Objectivism general

You might want to read "Introduction to objectivist epistemology" if you want to know how objectivism holds reason is the means of discovering truth.

Interestingly its the book rand considered to be her most important

Attached: (((rand))).png (1067x567, 221K)

Objectivism and Ayn Rand were Russian psyops. She showed up as a Russian immigrant and was somehow running in top DC social circles almost immediately. Acting like a selfish asshole is no way to go through life, kid, and no-one would give a shit if you decided to hop on a train and go live in rural Montana. The whole point of Objectivism was to get US industrialists to stop working so that the US economy would collapse. Thankfully, it didn’t work. The path to happiness lies in giving yourself to others, not being an entitled narcissistic shitbag like Objectivism teaches. Fuck off back to grade 9.

I'm more interested in how you overcome Humean/Cartesian skepticism, since if you don't or can't I don't think you ought to be taken seriously.

reality goes beyond facts are facts
a nations needs one collective prop to lead it forward i.e. religion , nations history and of course the leader

Attached: il duce.jpg (460x276, 27K)

"The crusading skepticism of the modern era; the mounting attack on absolutes, certainty, reason itself; the insistence that firm convictions are a disease and that compromise in any dispute is men’s only recourse—all this, in significant part, is an outgrowth of Descartes’ basic approach to philosophy. To reclaim the self-confidence of man’s mind, the first modern to refute is Kant (see [Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology][11]); the second is Descartes.

Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts.”

Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of “error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be meaningless.

The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing.

Fallibility does not make knowledge impossible. Knowledge is what makes possible the discovery of fallibility."

Cartesian skepticism doesn't rely on error, it relies on doubt. You need a way to overcome doubt in regard to information garnered via the senses, since even if we don't call anything wrong, we can still observe disconnects between the experiences of different people regarding what you'd maintain is one objective reality.

And she realized this but Descartes was hardly a man on a crusade against reason and absolutes. He was a dedicated Christian and rationalist.

Rand was not a rationalist. She was the philosopher who integrated mind and body and solved the empiricst-rationalist split

Rand wasn't but Descartes was, which I just mentioned to drive home that he's not a person anathema to reason or objective truth.

Also empiricism and rationalism are irreconcilable - Hume drove a stake through that coffin.

>Interesting how you jump straight to politics
I'm being altruistic to keep the 110+ engaged in this otherwise garbage thread. They'll get the joke.
>politics is the lowest stage of that
The joke, explained for the sub-110s is this: to say that you've gone and built a philosophy out of some russian thot's jerkoff material is a little presumptuous of your gullibility. You aren't that gullible, right user? This is merely political trolling? Similar to Marx, who never grasped the dynamics of human value structures, we have the mongrel Rand, who inverts Marx to convince gullible sub-geniuses to sacrifice themselves to a perverse and degenerate mindset, and they call it glory.
they call it glory
This user is correct.
>She was the philosopher who integrated mind and body and solved the empiricst-rationalist split
Aristotle wore it better. Epicurus wore it better. Marcus Aurelius wore it better. Rand is absolutely disposable in the face of classical philosophy.

Serious question m8. Do you take philosophical lessons from Rowling as well?

Attached: 1512900986518.png (480x466, 139K)

Attached: RYFJ4rDfWMQ.jpg (648x409, 33K)

She actually was a very brilliant person. Comparing her to Rowling is extremely off base.

>Comparing her to Rowling is extremely off base.
Brainlets extract philosophy from both Rand and Rowling. It is a _very_ fair comparison considering that Rand had zero archetypal symbols in her stories and Rowling uses them freely to great effect.

Attached: latest.png (3000x1420, 2.19M)

I did not see any arguments. If Rand leads one to Aristotle, is that ok? If Rand pulls an individual from the swamp of mysticism into reason and self reliance, is that ok? She had something that very few humans posses these days: work ethic, and audacity. You do not have 1/20th her intellect, and compensate by making non-arguments to mask your deficit. Was she perfect? No, of course not.

I know your undergrad uni professors liked to make fun of Rand without actually referencing any of her work or background, but you should actually bother to learn about a person before you compare that person to a philosophically illiterate kids pop-novelist.

>You do not have 1/20th her intellect
Nice AdHom Go back to ur mom's gulch fagit.

This is precisely how fans of the mongrel Marx behave. If you do not discuss the flavor of koolaid how do you know it's poisoned?
Why are objectivists so buttmad all the time? you'd think they'd muster the resources to get out of their mystical assmad servitude.

Also, pls anhero, you will reach the Galt's Gulch (welfare state) faster. We don't need any more objectivists taking gibsmedat into old age.

Ad hom =/= insults.
>You are wrong because you have an IQ of 90
is ad hom.
>You have an IQ of 90 and you try to compensate for your intellectual deficiency
is just an insult. Know the difference, lest you look even dumber.

There ya go little girl. Make the point of my post for me. You are a good girl.

(((Russian-American))) novelist Ayn Rand

>This is precisely how fans of the mongrel Marx behave
Marx only ever gets the most pleasant treatments in uni, while Rand only ever gets shit on without referencing her work. I think objectivism is stupid, but I don't think it's stupid because Rand is stupid, because Rand IS NOT stupid. She's very brilliant.

>russian-american
She's a jew. You lolbertarians got subverted from the very start.

Attached: 1530655987273.jpg (640x364, 55K)

Your region is a shithole, and it was way worse for her than it is for you.

>autism general

Sorry guys but I will pass

If you were smart enough, I would explain the nuance of why taking welfare, when it's funding has been confiscated from you for a lifetime, is perfectly moral and correct. But, what a waste that would be.

and what point are you trying to make

Attached: 14928651157020.jpg (1024x1021, 209K)

(((Russian-American)))

I was always frustