous No.11956842]

>>11956653
Yes

[Anonymous No.11956990]

>>11956351

[Anonymous No.11957188]

>>11955149
great explanation on why philosophy is for normies

[Anonymous No.11957191]

>>11955149
by that logic farming is more essential than philosophy

[Anonymous No.11957848]

>>11955250
So she wanted the Aryan D.

[Anonymous No.11958105]

>>11956541
Kek

[Anonymous No.11958113]

>>11956990
>The lips
Eh I guess I can see it

[Anonymous No.11958393]

>>11956526
Academic gatekeeping is a "conspiracy theory" (meant by you in the negative sense) in the same way social media collusion involved in the banning of Alex Jones is a "conspiracy theory".
Jones is an example of the moronic sort of conspiracy theorizing.

[Anonymous No.11958426]

>>11958393
>Academic gatekeeping is a "conspiracy theory"
Right on time

[Anonymous No.11958446]

>>11958426
Decent bait

[Anonymous No.11958647]

>>11958426
I assume you don't like academic gatekeeping pointed out so you try to sweep it aside as me just parroting some talking points? Be erudite for once anon. Say what you mean.

[Anonymous No.11958740]

>>11955149
It is very fashionable to dislike Rand and /lit/ and 4chna in general really is increasingly normalfag these days.

[Anonymous No.11958745]

>>11958647
My poetry isn't on any university syllabus. Is it academic gatekeeping, or am I a shit poet of no importance? Which do you think is more likely in Rand's case?
Squealing about gatekeeping is a way to avoid a tricky question about mediocrity

[Anonymous No.11958789]

>>11958745
My think tank has spent millions of dollars in the last decade pushing Ayn Rand on highschoolers and yet she is still not required reading anywhere. Kantian neo-marxists run academia.

[Anonymous No.11958844]

>>11958789
>My think tank has spent millions of dollars in the last decade pushing Ayn Rand on highschoolers and yet she is still not required reading anywhere.
Is there any possibility at all that this might be because Rand is a mediocre philosopher and worse novelist?
>Kantian neo-marxists run academia.
Oh there's the answer. There is no possible way it could be the first option. Monumental bad faith on behalf of the academic community across the world for the last 50 years is clearly the reason

[Anonymous No.11958852]

>>11958745
You don't just slap two potentialities on the table and ask your debatee what FEELS more likely to be true.
I ARGUE why it is not mediocrity
>>11955367
>>11955772
None of these points are ever addressed in academic criticisms of her work. They often focus soley on the political and/or ethics branch of her philosophy while barely masking their clear hatred of LfCap as a concept. Which they often use as their centralizing focus.
In any event criticisms of Rand most often to not even occur in the first place as Wikipedia will tell you: Ayn Rand is mostly IGNORED in academic circles. I have never seen an academic paper addressing Rand's trichotomy or something of a title along the lines of "John Galt's Speech: Refuted".

[Anonymous No.11958858]

>>11958789
>>11958844
Samefag

[Anonymous No.11958860]

>>11955149
>but there is no such thing as an a-philosophical human
no i literally dont care i have no opinions at all

[Anonymous No.11958929]

>>11958860
You have philosophic opperants coloring your subconscious whether you like it or not. The only choice is to be cognizant of them or not.

[Anonymous No.11958933]

>>11958929
your mom has coloreds operating on her butthole

[Anonymous No.11958980]

>>11958933
I grinned.

[Anonymous No.11959034]

>>11958852
>I have never seen an academic paper addressing Rand's trichotomy or something of a title along the lines of "John Galt's Speech: Refuted".
And nobody has ever written an academic paper explaining why my poetry is bad. Why would academics waste their time on mediocrities? Your arguments are not convincing, sorry. I've read lots of philosophy and Rand is not very good at it. And my opinion is shared by everyone else who has read lots of philosophy. Lots of people write philosophy and few are ever taken seriously. There is a competition and Rand has lost because she wasn't good enough
>>11958858
I really wish it was samefag, the millions of dollars line is priceless

[Anonymous No.11959112]

>bacon and mill developing induction
>Objectivism having anything to do with logic
Cringe

[Anonymous No.11959115]

>>11955149
This is a good read.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1668/why-is-ayn-rands-objectivism-philosophy-dismissed-by-academics
In my opinion the Rand defenders beat out the Rand criticizers in arguments here.

[Anonymous No.11959120]

>>11959034
So let's hear your take down.

[Anonymous No.11959156]

>>11959034

[Anonymous No.11959592]

>>11959034
This guy is right
>>11959120
>>11959156
>>11959115
>>11955367
>>11955228
Cringe. Funny thing is, if you read (which is hard, I know) any Kant or Hume they are BTFOing her before she was even born. Why is that? Because there were tons of retards just like her in their time. Hume even got made fun and cucked by one (i forget his name).

Anyway, past shitposting, the whole internet debate thing doesn't fly when it comes to philosophy. I know all of you are underage, but this is how publication works. If you like Ayn Rand, you tear her work to shreds; you do NOT mindlessly follow her. If her work is not able to be followed upon and leads to no new information then her work fails. If you like her so much, YOU "refute" (lol) her uhhh... trichotomy... or whatever else. You're 14 at max, so you have a lot of time. Just know by the time you read more philosophy you'll understand why no one gives her the time of day.

[Anonymous No.11959642]

>>11959115
Not really. Even the most pro-Rand argument there admits that she didn't engage in academic philosophy as such.

[Anonymous No.11959731]

>>11959592
I could not have failed to become curious of both Kant and Hume after reading Rand lambast them so hard. It's funny, Rand detractors as a last resort always fall back on insisting that she misunderstood Kant. Choosing it of course because, since Kant is an immensely difficult read, statistically so few people will be able to get through his work without dropping it. My fellow Objectivists included.
Watch these and see how well Kant holds up. Peikoff evolved Objectivism beautifully.
https://campus.aynrand.org/campus-courses/history-of-philosophy/a-critique-of-kants-philosophy-from-an-objectivist-perspective
>If her work is not able to be followed upon and leads to no new information
Who are Peikoff, Binswanger, Ghate, Buechner, still others. No mainstream academic willing to further her work existing does not mean Objectivism is somehow this dead end you are implying.
>you do NOT mindlessly follow her
I don't. You just want all reasons for liking the woman curtailed.
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/BissellRE/The_Evolution_of_the_Objective.shtml
This article is a fantastic read and is an example of one of the few criticisms of Rand I've accepted. Which are so few I can count them on one hand

[Anonymous No.11959771]

>>11959642
who cares about pseuds

[Anonymous No.11959776]

>>11959731
>Kant is an immensely difficult read
Jesus Christ. I have heard that some people find his synthax odd, but that is new.

[Anonymous No.11959796]

>>11959771
>who cares about pseuds
Apparently, randians, otherwise there wouldn't be such butthurt about it when people point out that she isn't taken seriously by academy at large.

[Anonymous No.11959812]

>>11959120
Not him, but Rand often contradicts herself in several points. Her view on copyright is a good example of that, in particular.

[Anonymous No.11959836]

>>11959776
Well he's heavy on parentheticals and subclauses, so I found him a slow read. I've heard complaints of people saying they just can't muster the will to finish any of his works so I assume this means he's nigh impossible for brainlets and decently difficult for the slightly above average.

[Anonymous No.11959838]

she's not a philosopher

[Anonymous No.11959842]

We're not the ones you need to convince, OP.

>>/sci/

[Anonymous No.11959846]

>>11959731
>>11959731
>If you say man doesn't perceive reality as it really is in itself, you are saying man is unconscious. And that actually is the main meaning of Kant's whole argument. It's an all-out attack on the possibility of consciousness as such.
I just pulled this from the transcript of the Peikoff lecture you linked to. This is a gross misinterpretation of Kant, so much so that it almost seems dishonest. The idea that consciousness means direct, unmediated exposure to "reality", as Peikoff would have it, is easily refuted by the fact that we never make contact with objects themselves, but with the light reflected off of them, or with the excitation they cause upon the surface of our skin, and from these impressions made upon the sense organs construct the figures and form of objects and their colors, weight, and so forth.

[Anonymous No.11959885]

>>11959836
Slow and dull isn't "immensely difficult". Sure, one can say that his work isn't a work that one feels compeled to return as soon as possible, but saying it is nigh impossible is either dishonest or an indicator of stupid, especially as that kind of parentheticals/subclauses autism actually makes it easier to digest and understand, even if less "fun".

[Anonymous No.11959890]

>>11959842
ez
Acheivable with two links and a picture
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/mathematics.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/unit-economy.html

[Anonymous No.11959950]

>>11959885
Nigh impossible for brainlets I meant

[Anonymous No.11960055]

>>11959846
Which indicts Kant further by him failing to differentiate perception and conception as he did.
>easily refuted by the fact that we never make contact with objects themselves, but with the light reflected off of them, or with the excitation they cause upon the surface of our skin, and from these impressions made upon the sense organs construct the figures and form of objects and their colors, weight, and so forth.
And Peikoff's whole point was that Kant ascribing epistemological significance to this was an error.
What pray tell intervenes in the process of light entering the physical structure of our eyes and the relaying of this information on to our perceptual faculty? Nothing, but Kant performs the absurdity of objecting to this fact as if a (somehow) direct apprehension of the perceptual reality confronting us would be "better" in some nebulous capacity. The fact that information enters our perceptual awareness through specific means is inconsequential. It is it our conceptualization where fallibility occurs.

[Anonymous No.11960079]

>>11959812
Elaborate

[Anonymous No.11960141]

>>11960055
>The fact that information enters our perceptual awareness through specific means is inconsequential
Not sure why you say this. The epistemological significance is that we attain only to relative information regarding objects from this sense data, which sets hard limits on what the sciences can infer about reality. How can you say it is inconsequential knowing how the brain conditions experience?

[Anonymous No.11960190]

>>11955149
>4 pillars of objectivism
>Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Alrighty
>Epistemology: Reason.
I can fuck with that
>Ethics: Self-interest.
Here's where it loses me. I understand the individualistic appeal, but it's not sustainable when you factor in how fucking retarded people can be, and how easily they can ruin things for everything else. Sure, YOU know that outright selfishness isn't in your self-interest in the long term, and YOU may have the mental faculties and resources to hash out the objectively beneficial choice at every crossroads, but a lot of people can't, and even for you it's not a very efficient use of your time and intellect. Moral decisions are generalized and abstracted as value systems like law and even religious doctrine because constant objective calculation isn't practical. Sometimes those value systems are arbitrarily assigned and dictated by individuals out of personal interest, but they're invariably reshaped over time to suit the perpetuation of the system itself. Call it a sort of memetic evolution. The only value systems that survive are those that work. It's all well and good to use individual objective value judgements to initiate mutations in existing systems, but delegating the entire process to the individual is absurd.
>Politics: Capitalism.
Yeah I fuck with that. Shame the word is now associated with the corporate socialism that props up unsustainable practices.

[Anonymous No.11960259]

>>11960141
Because perceptually reality simply IS. Full stop. The end. Our eyes process what they are capable of processing and the computer screen connected to all of our currently invented instrumentation does the rest.

[Anonymous No.11960328]

>>11955367

Ayn Rand wasn't smart

[Anonymous No.11960333]

>>11955772

lmao if you think this was a novel Aesthetics in her time or any time after the 1650s. plen

[Anonymous No.11960346]

>>11959592
>If you like Ayn Rand, you tear her work to shreds; you do NOT mindlessly follow her.
Strongly despise Rand but you should kill yourself desu senpai anon

[Anonymous No.11960364]

>>11960190
People can be fucking retarded and have their fucking retardation protected from reality because of the philosophy opperants in the cultural zeirgeist of today. So change it.

Good post anon, not that I agree. Have you read The Virtue of Selfishness? Just asking, nothing further.

[Anonymous No.11960400]

>>11960364
*philosophic operants

[Anonymous No.11960601]

>>11955149
>further advanced and developed by Leonard Peikoff, her intellectual heir, with the help of physicist Dave Harriman (The Logical Leap).

>A groundbreaking solution to the problem of induction, based on Ayn Rand's theory of concepts. Inspired by and expanding on a series of lectures presented by Leonard Peikoff, David Harriman presents a fascinating answer to the problem of induction-the epistemological question of how we can know the truth of inductive generalizations. Ayn Rand presented her revolutionary theory of concepts in her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. As Dr. Peikoff subsequently explored the concept of induction, he sought out David Harriman, a physicist who had taught philosophy, for his expert knowledge of the scientific discovery process. Here, Harriman presents the result of a collaboration between scientist and philosopher. Beginning with a detailed discussion of the role of mathematics and experimentation in validating generalizations in physics-looking closely at the reasoning of scientists such as Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Lavoisier, and Maxwell-Harriman skillfully argues that the inductive method used in philosophy is in principle indistinguishable from the method used in physics.
Ok. Curiosity piqued, reading this next.

[Anonymous No.11960657]

>>11960079
Basically, she says that the government merely secures that patent to the guy that made it, with the patent truly belonging to its maker, except that somehow the government can decide who gets it and when the patent becomes public.

[Anonymous No.11960721]

>>11960657
Not so.
>Since intellectual property rights cannot be exercised in perpetuity, the question of their time limit is an enormously complex issue. . . . In the case of copyrights, the most rational solution is Great Britain’s Copyright Act of 1911, which established the copyright of books, paintings, movies, etc. for the lifetime of the author and fifty years thereafter.
In "enormously complex issue" she is stating she is not a specialist is the field and (in a similar manner that she differed to Mises on economics) the ideas concerning it must be deliberated on by specialists with a large time investment into the topic. Her view that Britain's 1911 act was "the most rational" would be easily changed when presented with a better idea.

But anon, what contradiction? I am confused as to what is being contradicted here. You know she was a minarchist and not an anarchist right?

[Anonymous No.11960748]

>>11955367
>>the, not solving, but invalidating of Hume's Is/Ought problem

lol. It's amazing how everyone from Sam Harris stans to Ayn Rand koolaid drinkers can completely obfuscate this basic concept in trying to solve or "dissolve" it.

[Anonymous No.11960770]

>>11960721
>But anon, what contradiction? I am confused as to what is being contradicted here
Then you aren't reading it right
Lets see what Rand says about it: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html
>What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.
>By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.
>The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal.
Put bluntly, the state merely "secures", or alternatively, enforces the patent, in a similar vein to conventional property's rights.
Except that, suddenly:
>Since intellectual property rights cannot be exercised in perpetuity, the question of their time limit is an enormously complex issue. . . . In the case of copyrights, the most rational solution is Great Britain’s Copyright Act of 1911, which established the copyright of books, paintings, movies, etc. for the lifetime of the author and fifty years thereafter.
Within the core axioms/assumptions postulated by Rand, it shouldn't be a "complex issue" at all. The copyright belongs to the owner, which does with it as he sees fit, and once he expires, it goes to his legal heir, which likewise does as he sees fit with it. Saying that the copyright/patent could expire would be akin to saying that the ownership rights of your house would be voided following a certain time after the death of its original builder within the context of Rand is saying. And then:
(Cont)

[Anonymous No.11960794]

>>11960770
(Cont)
>As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser’s work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the potential with the actual. The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he wasn’t. Since the issue is one of commercial rights, the loser in a case of that kind has to accept the fact that in seeking to trade with others he must face the possibility of a competitor winning the race, which is true of all types of competition.
So not only the state can void a patent after a certain time(remain time of the life of its creator+a particular amount of time after his expiration), but it can actually decide to who it goes, based on simple who putted it out first, despite the ownership of the patent itself being merely enforced by, rather than created by, the state, which contradicts what she initially said ie she violates the basic premise of her argument.

[Anonymous No.11960863]

>>11956351
>>11956990
>>11958113

[Anonymous No.11960873]

>>11960863
That is perhaps the single most disturbing picture I have ever seen. Delete it.

[Anonymous No.11960877]

>>11960794
The objective truth that man x won the race over man y is what "decides" it and the government only acknowledges this fact. It isn't picking anything.
The reason for her picking "the man's lifetime+50 years" simply means all things concerning the man's mind and and the period of time his contracts might extend to. This conceptually includes a chosen heir. But that heir doesn't get to name a further heir. "50" years thereafter obviously isn't a hard limit. Its extension or reduction is to be argued case-by-case contextually.

[Anonymous No.11960885]

>>11960863
Wat

[Anonymous No.11960910]

>>11960885
he photoshopped the eyes and mouth of a picture of sam hyde from his tv show onto the OP pic

[Anonymous No.11960914]

>>11960910
Wat

[Anonymous No.11960920]

>>11960190
>Sometimes those value systems are arbitrarily assigned and dictated by individuals out of personal interest, but they're invariably reshaped over time to suit the perpetuation of the system itself. Call it a sort of memetic evolution. The only value systems that survive are those that work. It's all well and good to use individual objective value judgements to initiate mutations in existing systems, but delegating the entire process to the individual is absurd.
How do these value systems evolve and improve? At some point they require individual members of society to evaluate their merits and flaws, and try to communicate these thoughts with other society members. At some point every evolution in value systems can be traced back to individual objective value judgements - society is made up of individuals after all.

I feel like you can't simultaneously say "individuals should not try to rationalize about ethical issues because many people will find it difficult and make mistakes" while also saying that it's OK that people delegate their rationalization on ethical issues to abstract value systems, because those value systems were and are ultimately defined and modified by individual reasoning in the first place.

>People shouldn't bother trying to rationalize about ethics, but it's OK because some people will rationalize about ethics anyway

[Anonymous No.11960921]

Non-scientists have no business doing acedemic philsophy.
Also, using philsophy in a loss folkish sense like that you may as well call everyone a scientist too.
Rand definitely was not a real philsopher. No more of a philsopher than Elon Musk.

[Anonymous No.11960961]

>>11960877
>The objective truth that man x won the race over man y is what "decides" it and the government only acknowledges this fact. It isn't picking anything.
Except that it is. The patent, according to Rand is "what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies","thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence" and "The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal" ie the ownership of the idea tied purely to the developtment of the idea and its creation in the actual world. If you want an example, it would be akin to saying that if farmer A, that worked in his land for years, and worked by his father, and his father's father, could be claimed by mr. B, that never sat foot there, simple becuase farmer A, and neither his father or his father's father ever officialy registered its ownership in the townhall.
>he reason for her picking "the man's lifetime+50 years" simply means all things concerning the man's mind and and the period of time his contracts might extend to. This conceptually includes a chosen heir. But that heir doesn't get to name a further heir. "50" years thereafter obviously isn't a hard limit. Its extension or reduction is to be argued case-by-case contextually.
Actually read the law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/46/section/3/enacted
The copyright would expire after the time, barring some exceptions, which would violated the property rights as defined by Rand.

[Anonymous No.11960962]

>>11960921
Rand was more scientific in the formulation of her philosophy than a massive chunk of the philosophic canon.
Which field of science should one engage in to attach like an accessory to their larger goal of philosophical insight? Any? And the their formulations in philosophy become justified? Obviously that's retarded.

[Anonymous No.11960965]

>>11960920
This.

[Anonymous No.11960985]

>>11955149
>Philosophy is more fundamental than science.
Science is a philosophy you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.11961097]

>>11960985
Philosophy is science's foundation.

[Anonymous No.11961133]

>>11960961
>farmer A, and neither his father or his father's father ever officialy registered its ownership in the townhall
A potential difficulty if not for the fact that
A. I challenge you to find any modern examples of this lack of land ownership documentation
B. The current owner need only make this case and provide evidence that he has been utilizing said land
Mr. B better hope his deception is ingenious enough that it's never found out by the investigation that is launched over the issue because if he is he's going to jail for intent to deceive.
>Actually read the law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/46/section/3/enacted
>The copyright would expire after the time, barring some exceptions, which would violated the property rights as defined by Rand.
In what way is this law Randian? And as long as the limetime of the holder + range of his contracts is met, I fail to see how what Rand outlines contradicts her own principles.

[Anonymous No.11961367]

>>11960748
Ayn Rand identified that the Hume guillotine was a fallacious thing to posit as a problem in the first place. Her "solution" to it was to validly dismiss it.
Hume, who raised the issue, said that no number of non-evaluative premises (is-statments) could ever yield an evaluative conclusion (ought-statement). But to say that a set of premises can't entail what's not implicit in the premises is a tautology.
A more interesting question is whether evaluative statements can be like is-statements, i.e. claims of fact that are either true or false. In more modern terminology such statements are natural statements, and the question is whether or not ought-statements can be natural.
Rand's essential bridge from is to ought is the ethical axiom of life. To be moral, being alive is the ultimate irreducible requirement. The concept of "life" is where all ethics neccessarily reduce to. Only a man who does not desire to live and intends to commit suicide cannot derive an ought.
It is impossible to deduce ought from is but it is possible to induce it. But the problem of induction was and is actually the least understood area of logic and philosophy. Which is because it is an order of magnitude more difficult and complex. Hume denies induction. Rand's ethics depend on her epistemology, and her epistemology defends and makes heavy use of induction. Indeed, Rand's ethics can only be proven on the basis of her epistemology, i.e., with induction as well as deduction, and cannot be proven on the basis of Hume's broken epistemology, i.e., with deduction alone. Hume disconnects ought from is by denying induction; Rand defends induction and bridges ought and is.
We could also get into the embarrassment of Hume's theory of definition and of causation.

[Anonymous No.11961373]

>>11961097
Tell that to a scientist

[Anonymous No.11961376]

>>11961367
>Writes a paragraph to obfuscate what should be a very simple point
>"And don't get me started on Hume!"
Are you channeling the spirit of Rand from beyond?

[Anonymous No.11961390]

>>11955198
>be woman
>be jewish
>money is the greatest good

Nothing more to say. This girl supported the soulless materialistic world we have today.

[Anonymous No.11961431]

>>11961376
Now TRY and indicate to me what is the obscurantist aspect of that post.
>Are you channeling the spirit of Rand from beyond?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsnj8mrZjyw
Thanks. I try.

[Anonymous No.11961440]

>>11961373
Plenty of scientist's don't subscribe to the primacy of science/mathematics. Good men.

[Anonymous No.11961457]

>>11961440
and they are brainlets

[Anonymous No.11961458]

>>11961431
You seem very wise. Would you kindly induce ought from is?

[Anonymous No.11961559]

>>11961458
Here's links bud. All I'll deign to offer till you give me something of your own to snowball off of.
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Ryan/Rand_and_Hume_An_Analysis.shtml
https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2014/11/an-objectivist-critique-of-david-hume/
https://objectivistanswers.com/questions/5781/what-are-your-thoughts-on-the-essay-ayn-rand-and-the-is-ought-problem/

[Anonymous No.11961571]

>>11961559
Ok you can't. Disregarded.

[Anonymous No.11961580]

>>11961571
No I can. Give me something of your own. What you know about Hume and induction. Anything.
Elsewise I am not going to put forth the effort to someone who is just going to tell me " lmao Rand is for fags" once my efforts are concluded.

[Anonymous No.11961591]

>rebirthofreason.com
>2612 articles
Ok this fucking slaps.

[Anonymous No.11961593]

>>11961580
Do it. Do it now.

[Anonymous No.11961674]

>>11961593
Fine faget let me try to explain Rand's argument as simply as I can.
In "The Objectivist Ethics," Rand argues that there is only one possible ultimate value, life. To reach her conclusion, we need to understand two things: the nature of values and the nature of life. So let's start with values. In the broadest sense, a value is something an entity acts to gain or keep. A value isn't a primary, it's not given directly in perception. There aren't entities called "values." To grasp that something is a value, we have to see it as a value to something for something. This is what Rand means when she says that the concept 'Value' "presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?" She is saying that for us to see something as a value, we have to see it as something an entity is acting to achieve, and moreover, we have to see the achievement of that thing as making a difference to the entity. You can validate this point rather easily. Think of anything it makes sense to call a value: money, food, sex, whatever. The reason you can understand those things as values is because you can see that whether or not the entity acting to gain them actually gains them makes some difference to that entity. This is what Ayn Rand means when she says the concept 'Value' "presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative". An "alternative" means "a difference." So what does it mean to say that the achievement of some goal (or failure to achieve that goal) makes a difference to the acting entity? Let's take the value "money." What difference does it make to a man if he gets money? Well, if he doesn't get money, he can't buy food. So what? What does it matter to him whether or not he gets food? What difference does it make to him? Do you see the pattern that's developing? To grasp that something is a value, we have to see it as the means to obtaining some higher value. But there's a problem: if something is a value only if it is the means to obtaining some higher value, then don't we have an infinite regress (or, more precisely, an ultimate progress)? Doesn't there have to be some ultimate value to which all other values are a means, and which is not itself a means to any higher value? The answer, of course, is yes.
"Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossbility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible".
To sum up, then, in order for there to be such things as values, there must be some ultimate value: a value to which all lesser values are a means, and which itself is not a means to any higher value. Is there such a thing? Let's go back to our previous example. We can see that money is a value because, among other things, if I don't have money, I can't buy food.
(Cont.)

[Anonymous No.11961688]

>>11961674
So what? What difference does it make to me whether or not I get food? Well, if I don't food, I will no longer be alive. So what? What difference does it make to me whether or not I'm alive? Obviously, it makes every difference to me whether or not I'm alive. If I'm not alive, there is no me. Or, to put it another way, for any other value, whether or not I achieve it determines what state I'm in...but whether or not I'm alive determines whether I'm in any state at all. "Alive or dead" is different from every other alternative: it is a fundamental alternative. It is the only fundamental alternative. All other alternatives exist only in light of the basic alternative of life or death. Life, therefore, meets the criteria of an ultimate value. All lesser values are a means to it, and it is not a means to any higher value. "It is only the concept 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil".
But we're not finished yet. We know that only living entities can have values, but just as important: living entities have to pursue values. They must constantly act in a specific way to achieve the things their lives require or else they will die. This means that not only does life gives rise to values; it necessitates their pursuit. We can finally answer your question: how does Ayn Rand bridge the is/ought gap? Well, "ought" presupposes another concept: "choice." Unlike other organisms, which automatically act to sustain their lives, human beings don't act automatically. We have to choose to pursue the values that will sustain our life if we choose to live. If we choose to live, we ought to take those actions that will sustain our life. Now, you might ask, why can't we choose some other value as our ultimate value? Well, that was Rand's whole point. Nothing else can be an ultimate value. To be a value is to be a value to an particular organism for the goal of keeping it alive. That's what value means.
Let's take an example. Suppose you say that your life won't be your ultimate value. Instead, you propose your child's welfare as your ultimate value. Now, certainly you could say, "That's my ultimate value because I said so... because my child's welfare is intrinsically valuable." But we're not talking about that. We're presuming you are offering your child's welfare as a rational end; you want to prove that it can legitimately be your ultimate value. So let's ask the big question: what difference does your child's welfare make to you? That's a perfectly sensible question, but to answer it, you have to appeal to some higher value, etc., a process that will ultimately lead to the alternative of your life or death. This is true for any ultimate value you propose. Life has to be our ultimate end. The purpose of morality, a code of values accepted by choice, is to tell us how to achieve that end. It tells us the values and virtues that will enable us to successfully sustain it.

[Anonymous No.11961875]

>>11955198
>unable to write more than two characters in your books
????

[Anonymous No.11961881]

>>11959592
>if you read (which is hard, I know) any Kant or Hume they are BTFOing her before she was even born. Why is that? Because there were tons of retards just like her in their time. Hume even got made fun and cucked by one (i forget his name).
lol no, Hume was a fucking idiot. His whole problem came from the mind-body dichotomy pushed to its extremes. Literally all you have to do to debunk all of Hume is to enact the law of identity.

[Anonymous No.11961885]

>>11960190
>but it's not sustainable when you factor in how fucking retarded people can be
You're giving a fuck about how *other* people act. Ethic exists to tell you how to live, not how to be used for idiots to live.

[Anonymous No.11961904]

>>11961458
By understanding what something is, you know what ought to happen. People had it backwards by trying to figure out the is from the ought without first understanding the is. You understand axiomatic premises and foundations, identify and then proceed from there.

The simple act understanding of causality and how Hume dismisses it shows how easy it is. Hume says that if you throw a rock at a window, you only 'know' that it will break out of habit, you cannot know that tomorrow it will break. Hell, it might just turn into a tree or an animal? Who are we to know?

But no, if you look at the element of a rock and identify it, understand physical force required to break glass and the force required to throw the rock at the glass, you know 100% that it will break. Because A = A. The law of identity remains the same. Unless a secondary element gets introduced (which you can always try to figure out) the same event will always happen past, present and future.

So knowing what the rock and the window *is*, if you throw it at a window at a specific speed, you know it ought to break.

Unless you can argue that maybe the rock will turn into a tree, the impact of the rock and window will turn both into lava, that A can become non-A, it will never change. Bridging the is-ought is done by inducting the is and understanding what 'it' is then understanding its potentiality.
Aristotle already figured this shit out and I swear Humeans never read him.

[Anonymous No.11961915]

>>11961875
I thinks it's the common gripe with her romantic realist style and how she juxtaposes her heroes and villains.
>Fuck Rand, I don't like my heroes to be written too heroey and my villains too pathetically wheres the relatable dirt on the hero?

[Anonymous No.11961928]

>>11961915
But her novels always have more than two characters so what the fuck is he even saying? Like, I think he meant writing more than two fleshed out characters but that doesn't even apply in The Fountainhead where there's 5 main characters that are all fleshed out and unique.
Personally I understand where people are coming from by saying that her heroes are too idealized and the villains are dramatically seen as ugly to show the dichotomy between the individuals and people that accept the ideologies of collectivism but it doesn't make it bad for being that way. It's alien as fuck to the point where none of the character 'appear' humane, sure, but it doesn't make it bad, just a stylistic choice. I think she pushed it too far in Atlas Shrugged where the characters are even more archetypical than in The Fountainhead. But even then, that's just focusing on the stylistic choice rather than the content of her books, and it's why you always get the vague 'lol she's a bad writer' without anyone giving examples of bad writing.

[Anonymous No.11961929]

>>11961904
>So knowing what the rock and the window *is*, if you throw it at a window at a specific speed, you know it ought to break.
Careful Anon, Ought is the context of this discussion on means in relation to ethics and evaluation. Insofar as per Hume's intended meaning. Though I surmise you may just be drawing a parallel between cause/effect and concrete/value. Were you? If not you may have been heading toward a fallacy just fyi.

[Anonymous No.11961942]

>>11958789
>My think tank has spent millions of dollars in the last decade pushing Ayn Rand on highschoolers and yet she is still not required reading anywhere. Kantian neo-marxists run academia
Underrated post

[Anonymous No.11961945]

>>11961929
The is-ought is the focus point for basically his denial of induction and causality which exists by omitting the law of identity. I was applying it to show how causality can be explained and grounded again because once you do that, everything follows suit and all of Hume crumbles. Hume might have intended that it be applied only to ethics but his followers pushed it to include everything, therefore I just skip the process of ethics and apply it to everything by focusing on causality. Ethics in this discussion requires to understand what a man is (survival, valuing his life, seeking to find happiness, etc) and once that is established you know what ought to be done ethically.

But yes, I was drawing parallels between the concrete and values. To me, this is just self-evident.

[Anonymous No.11961946]

>>11961904
>maybe the rock will turn into a tree, the impact of the rock and window will turn both into lava,
The rock is the tree is the window is the lava. There is only One

[Anonymous No.11961948]

>>11961946
>There is only One
What the fuck does that even mean? Fucking mysticism bullshit denying identity.

[Anonymous No.11961956]

>>11955367
Could you explain the problem of universals and how algebra solves it? Although I still need to read introduction on epistemology, so maybe that's explained there.

[Anonymous No.11961968]

>>11961948
There is no identity, there is only One

[Anonymous No.11961971]

>>11961928
>but it doesn't make it bad for being that way
Most people don't know that they've internalized aesthetic naturalism as a preference so they react negatively to a diametrically opposed aesthetic philosophy

[Anonymous No.11961996]

>>11961945
I concur fully then, good point.

[Anonymous No.11961999]

>>11961968
YHWH I presume?

[Anonymous No.11962061]

>>11958789
>My think tank has spent millions of dollars in the last decade pushing Ayn Rand on highschoolers and yet she is still not required reading anywhere
Topkek. Ain't the marketplace a bitch? Gives me pause for thought though, as I was going to spend millions of dollars promoting my Dragonball Z fan fiction, hoping to get it published in the NRB. Maybe I shouldn't bother

[Anonymous No.11962094]

>>11961133
>Mr. B better hope his deception is ingenious enough that it's never found out by the investigation that is launched over the issue because if he is he's going to jail for intent to deceive.
That is irrelevant within the context of how she defined patent ownership. Simple “beating the race” to the patent office is enough, with Rand herself admitting that whatever or not mr. B was actually the first is irrelevant.
>In what way is this law Randian? And as long as the limetime of the holder + range of his contracts is met, I fail to see how what Rand outlines contradicts her own principles.
The point isn’t whatever the law is Randian or not, but rather that her support of it would mean that it fits within her broader philosophy, which isn’t actually true, as the law ultimately states that patent will be eventually void after a certain time period, which implies that the government is the ultimate arbiter on the ownership of the patent/copyright.

[Anonymous No.11962136]

Was he right anons? This sounds on point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KKJ6IKnGRk

[Anonymous No.11962156]

(You) should stop samefaging anon and congratulating your own wit. It wasn't that clever.

[Anonymous No.11962176]

>>11961688
It failed at bridging the gap but it really made me think. God works based Objectvist anon.

[Anonymous No.11962189]

>>11962176
Well I'd appreciate it if would put as much effort into your rebuttal as I did anon. Doubtless I am about to be wholly enlightened on why lack of respect for Rand in academia was warranted all along. All ears.

[Anonymous No.11962198]

>>11962189
>putting effort into 4chan shitposts
sorry, not in my rational self interest

[Anonymous No.11962253]

>>11962189
>lack of respect for Rand in academia was warranted all along. All ears.
Why should they respect her if Objectivists are not capable of making her respected? Life isn't fair, and you live by the sword. Read Gramsci and learn about his 'long march through the institution's. If Objectivists cannot fight their way into Universities like the Marxists did then they don't deserve to be there. And also it's a bit embarrassing vis-a-vis the whole ideology of Rand with its emphasis on heroism and competition that your direct ideological opponents have succeeded where you have failed

[Anonymous No.11962269]

>>11962253
Objectivist don't care to fight into universities. Let the universities burn.

[Anonymous No.11962280]

>>11962253
Also you're mistaking heroism with fighting for what you think is right, when Ayn Rand was more about being the underdog by not giving a fuck about the world so long as you do what is right.

[Anonymous No.11962398]

>>11962269
>>11962280
I HATE GRAPES

[Anonymous No.11962417]

>>11962398
I honestly don't care about Objectivist's influence or whether it should be taught in universities.

[Anonymous No.11962419]

>>11956653
This is actually documented in a released CIA document (CIA Document 1035-960) which discusses a psyop to counter the books and doubt about the official Warren Report after the JFK assassination. They basically weaponized the term to easily dismiss anything that's not 'official'.

[Anonymous No.11962567]

>>11962419
That was a false flag you fool. Look deeper

[Anonymous No.11962597]

>>11962198
Have a nice day then anon.

[Anonymous No.11963021]

Daily reminder that this is what the average Rand devotee look like:

[Anonymous No.11963128]

>>11963021
>utilitarian self-sufficiency
>never had friends and said that there's no need for having friends
Honestly he seems to have failed to understood that material wealth is inconsequential, thereby being an absolute idiot. It's also dumb to equate an idiot as representative of a philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11963654]

>>11963128
This
>>11963021
Nothing to do with your pic but...
No one cringes as hard as us Objectivists do to other Objectivists. Objectivism demands so much of it's proponents logic that minor mistakes applying it are legion as a simple statistical reality.
For instance one of the most promising up-and-coming Objectivists, Charles Tew, cringed hard at Yaron Brook's (ARI president) handling of Jordan Peterson when they invited him to OCON. Tew in general even has critical things to say about Binswanger, Salmieri, Ghate, and even Peikoff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5Ce45H7ojU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdsrAtXQ6C0

[Anonymous No.11963713]

>>11962253
>If Objectivists cannot fight their way into Universities like the Marxists did then they don't deserve to be there.
OP here. You are actually 100% correct. My biggest problem with Brook and Peikoff is that they are not willing to bare their teeth often enough. Though in their defense whenever Objectivist do that they get things like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM or leddit banning of Rand from r/philosphy and r/atheism. And leddit interlopers on /lit/ inciting the famous Rand wars back in the day.

Marxism however did enjoy the boon of using altruism and mysticism to their advantage. Objectivist enjoys no comparable boon and are completely iconoclastic to the university ethos. Our uphill battle is much steeper.

[Anonymous No.11964426]

>>11955198
>your other disciple demands pre-emptive nuclear strike against entire country on live television; gets banned for life
Name one (1) thing wrong with nuking Iran

[Anonymous No.11964455]

>>11964426
It would destroy the ancient ruins of Persepolis

[Anonymous No.11964489]

>>11955149
Fuck off with your disorganized, nearly incoherent stream-of-consciousness you fucking pseud. I just wish you had enough self-awareness to realize how much you are embarrassing yourself to people who actually study philosophy, as opposed to reading one fucking book and believing that it holds the solution to all existence.

Take a vow of silence for the rest of your life to spare humanity and yourself from your stupidity.

[Anonymous No.11964556]

>>11963654
Oh, you also know Charles Tew?

[Anonymous No.11964598]

>>11964489
All I intend is to present Objectivist as a historically formidable meta-philosophical tool by which to assess ideas.
I'm merely being hyper competitive with my preferred philosophy. Take issue with that if you must, call that unwarranted "bias" if you must, I do not care. Though I will be forced to care if you present some grave critique of Objectivism. I'm listening.
Philosophy is not "solved" in any capacity and I am not saying the work is ever over but I am saying Objectivism consitutes a titanic leap forward. And I make my case as to why I think that itt.
>disorganized, nearly incoherent
Is it though?

Relax.

[Anonymous No.11964605]

>>11964455
Lol, well shit

[Anonymous No.11964611]

>>11964556
Pretty gud phil he does

[Anonymous No.11964630]

>>11964598
*present Objectivism

[Anonymous No.11964662]

>>11964611
Indeed, I'm a patreon of his. I greatly enjoy his work and prideful attitude.

[Anonymous No.11964717]

>>11964662
Brandon Cropper is also pretty good as far as yt phil goes though he's effectively dead these days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erytcpYpzRk

[Anonymous No.11965278]

>>11960601
Oh it's a goddamn READ anon, you'll enjoy it.

[Anonymous No.11965347]

>>11955198
>>>one of your disciples causes housing crisis
Alan Greenspan?
>>your other disciple demands pre-emptive nuclear strike against entire country on live television; gets banned for life
Who?

[Anonymous No.11965408]

>>11955149
In practice, the only philosophy worse than Objectivism is Marxism.

[Anonymous No.11965419]

Atlas shrugged when he looked at this long ass thread.

[Anonymous No.11965602]

the only thing keeping me from being an objectivist is the poor ideological development of the theory (it coming from Rand, although I've read some of Peikoff's stuff and it is much better) and the possibility that there's still contradictions inherent in the system. Not too sure about ethics being a useful thing, really, but at least Objectivism is positively non-mystic

[Anonymous No.11965618]

>>11955149
Tried to read one her lame books when I was like 15 but it was so boring and pointless.

[Anonymous No.11965682]

>>11965602
>possibility that there's still contradictions inherent in the system
Such as? If you mean that you presume their likely might be because of the manner in which she built the system, why not delve deeper and see if her work stands up to the degree of scrutiny you have in mind?
Journals of Ayn Rand and The Art of Nonfiction are particularly illuminating on her methodology and manner of thinking.

[Anonymous No.11966022]

>>11961946
>>11961968
Are you saying you subscribe to the Parmenidean plenum? You're a monist?
No man should be a presocratic. That's dumb.

[Anonymous No.11966029]

>>11966022
"socrates was a nigger" - aristotle

[Anonymous No.11966175]

>>11966022
>presocratic
>he hasn't taken the vedic pill
Literally shaking at our eurocentricity

[Anonymous No.11966350]

>>11961390
and she's still one of the best selling authors of all time, constantly topping charts including the new york times

[Anonymous No.11966389]

>>11966350
A personal joke of mine is to use the theory of labor to prove Ayn Rand's worth. She spent years on her novels, therefore it has objective value. Anyone that says that her novels are bad are simply objectively wrong.

[Anonymous No.11966501]

>>11961945
>Ethics in this discussion requires to understand what a man is (survival, valuing his life, seeking to find happiness, etc) and once that is established you know what ought to be done ethically.
This resolves nothing, because we don't know what man 'is' and never will. A Christian will say man 'is' created in the image of God by God and so 'ought' to serve God. A Marxist will say man 'is' a product of material class relations and so 'ought' to serve his class interests. Why shoud we trust the Objectivist 'is'? There are many competing versions of 'is', and multiple competing realities, some complementary, other contradictory.
Let alone the obvious point that even if a man 'is' what Objectivists say, it still doesn't follow that we 'ought' to do anything.

[Anonymous No.11966542]

>>11966501
>because we don't know what man 'is' and never will
What a bullshit absolutist statement.

>Why should we trust the Objectivist 'is'? There are many competing versions of 'is', and multiple competing realities, some complementary, other contradictory.
The real question you're asking is why should you trust anyone? There is only one reality. Do not confuse 'interpretations' with 'realities'. You can only trust people on the merit of their premises and whether those premises hold no contradiction. Because by understanding what premises people hold, you 'ought' to know what they believe.
Your general criticism is pure relativistic and ignores proper definition of what something is in order to understand what ought to be done. All you're saying is demanding by what standarding people should judge what something is, ignoring that you've not disproven that if you can define what man is objectively without any contradictions, an ought follows.

For example, if all two cases you've presented, with God or with a marxist, they're collectivist focus. They say that a man is his relationship to other people. That does not describe what man is and his fundamental properties but the context surrounding man. Objectivism argues that man exists for his own sake, for his own survival and, as Aristotle already said, man is a being capable of volitional action and forming abstractions. Thus, since man is capable of thinking, he ought to use his thinking for the sake of his survival and well-being.
If you disagree with the Objectivist argument of their 'is', provide a contradiction. And the same can be done with Christians or Marxist until you reach the essence.

There is no 'many is' but only one. And failure to do so is simply laziness.
>argh but so many people have their own interpretation of what a man is, who am I to know? Who is anyone to know what a man is?
The failure of induction and the is-ought dichotomy is the denial of the law of identity. If you understand the 'is' you know what ought to happen. What Hume argued (and later with his followers) is that you cannot know any 'is'. You cannot know anything! And therefore you should live 'pragmatically', without standards or rational thought. Maybe using a machete to nail a nail is the proper way to do anything? Who is to know? Maybe there is many 'is' to the nail and therefore equally valid 'ought', rather than any proper standard.

[Anonymous No.11966546]

>>11966501
>>11966542
It's literally that simple: understand what man is what he ought to do to ensure his 'is'. Also, do not misunderstand that simply understanding the 'is' means that you 'ought' to do anything. I've seen this shit too often as a criticism. Just because you know what is the nature of man and what you ought to do, you still have the volitional choice to not do what you ought to do. You can just starve to death if you so choose. You can live by relying on others for the rest of your life. Ayn Rand noted that people can make choices that goes against what they 'ought' to do, but it doesn't remove the fact that man is a volitional creature, capable of abstraction that acts in its own survival with its rationality and mind.

If you disagree with the objectivist view, point out a contradiction, it's the basis of criticism. The law of identity and noncontradiction demand only one 'is'. Because, as Ayn Rand said, A = A

[Anonymous No.11966680]

>>11966546
>>11966542
>There is only one reality
>man exists for his own sake
>since man is capable of thinking, he ought to use his thinking for the sake of his survival and well-being.
>man is a volitional creature, capable of abstraction that acts in its own survival with its rationality and mind
>There is no 'many is' but only one. And failure to do so is simply laziness.
>The law of identity and noncontradiction demand only one 'is'
You are assuming the tenets of your ideology are objective facts when they aren't, they are subjective emotional claims. I can assert with the same confidence as any Objectivist that man 'is' a virus and 'ought' to be exterminated.

[Anonymous No.11966850]

>>11966680
>they're subjective emotional claims
lol, you're simply targeting the certainty of objectivist and mistake it as arrogance. If you disagree, as said, detail a contradiction. Is there anything that is wrong? You can't just say 'lol you think your facts are facts but lol they're not!' without saying how they're not.
Honestly the fact that you can only quote and say 'lol how certain' without criticizing does not change the premise being established that man is a volitional creature capable of abstract that acts for its own survival.
I do not claim that the tenets of my ideology are objective fact, but that they hold no contradiction and therefore they are to be considered as fact until a contradiction is shown. Until you show a contradiction, I have no reason to assume that they are not facts.

>I can assert with the same confidence as any Objectivist that man 'is' a virus and 'ought' to be exterminated.
Yes yes, nice matrix reference but you're conflating the 'is' ethically of the self from the 'is' from what something is and how to deal with it. They are two different issues.

Your interpretation that man is a virus stems from its growth, metaphorically like a virus that consumes everything around it and expands, but that does not say how you should act, only how a virus ought to act. You have not defined your 'is' in humanity, only vaguely done so through a metaphor.

Or, to give a generalization to your idiocy, a virus grows and destroys everything, therefore you ought to remove it to protect yourself. It is a means of survival. You're essentially using the stolen fallacy by attributing one premise to another and equating it as the same. A virus only applies to the self, it does not apply metaphorically to a group.
A man is not a virus, not literally, therefore it isn't a virus. A is A, a man is not a virus. It may have similarities to a virus in terms of expanding and consuming, but that does not make them comparable, nor require the same action. To say that a man is a virus is to misunderstand what is a man and what is a virus, and goes against the law of identity.

Also, the claim is still the same, people have different interpretation but there is only one reality. There are no 'multiple realities'.

[Anonymous No.11966857]

>>11966680
Or, to put it in a simplistic way, a man is not a virus literally, therefore it 'ought' not to be exterminated as one.
Idiot.

[Anonymous No.11966941]

>>11966175
Western philosophy:
>Provides timeless wisdom to guide us through our lives
>Offers real solutions to real problems
>Changes the world

Eastern "philosophy":
>Tells you to go live in a cave and just chill bro
>Has never offered a single solution to any problem
>Literally had to get Westernised in order to be of any repute whatsoever

[Anonymous No.11966970]

>>11966857
>>11966850
> man is a volitional creature capable of abstract that acts for its own survival.
No he isn't. Man is incapable of rationality. Man 'is' a virus. Where is your evidence for this claim? You have none.
>Your interpretation that man is a virus stems from its growth,
No it doesn't, man 'is' a virus, it's not an interpretation, it's what 'is'.
>but you're conflating the 'is' ethically of the self
There is no self. Man is a virus
>a man is not a virus literally
Yes he 'is;. That 'is' literally the nature of man. You seem confused about what a virus 'is'.
>against the law of identity.
There is no law of identity because there is no one reality
>There are no 'multiple realities'.
Yes there are. Where is this single reality you claim?

[Anonymous No.11967014]

>>11966970
>Man is incapable of rationality.
Says the man using rationality, lol
The evidence for rationality is our grasp of abstractions and its application in a manner that holds no contradiction in relation to the law of noncontradiction.

>No it doesn't, man 'is' a virus, it's not an interpretation, it's what 'is'.
A man is not literally a virus.

>There is no law of identity because there is no one reality
How does that even deny the law of identity?

>Where is this single reality you claim?
If there is multiple realities, then you also accept the reality where I am typing this. You cannot accept multiple realities while denying a singular reality.
It's like denying monotheism by saying that there can only be polytheism and gods do not exist. The single reality that I claim is the one which my senses perceive and I am conscious of. You claim that there are multiple realities but there is no proof of such. You cannot just say 'lol yes there are' without anything else associated with it.

Anyways I'm not going to argue with someone that thinks something metaphorical is the same as literal.

[Anonymous No.11967024]

>>11966970
This is probaly bait but who cares.
Here's a simple trick to discern uselss nosense from meaningful statements. What differs if a proposition is true? If there is no real difference, then it's useless to speculate about it.
>Man is incapable of rationality.
If man were incapable of rationality, then no man would be rational. As there have existed rational men, then it seems as this proposition is false.
>No it doesn't, man 'is' a virus, it's not an interpretation, it's what 'is'.
Viruses aren't counted as living beings, therefor humans aren't by definition viruses.
> There is no self. Man is a virus.
I think therefor I am.
>There is no law of identity because there is no one reality
If the law of identity where incorrect then it would be useless as it wouldn't be useful. The law of indentity isn't useless and thus it's true.
>Yes there are. Where is this single reality you claim?
The discussion about multiple realities isn't meaningful as there aren't any observable evidence regarding the proposition and thus it can be dismissed as nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11967036]

>>11967014
Who says I'm using rationality? Rationality is impossible, I'm trusting my gut just like you are. I guess in your reality you all have this belief that your reality is the only one, but that's not the case in my reality. I don't think I can argue with someone as emotional as you anyway, all your claims just emotional longings. You don't even realise the fundamental nature of man that he 'is' a virus (at least that's true in my reality)

[Anonymous No.11967041]

>>11967024
>there have existed rational men
Nope.

[Anonymous No.11967049]

>>11967036
Statements being made are rationalistic and coherent in their meaning, therefore, yes, you are being rational. Idiot.
If you weren't rational, you wouldn't be using words.

[Anonymous No.11967058]

>>11965347
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

not sure if he's talking about albright, but this was a cringe moment.

[Anonymous No.11967073]

>>11967058
Who is Madeleine albright?
And as far as I know, Objectivism only argues for a military force to protect a country, never to act imperialistic. Ayn Rand saw the conscript as a means of denying people's individual rights and forcing them to die.

[Anonymous No.11967080]

>>11967049
>Statements being made are rationalistic and coherent in their meaning,
Maybe you find that to be the case. I don't. There is no rationality as this is no consciousness and there is no self. 'you' are a bundle of atoms and energy and we could pick you apart atom by atom and we won't find any 'self' or 'rationality' or 'consciousness'. There is nothing there but matter and energy

[Anonymous No.11967088]

>>11967080
Oh but you can't pick me apart atom by atom, therefore there is only the self.

[Anonymous No.11967095]

>>11967088
Oh but that what you think. They all said it was impossible back at Cambridge. Mad they called me, mad. Well, who's mad now? Hahahaha

[Anonymous No.11967210]

>>11966680
Well, no, I would posit they are objective facts. My criteria for beleiving so being the fact that A. all our currently discovered scientific facts and knowledge mesh and cross-confirm and B. the Objectivist identification on the nature of the good involved in the IOS tichotomy is so well argued. Historically so.

[Anonymous No.11967246]

>>11960962
>Rand was more scientific in the formulation of her philosophy than a massive chunk of the philosophic canon.
Lol no, not at all. She was not a scientist (nor a philosopher) and had no idea who scientific research works, which comes with experience actually practicing scientific research. Every field of science is a body of deductively sound knowledge from matters of fact established through the best methods. Are you asking how knowledge applies to philosophy? Fuck of psued. Try Peirce btw. Also your writing is incoherent and a displeasure to read.

[Anonymous No.11967300]

>>11966941
>Tells you to go live in a cave and just chill bro
Have you even read Bhagavad-Gita? Krishna makes it clear to Arjuna that this is not what you're meant to do and that instead, you must do your duty. This is Karma Yoga

[Anonymous No.11967328]

>>11967246
>She was not a scientist
True. But she was a logician, like many philosophers are. And many weren't scientist's either.
>nor a philosopher
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.11967331]

>>11967300
>you must do your duty
Oh, and as if that changes anything.

>One of the most destructive anti-concepts in the history of moral philosophy is the term “duty.”An anti-concept is an artificial, unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The term “duty” obliterates more than single concepts; it is a metaphysical and psychological killer: it negates all the essentials of a rational view of life and makes them inapplicable to man’s actions.

>The meaning of the term “duty” is the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest.

>In a mystic theory of ethics, “duty” stands for the notion that man must obey the dictates of a supernatural authority. Even though the anti-concept has been secularized, and the authority of God’s will has been ascribed to earthly entities, such as parents, country, State, mankind, etc., their alleged supremacy still rests on nothing but a mystic edict. Who in hell can have the right to claim that sort of submission or obedience? This is the only proper form—and locality—for the question, because nothing and no one can have such a right or claim here on earth.

[Anonymous No.11967342]

>>11966941
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover Objectivists are racist >>11967331
You haven't read any Hindu philosophy nor had Rand. Otherwise you wouldn't come out with nonsense like 'man must obey the dictates of a supernatural authority'.

[Anonymous No.11967353]

>>11967342
Fun fact, Objectivism is big in india. What now idiot?

[Anonymous No.11967432]

>>11967342
>to discover Objectivists are racist
What in the living shit is racist in any of that post?

[Anonymous No.11967456]

>>11967353
So what? What has that got to do with anything? Christianity is big in India. Buddhism is big in India. India is a big place. Do you have an actual argument?
>>11967432
Almost all that post was racist. You probably don't think so, because racists don't believe themselves to be racist, they think they are just telling it like it is or something

[Anonymous No.11967510]

>>11966970
>he's a misanthropic scepticist that parrots lol no ad infinitum
Disregarded on that alone
>There is no law of identity because there is no one reality
Name the 2nd (second) reality you observed then champ.

[Anonymous No.11967513]

>>11967456
>Almost all that post was racist.
In. What. Respect?

[Anonymous No.11967543]

>>11967513
Western philosophy:
>Provides timeless wisdom to guide us through our lives
Suggest only western philosophy provides timeless wisdom which is racist
>Offers real solutions to real problems
Same as above. Implies only European problems and solutions are real
>Changes the world
You are suggesting only Europe counts. Indian and Chinese philosophers changed things in India and China (and beyond) but that doesn't seem to count as its not Europe.

Eastern "philosophy":
>Tells you to go live in a cave and just chill bro
Just racist ignorance and stereotyping about the nature of Eastern philosophy
>Has never offered a single solution to any problem
Same again
>Literally had to get Westernised in order to be of any repute whatsoever
Implies only western attitudes count. Lao Tzu had plenty of repute in China before anyone in the west had heard of him. You seem to think that if westerners haven't heard of someone it doesn't matter which is racist.
Lastly you are cleaving to this outdated Orientalism where the West and East are somehow opposed and contrasted which is racist in itself. I've stuck to it only to help show you how racist the post was.
Glad to help

[Anonymous No.11967579]

Just your neighborhood Kantian walking through.
>A moral proposition is the statement regarding the regulation of behavior of a moral agent.
>As emperical observation only can tell what is, then it follows that emperical observation can't arrive ought statements.
>How can we then know the moral truth of a moral proposition if it doesn't deal with how the world is but how the world ought to be? By using reductio ad absurdum, by the means of pure reason.
>If we posit that "I ought to violate the autonomy of others" as a true moral statement then it would have to be objectively true (true regardless of subject, thus true for all subjects)
>If this statement was objectively true, then it could be a universal moral law. If it were that case, then we would be unable to violate the autonomy of others, and this presupposes our own autonomy. Therefor it leds to a contradiction, but A=A and so on so it's objectively wrong to violate the autonomy of others.
>Thus I have deduced with the help of pure reason applied to practical matters (practical reason) that any violation of individual autonomy is immoral based on A=A and the fact that man is a rational animal with free will makes this possible.
Kantian moral philosophy is a good moral basis for libertarianism. For example kantian ideas are presupposed in Robert Nozicks work on libertarianism.

[Anonymous No.11967601]

>>11955149
Rand is fucking garbage not because of her ideas (mostly), but because of her delivery method. Her books are always poorly written and are just there to push her philosophy. That’s my only true gripe with her personally, my other complaints are just pointed toward libertarians.

[Anonymous No.11967638]

>>11967543
>Suggest only western philosophy provides timeless wisdom which is racist
How?

>Implies only European problems and solutions are real
West = only europe??

[Anonymous No.11967670]

>>11967638
West is a meaningless word like "alpha".

[Anonymous No.11967702]

>>11967670
Except it is a concept meant to encapsulate the observation that a series of earthshaking philosophic insights were discovered and formulated only in a specific region of the word during a specific span of time.
What's it like having a room temperature IQ?

[Anonymous No.11967710]

>>11967670
By your logic, so is the East. What's your point? Why think West = Europe???

[Anonymous No.11967715]

>>11967702
*world

[Anonymous No.11967725]

>>11967702
>a series of earthshaking philosophic insights were discovered and formulated only in a specific region of the word during a specific span of time.
Which region is that? Are you being racist again? It's not too late to change!

[Anonymous No.11967790]

>>11967725
Unfortunately for the east; not the east. Bombshell reddit: it is not racist to identify that in the grand scope of things, the east got outcompeted in the as arena of philosophic veracity.
Insisting that there must be some equalitarian distribution 50/50 among the east and west just because and ignoring the historical record is naive and fucking moronic.

[Anonymous No.11967793]

>>11967790
>as
Typo

[Anonymous No.11967813]

>>11967790
The person ignoring the historical record is you. You are just showcasing your own ignorance and racism. I don't understand why. Normally when I don't know anything about a topic I go shitpost somewhere I have a modicum of knowledge to avoid sounding like an idiot. Not you. You clearly have no knowledge of philosophy, yet here you are spouting nonsense

[Anonymous No.11967837]

>>11967579
Kant's cthulu-tier absurdity of the noumenal and the false dichotomies of a priori/a posteriori and analytic/synthetic affect his ethics and wreck the whole of his structure.
He's better off discarded.

[Anonymous No.11967877]

>>11967813
There must a specific factor in the historical record I'm missing which, because of that error, lends credence to your accusation that what I am arguing constitutes racism.
Identify it.

[Anonymous No.11968039]

>>11967543
>Lap Tzu had plenty of repute in China before anyone in the west had heard of him. You seem to think that if westerners haven't heard of someone it doesn't matter which is racist.
>Lastly you are cleaving to this outdated Orientalism where the West and East are somehow opposed and contrasted which is racist in itself. I've stuck to it only to help show you how racist the post was.
"Repute" is irrelevant, Aristotle's formulations are (or would have been) of immensely greater significance and relevance *in China* than Lao Tzu despite him having more "repute" there. And not in my or the West's opinion either.
>Orientalism
No I am not arriving at my conclusion through those means and you have no warrant to say I do.
One can arrive at the conclusion that eastern phil=shit without using that orientalist strawman you allude to and think I must be employing. I am not.

[Anonymous No.11968137]

>>11967328
>She was a logician. She made no contribution to logic whatsoever. You clearly don't know anything about logic or are trolling for da lulz

[Anonymous No.11968239]

>>11967837
Kant unironically did nothing wrong buddy. Ayn Rand cant give a coherent defense of individual rights. Say I have a machine that enables me to steal the amount a person will live from them, and give it to me, as objectivisms ultimate value is life, and because the machine would extend my life, it seems in my rational self interest to take others life and live for thousand of years. A kantian morality condones this act becuase it violates individual rights. The life machine puts the objectivist in a dilemma, if the objectivist chooses to take life from others to extend his own, then he extends his life, which is the ultimate value but he violates individual rights. If he instead chooses to respect others individual rights, he then chooses a value above his own life. So according to you, should the objectivist in the hypothetical scenario
A: drain the life of others without consequences and thus putting their life over others individual rights or
B: not drain the life of others, but instead value something above extending their life indefinetly.

[Anonymous No.11968252]

>>11968239
>Ayn Rand cant give a coherent defense of individual rights.
Hahahahahahahaha

>A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life.

[Anonymous No.11968260]

>>11955201
And pretty much every Republican currently in office.

[Anonymous No.11968261]

>>11968239
Also no, Ayn Rand said that you have to protect the rights of others so that others don't violate your rights. There is no wishy-washy bullshit of violating the rights of others while having rights. Either everyone has rights or no one does.

[Anonymous No.11968262]

>>11968252
Can you answer the dilemma my dude? If I'm able to violate someone elses rights without reprecuassion and in the process extend the quality of my own life, why shouldn't I according to the objectivist?

[Anonymous No.11968284]

>>11968262
Because you might get caught and go to jail. It's not in your rational self-interest to do so.

[Anonymous No.11968286]

>>11955250
She idolized a serial killer named William Hickman and based the protagonist of her unfinished novel “The Little Street” on him.

[Anonymous No.11968290]

>>11968284
Not always my dude. There are multiple examples of criminals getting away with their crimes. Also, this seems like a might-makes right argument, the only reason why we should respect others right is becuase a force larger than me would punish me, implying that if I where able to overthrow the state It would be perfectly reasonable to violate the rights of others.

[Anonymous No.11968296]

>>11968286
She was admiring his trait of psychopathy but that's overall irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.11968307]

>>11968290
Just because people get away with crime does not mean you will. You might try to rob someone and get killed. You're automatically assuming you'll get away with it.

[Anonymous No.11968308]

>>11968286
>>11968296

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia

Extremely common among women to be sexually aroused by criminals. It's just another facet of their inferior nature.

[Anonymous No.11968315]

>>11968308
this is why women rarely leave men who hit them btw

[Anonymous No.11968318]

>>11968307
But would you agree that the objectivist argument for rights relay on might makes right and that a force able to subvert/ avoid the government would have no reason to respect the rights of others, pressuming that it has objectivist values?

[Anonymous No.11968341]

>>11968318
Might does not make right because any 'right' becomes arbitrary rather than liberty. The government exists to make sure might never makes right except to use might when people try to impose their might to invalidate rights.

[Anonymous No.11968359]

>>11968341
You continue to avoid the question:
If a person is able to overthrow the government/ is the government and is able to violate others right to extend/improve their life, why shouldn't they assuming objectivist values?

[Anonymous No.11968368]

>>11968359
If you seek to overthrow the government, unless it is tyrannical, you wouldn't be following objectivist values but Nietzschean values which does value might as right. You also cannot singlehandedly overthrow the government, thereby you will always need of mob rule.

[Anonymous No.11968371]

>>11968137
Again, to say nothing of her identified logical fallacies, her contribution to logic was isolating a profound fact involving the realtion of contextuality to concept formation and a tool of critique, the "Anticoncept", for assessing logical method.
https://campus.aynrand.org/campus/globals/transcripts/rands-distinctive-conception-of-logic
(or in audio if you like) https://campus.aynrand.org/campus-courses/objectivism-the-state-of-the-art/rands-distinctive-conception-of-logic
Deduction had been solved but she broke open the door of induction, which had been stagnating. Read >>11960601

[Anonymous No.11968395]

>>11968368
>If you seek to overthrow the government, unless it is tyrannical, you wouldn't be following objectivist values but Nietzschean values which does value might as right.
But then I wouldn't following life as my ulitmate value as the ultimate value of overthrowing the government would be to improve my own life and live lika a king.

[Anonymous No.11968437]

>>11968286
>>11968296
>>11968308
A smear

>objectobot.com
Fantastic site this.

[Anonymous No.11968444]

>>11968395
You're mistaking following life as your absolute value to overthrow the government with life as the standard of value and thereby equate obtaining power as the standard of value.
Absolute power comes from not desiring power and being able to let go of power.

[Anonymous No.11968462]

>>11968444
But if overthrowing state greatly improves my life as it gives me power, why shouldn't I? Power improves life, and life is the ultimate value, so why shouldn't the objectivist strive for as much power as possible?
>Absolute power comes from not desiring power and being able to let go of power.
Pure sophistry

[Anonymous No.11968480]

>>11968437

obviously her interest in him was borne from his criminality. it isn't a smear so much of as a little known fact.

[Anonymous No.11968503]

>>11968462
Power does not improve life, it makes you reliant on it. Power can give you temporary security, but the true measure of independence is to not have to rely on others or power. The Fountainhead as two main characters seek power and they're the villains.

>Pure sophistry
Suppose you were to rely on the will of a collective as your power. Your influence on such a group gives you power, security, influence and wealth. This can be seen as good, no? But it ultimately means you rely on others as the means of survival rather than your own strength. If such a group were to turn on you, and you have nothing to rely on, you die. That does not improve your life but provided temporary security.

Objectivism argues for pure independence (similar to how Nietzsche viewed it but without leaving civilization) and never relying on any form of power other than your own strength and intelligence without infringing on the rights of others.

[Anonymous No.11968528]

>>11968480
*fascination with his criminality for it's sociological and epistemological implications
^This is always purposefully left out or evaded in the first place and because of that it is thus a smear tactic.

[Anonymous No.11968640]

>>11968503
>Power does not improve life
Actually it does. Power is the ability to do things, the more things you're able to do, the more you can fulfill your ultimate value. If I have alot of money, then I can fulfill my life better and thus fulfill my ultimate value better.
>Power can give you temporary security,
Actually no again. A king can rule a whole country, and be safe his entire life becuase of his power and might. For example, god, the most powerful being imagineable would be as safe as anyone could be as he would be omnipotent.
>but the true measure of independence is to not have to rely on others or power.
Then none of the charachters in Atlas Shurgged are powerful, as they depend on the help of others in buisness. Dagny needs the workers to build her railroads, Fransisco needs the workers in his copper minds and the same is true for James. They are only powerful within the their social context. All of them would be rather powerless in a natural setting without the state and so on.
>The Fountainhead as two main characters seek power and they're the villains.
Actually no yet again. Most people seek power becuase power is the ability to do things. For example Roark works partly so he can eat to further his life becuase that is the ultimate value. He studied architecture to gain the power of creating splendid buildings and so on.
>Suppose you were to rely on the will of a collective as your power. Your influence on such a group gives you power, security, influence and wealth. This can be seen as good, no? But it ultimately means you rely on others as the means of survival rather than your own strength.
You forget that we live in a society, where we are forced to trade with each other due to the division of labour, now man is an island my dude. There have never been a man that has relied only on his own strength for surival, as we are a social animal.
>That does not improve your life but provided temporary security.
Actually now, yet again. If this where extended throught my entire life time, then it would practially been permanent for me and thus ultimately something I should seek as it fulfills the ultimate value.
Also this is a massiv strawman of my argument, there have been multiple kings and dictators that have ruled over their citzens, regardless of their opinion of them. And this opinion could easily be changed through the means of propaganda and so on.
>Objectivism argues for pure independence (similar to how Nietzsche viewed it but without leaving civilization)
The only reason to strive for pure independence would be if it where in the pursuit of ones own life, which isn't necessary. Also pure independence is impossible as Atlas required the trade with the others to survive in the Gult as they traded without eachoter. Trading with someone for essential goods is making you dependent on them as you couldn't create theese goods yourself, and thus would be left unable to live if the provider disappeared.
cont.

[Anonymous No.11968649]

>>11968640
>and never relying on any form of power other than your own strength and intelligence without infringing on the rights of others.
And this is where the problem is. To do this is antithetical to the basis of objectivist morality as pure independence necessitates no trade with others as this makes you dependent on them. You depend on food workers to make you food, and so on. Also, this respect of others rights can't be based on the ultimate value of life as it's possible to live while infringing on others life. Say the monarch in the past could live richly on the fruit of others labour without getting punished for it. Even within the context of objectivist political views, this is the case as politicans live of their high tax funded salaries and enrich themselfs through corruption.

Let's just agree to disagree my dude.

[Anonymous No.11968674]

philosophy is poetry for people with no abstract intelligence

[Anonymous No.11968717]

>>11968640
No, power is influence on others, but power in of itself that supersedes rights is codependent and goes against your independence and long term survival.

>Actually no again. A king can rule a whole country, and be safe his entire life becuase of his power and might.
You're only focusing on king when I'm applying to all form of power. A king still relies on the institution and people following his rule, he ultimately has no power if no one listens to him.

>Then none of the charachters in Atlas Shurgged are powerful
That's the point. Equal trade means that no power is involved. Did you even read Atlas Shrugged? They mention this throughout the book. It's mutually beneficial to Dagny and her workers, and the same applies to the rest of the characters. You misunderstand the term dependence which means that if no such people exist, your life would be in their hands, which it is not. Again, equal exchange is made.

>For example Roark works partly so he can eat to further his life becuase that is the ultimate value.
That's sustaining his life.

>He studied architecture to gain the power of creating splendid buildings and so on.
No, he doesn't gain the power, he obtains the skill to creating the building he wants. No power is involved, and again, equal exchange between his ego of wanting building done the way he wants them and people wanting buildings built are made into one. Going to school does not give him 'power' to build whatever he wants lol.

>where we are forced to trade with each other due to the division of labour, now man is an island my dude
Nope, you're not 'forced' to trade, you have to volitionally make that choice. No one forces you to do anything.

>Also pure independence is impossible as Atlas required the trade with the others to survive in the Gult as they traded without eachoter.
Overall irrelevant. Again, they are not reliant on others. Saying 'it makes you dependent' doesn't make it so. That's just projecting on your part to say that they wouldn't be able to create goods for themselves.

>To do this is antithetical to the basis of objectivist morality as pure independence necessitates no trade with others as this makes you dependent on them.
Again, that's your limitation and misunderstanding of independence.

Anyways, you're just going around in circles. I'm done with this.

[Anonymous No.11968722]

>>11968674
Poetry is the combination of literature and music through rhythm and rhyme.
Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence.

[Anonymous No.11968768]

>>11968640
Not your primary debatee but I would like to mention Rand's criticism of those who equate political power with economic power. It is too wrong to equate power in the manner you are with still further varieties of power. Performing the fallacy of equivocation and Rand's context dropping fallacy™ in one.

[Anonymous No.11968808]

>>11968722
if poetry is the combination of literature and music then poetry defeats the purpose of philosophy by default as it encompasses philosophy by your own admission (poetry is literature and music combined and literature encompasses philosophy) while expanding upon it with the inclusion of musical elements upon the base philosophical qualities of an average poem

[Anonymous No.11969095]

>>11968674
>>11968808
That's absurd. Poetry is subsumed by Aesthetics which is a branch of phosophy.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/esthetics.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/esthetic_abstractions.html

[Anonymous No.11969129]

>>11969095
>Poetry is subsumed by aesthetics
you've never read poetry in your life you mongrel

[Anonymous No.11969278]

>>11968808
Literature (and all art) requires philosophy, so that's dumb.

[Anonymous No.11969287]

>>11955149
>metaphysics
Opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.11969298]

>>11969129
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics
Are you stupid?

[Anonymous No.11969845]

It is downright fascinating how cultish objetivists are about Ayn Rand. They thinking that they solved the problem of induction, something that have troubled philosophers since Sextus Empiricus, by saying that there is no problem at all, is borderline comical.

[Anonymous No.11969982]

>>11969845
>if everyone can't figure it out, no one can!

[Anonymous No.11970012]

>>11969278
poetry encompasses philosophy

[Anonymous No.11970032]

>>11970012
What. In. The. Shit. Does poetry have to say about metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.11970035]

>>11969845
Read The Logical Leap.

[Anonymous No.11970261]

>>11970032
google "metaphysical poets". it's actually a rather large and important section of the history of english poetry I'm honestly surprised you weren't aware of the likes of John Donne, Andrew Marvell, Abraham Cowley and so on.

[Anonymous No.11970445]

>>11970261
Never heard of them. Do any of them think that philosophy is inside poetry?

[Anonymous No.11970780]

>>11968437
She quoted him: "What is good for me is right." Then wrote, "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," in her journal. Seems like idolizing to me.

[Anonymous No.11970919]

>>11970780
Reading comprehension, you lack it.

[Anonymous No.11970931]

>>11961971

i have no idea what the fuck you just said

[Anonymous No.11970944]

>>11970931
people have been trained to prefer realism in characters >> they sperg out at a different writing paradigm
like if you showed LISP to a java-only programmer, he would lose his shit and not understand any of it

[Anonymous No.11971008]

>>11955149
>You can be human and not be a scientist

Just as not everyone is a professional philosopher, by the same token not everyone is a professional scientist. But everyone has some ideas and opinions about the natural world, just as we have ideas and opinions about philosophical subjects.

Arguably, a pro basketball player has a better intuitive understanding of gravity than your average physicist.

[Anonymous No.11971485]

>>11970931
He is saying that the characters represent ideais rather than being realistic characters. The issue is that you could use that to defend any piece of garbage and propaganda, and that most people can actually understand non-realistic characters, which causes to it seen less like a defense and more like an excuse.

[Anonymous No.11971725]

>>11968039
You've never read Said have you? Or any Indian or Chinese philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11971779]

>>11970919
A counter argument, you lack it.

[Anonymous No.11971808]

>>11970445
>these are the people claiming to have solved ethics, aesthetics and ontology
And somehow Objectivism remains a fringe cult with no presence in academia, intellectually on par with creationism or scientology. Its baffling

[Anonymous No.11972056]

>>11971808
Not an Objectivist

[Anonymous No.11972067]

>>11971725
A. Yes I have
B. Don't move the goalposts

[Anonymous No.11972070]

>>11970445
>never heard of John Donne
oh lawd

[Anonymous No.11972166]

>>11972067
So what did you make of Said? You disagree with his analysis?

[Anonymous No.11972228]

>>11972166
Him? No. I had meant I read Chinese Philosophy (and skimed some Indian). Only works of eastern phil I've ever read cover to cover are some of "the bigs" like Sun Tzu, Lao Tzu, that guy who founded Buddhism, that guy who made Buddhism Zen. I'd count Averroes but he essentially amounts to a western philosopher.
Why is Said in particular worth it in your view? My criteria for trashing a work of Eastern Phil is very low, I generally won't even skim the work of some new Taoist I discover. Penn_Jillette.jpg

[Anonymous No.11972286]

>>11972228
>Why is Said in particular worth it in your view?
Literally one of the most seminal philosophy texts since WWII. Pretty astounding you're not at least familiar with him let alone not read him, pretty much puts you in the 'uneducated brainlet' box.
Though it does explain why you use a retarded phrase like 'Eastern philosophy' and your general chauvinism

[Anonymous No.11972367]

>>11972286
>prove you've read this author I've pulled out my ass else I call you a brainlet.
Relax. There are 24 hours in a day and I have my own literary interests. He likely concerns an area that is simply of no interest to me.
The closer we get to the current year, the less over books by authors who published in those years gets shorter.
Did I say I'm not familiar with him? His specialty is Palestinian politics or something wasn't it? I know the name.

I'm not asking you to tell me how seminal he is, I want you to encapsulate a core point of his that will hook me into reading him. Who are his philosophic influences/foundations?

[Anonymous No.11972668]

>>11972367
>>11972228
>there are people this dumb posting on /lit/ and they don't know they're dumb and they're sharing their opinions like they were real people

[Anonymous No.11972696]

>>11963713
>>11959642
>>11958852
>>11962253
Well it's not like Objectivism has made NO progress in academia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_movement#Objectivism_in_academia

[Anonymous No.11972710]

>>11972668
Oh do enlighten us Mr. Omniliterary

[Anonymous No.11973003]

>Why is Said in particular worth it in your view?
>I'm not asking you to tell me how seminal he is, I want you to encapsulate a core point of his that will hook me into reading him. Who are his philosophic influences/foundations?
I wasn't being facetious my dude, I really do want an answer to the above.

[Anonymous No.11973175]

>>11955149
Rand threads are old and tired at this point. We need more Peikoff threads.

[Anonymous No.11973273]

>writes about freedom and individualism
>starts a cult
What did Rand mean by this?

[Anonymous No.11973518]

>>11973273
Kek, only said because of how uncompromising and iconoclastic Objectivism is. Also Rand stating she btfo as many philosophers as she did.
From Wikipedia:
(I know all of this on my own but am too lazy to type out what is essentially the same thing anyway)
Jim Peron responded to Shermer, Rothbard and others with an argument that similarities to cults are superficial at best and charges of cultism directed at Objectivists are ad hominem attacks. Objectivism, he said, lacks layers of initiation, a hierarchy, obligation, cost, or physical coercion:
>I cannot see how a disembodied philosophy can be a cult. I say Objectivism was disembodied because there was no Objectivist organization to join. The Nathaniel Branden Institute gave lectures, but had no membership. You could subscribe to a newsletter but you couldn't join. Objectivism was, and is, structureless. And without a structure there cannot be cult. [...] The vast majority of self-proclaimed Objectivists are people who read Rand's works and agreed with her. Most have never attended an Objectivist meeting nor subscribed to any Objectivist newsletter.[117]
In 2001, Rand's long-time associate Mary Ann Sures remarked:
>Some critics have tried to turn her certainty into a desire on her part to be an authority in the bad sense, and they accuse her of being dogmatic, of demanding unquestioning agreement and blind loyalty. They have tried, but none successfully, to make her into the leader of a cult, and followers of her philosophy into cultists who accept without thinking everything she says. This is a most unjust accusation; it's really perverse. Unquestioning agreement is precisely what Ayn Rand did not want. She wanted you to think and act independently, not to accept conclusions because she said so, but because you reached them by using your mind in an independent and firsthand manner.

[Anonymous No.11973877]

>>11971779
Not him but, she was simply treating him as a microcosm of being true to egoism vs the disapproving masses. Detacting the fzct that he was a murder from Hickman and the aspect of him she was contemplating. Rand mocked the pubic because they unanimously objected more to Hickman's distinct personality type than to the fact he was a monstrous murderer. She saw a bit of evil in the publics reaction.

[Anonymous No.11973915]

>>11973518
No one says that objectivism is a straight up cult with robes and shit. However, earlier objectivists were very cultish and dogmatic, as Brenden himself attested.

[Anonymous No.11974055]

>>11973915
>"No ones saying objectivism is a cult"
>"w-we're just saying it has cult elements"
>Well see x, y, z are the defining characteristics/elements of cults
>Objectivist circles thus far observed don't exhibit them, Objective philosophy being anathema to unthinking devotion aside.
>"Well yeah but it's still obviously cultISH"
Yeah ok.

[Anonymous No.11974085]

>>11974055
Cults are generally poorly defined in general, but in the context of what Rand is being accused, it generally means dogmatic devotion toward the belief, a greater-than-life leader whose status as a human is just a technicality, and an informal structure based around said leader's whims. Note that, based on Brenden account of it, it actually nailed all of those.

[Anonymous No.11974092]

>>11974085
Note that I don't think that it was actually Rand intent for it to be so, like, lets say, Hubbard and scientology, but rather a natural product of her personality, beliefs, and circumstances.

[Anonymous No.11974105]

>>11974085
No they aren't.
They are well defined. Nice try champ.
Rand isn't treated larger than life she's treated (by merit of the sharpness of her mind and tonge) as an excellent specimen of life.
Different concept entirely.

[Anonymous No.11974125]

>>11973877
*detaching

[Anonymous No.11974128]

>>11974105
>No they aren't.
>They are well defined. Nice try champ.
Since we are just straight up copy-and-pasting shit from wikipedia here, lets see what it says about it:
>The term itself is controversial and it has divergent definitions in both popular culture and academia and it also has been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.[1][2] In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices,[3] although this is often unclear.[4][5][6] Other researchers present a less-organized picture of cults saying that they arise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
>Rand isn't treated larger than life she's treated (by merit of the sharpness of her mind and tonge) as an excellent specimen of life.
That is why Peter Schwartz threw a fit about A Passion of Ayn Rand, and why Peikoff bragged about how he will never read the book and yet condemned it anyway.

[Anonymous No.11974200]

>>11974128
The Branden's we're largely ignored and disassociated with because of dishonesty. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/06/wendy-mcelroy/the-passion-of-ayn-rands-criticsthe-case-against-the-brandens/

[Anonymous No.11974224]

>>11974200
Either post actual excerpts from the book or fuck off, especially when the review itself admits that the book is only interested in defending Rand. Also:
>Objectivist groups across North America dissolved into bitter schisms. For example, a friend was banned from a discussion group he had helped to form because he refused to take Nathaniel Branden’s book The Psychology of Self-Esteem off his shelf. From one day to the next, his circle of friends became a circle of condemners
I see how much it isn't a cult.

[Anonymous No.11974354]

>>11974224
Interestingly enough, I found a 80 pages long rebuttal to The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics while looking for the book itself, and by what I have read and if it is to believed, then the book abysmal attack at the Branden/shameless masturbation about Rand by a deceitful ideologue. Here is the link:
https://scribd.com/document/9421651/The-Passion-of-James-Valliant-s-Criticism

[Anonymous No.11974395]

>>11974224
That is exactly what cults do not do. Drama is not particular to cults. In fact passionate and even cringe worthy disagreements like this are exactly what happen with every organization in it's infancy and are indicative of growning pains.
Most of the groups who had the strongest cases remain. Barring the Atlas Society.
Here's another peice of elucidation: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/blog/?p=1067
The two biggest, ARI and Atlas Society have some major flaws however. ARI is immensely better than AS and I still admire Peikoff but I deign to go elsewhere for my Objectivism fix. A 1K subs YouTuber for one.

It's clear this proves Objectivism is not stagnant and many disagree with Rand (the supposed cult messiah) on key points which is not indicative of cults' defining characteristics. Peikoff can handle criticism poorly and that along with his rather dull 'teeth' are my biggest criticisms of the man.

[Anonymous No.11974457]

>>11974395
>That is exactly what cults do not do. Drama is not particular to cults. In fact passionate and even cringe worthy disagreements like this are exactly what happen with every organization in it's infancy and are indicative of growning pains.
That is your brain on cults. Shit such as heated arguments and the like happens even on well established institutions and movements, but something like banning people from discussion groups and ostracizing them simple because they have the "wrong" opinions or even just own a book from an author they deslike is a strong signal of dogmatic belief. Also
>In other words, Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, and everyone else who sees Nathaniel Branden for the vile scoundrel that he is
Interesting how "disagreeing" seens to mean "agree with Rand(and Peikoff, her regent on Earth) say, even on minor points" for you.

[Anonymous No.11974883]

>>11974457
>Interesting how "disagreeing" seens to mean "agree with Rand(and Peikoff, her regent on Earth) say, even on minor points" for you.
Clearly not. The criteria for forcing "open" momentarily the closed door of Objectivism (it being classified as a closed system philosophy remember) with the excellence of one's argument are simply very high. Branden for instance could not handle the harshness of the meta. I like to liken debates among Objectivists as a pit of piranhas; we eat our wounded. inb4 >edge
Objectivism is hyper competitive and I wouldn't have it any other way. You know another thing that Objectivism doesn't do? "Agreeing to disagree". Insisting on an opinion or outlook that you keep failing the win the aggressive debates that ensue over it enough times and Objectivists (which get invaded by lolberts not up to the task all the time) tend to get angry with each other.
And this my friend is the central distinguishing in characteristic of Objectivist debate that you have misassociated with cult behaviour. And not it my opinion either.
What else do you expect with an absolute-egoist, ultra-capitalist, hyper-individualist (all commie smears btw) ideology?

[Anonymous No.11974996]

>distinguishing in characteristic
*distinguishing characteristic

[Anonymous No.11975205]

>>11974105
Which is why everyone in her circle felt alright listening to Mozart right?

[Anonymous No.11975227]

>>11973877
I don't know how you are supposed to separate his personality from his crimes. He was a psychopath with no empathy for others, a trait which caused other people great suffering.

[Anonymous No.11975237]

>>11975227
For rhetorical purposes clearly.

[Anonymous No.11975308]

>>11966389
Arguably Rand's success disproves ideas of capitalistic merit.

[Anonymous No.11975543]

>claim to follow reason and self interest
>are in a cult
What did Randroids mean by this?

[Anonymous No.11976061]

>>11975543
(You)

[Anonymous No.11976132]

>>11964426
t.Schlomo Gonzalez

[Anonymous No.11976801]

>>11975308
Lel I don't think the left ever got over Atlas Shrugged to rising to #2 most influential book in America behind the Bible. The salt.

[Anonymous No.11976813]

>>11976801
Why would the left be upset over that? It's a wonderful object lesson in the need for social safety nets, even Rand, best selling author and demonizer of socialism the world over, needed social security and medicaid and food stamps when she got older.

[Anonymous No.11976837]

>>11976813
Wrong in fact. She didn't need it. And never violated her philosophy by collecting.
>food stamps
Source: your ass

[Anonymous No.11976891]

>>11976837
>he posted a meme image in the style of those alien hunters shows, so it must be true
DEBUNKED (in big red letters)

[Anonymous No.11976909]

>>11976891
Lel don't complain at me. Objectobot made it

[Anonymous No.11976912]

>>11976837
Funny how she only decided to "take what was hers" after she got lung cancer and couldn't pay her medical bills.

[Anonymous No.11976947]

>>11976912
>waits almost 10 years after reaching the legal age to apply before collecting SS
>this has nothing to do with her book sales petering off or that she's now on the verge of bankruptcy due to the mounting cost of her cancer treatment
>this was in no way a compromise of principle or ideological failure
>Rand relented then simply because she wanted to, to collect what the state took from her before
>pay no heed to the fact she collected more than she put in anyway (otherwise there'd fundamental be no point to such a social system to begin with)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ayn-rand-social-security/

[Anonymous No.11976958]

>>11964426
Iran has a very rich cultural history and is responsible for greatly influencing world culture.

Name one reason, aside from terrorism that anyone should nuke it for.

[Anonymous No.11976959]

>>11976947
>not just Going Galt

[Anonymous No.11976970]

>>11955149
Your philiosophical structure is entirely westernized. You haven't even, it appears, scratched the surface of Indic or Chinese philosophy, or anything otherwise.

True philosophy does not come from the clever manipulation of words into coherent and deep sounding words. It comes only from observation and experience into everything one supposes is true or not, with an unyielding persistence until one gets to the most important truths.

[Anonymous No.11977052]

>>11976912
>lung cancer
>>11976947
>pay no heed to the fact she collected more than she put in anyway (otherwise there'd fundamental be no point to such a social system to begin with)
)
Faulty reasoning. The more your income the more you are taxed. And Rand's profits from Atlas Shrugged sales raked in the cash. Which was then taxed heavily.

[Anonymous No.11977069]

>>11976970
Damn sure haven't applied morass that is almost the entire eastern canon. There is a reason /lit/ makes threads laughing at eastern phil all the time champ. It is safely and validly discarded. I reiterate >>11966941
>with an unyielding persistence until one gets to the most important truths.
ie Objectivism.

[Anonymous No.11977154]

>>11977052
>first of all taking the money wasn't hypocritical, it was totally in line with her philosophy
>second of all she didn't take the money, she gave someone else the legal power to take the money for her
>and she only got so much money, not that much money, only a few thousands
>and anyway she didn't even use that money probably
>and again even if she did it doesn't mean she was a hypocrite, not that she did
lmao the level of cope and layers of rationalize here are fucking something

[Anonymous No.11977276]

>>11977154
I have already said it, given examples and explained it in terms that even cavemen could understand, but I will said it again: Objectivism are a cult build around the semi-divine Rand and maintained by her high priests such as Peikoff.

[Anonymous No.11977353]

>>11977154
>first of all taking the money wasn't hypocritical, it was totally in line with her philosophy
It did not contradictory her philosophy no, but the left certainly wants it to mean that.
>second of all she didn't take the money, she gave someone else the legal power to take the money for her
Deliberations with her lawyer. She is not pass on the responsibility.
>and she only got so much money, not that much money, only a few thousands
The point is, fzggot, that it isn't > (greater than) the money she put in. Like you claimed.
>and anyway she didn't even use that money probably
*Not to the point of being consequential to her overall funds.
>and again even if she did it doesn't mean she was a hypocrite, not that she did
She wasn't a hypocrite as was previously discussed. She did but what is being challenged is the spastic insistence of the philosophic significance of it.

Why are would-be Rand critics so obscurantist? Do you listen to yourselves? Grasping at straws ad nauseum.

[Anonymous No.11977361]

>>11977276 >>11974883

[Anonymous No.11977376]

>>11977353
>>It did not contradictory her philosophy no, but the left certainly wants it to mean that.
Yes it did and the proof is in how late she was to apply for social security. If she always collected social security you'd be right, but since Rand argues you're getting robbed by the government twice if you don't take the redistributed money they collected and let it all go to the "parasites" instead of the producers, and only bothered to accept SS (and she had to get a proxy to do it out, likely to better deny and abstract the fact, eg shame) 10 years after she could and in financial hardship, it's pretty clear she compromised with herself to do it and died a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.11977404]

>>11977376
>Rand argues you're getting robbed by the government twice if you don't take the redistributed money they collected
Name a hole in this reasoning

Also: why on earth was the time she chose to claim ss relevant at all? Yes she chose to do it when her finances were moderately stressed. So what?
One who endorses LfCap is not made a hypocrite by refusing to compound the injustice leveied upon them in a society that makes the operants of LfCap illegal. You haven't a leg to stand on.

[Anonymous No.11977431]

>>11977376
>and she had to get a proxy to do it out, likely to better deny and abstract the fact, eg shame
But that's fucking wrong. People have personal lawyers all the time. Why on Earth shouldn't one utilize him where his talents apply? Shame never entered the equation.

[Anonymous No.11977651]

>bump limit
>page 8
Good thread lads. O'ists and detractors alike.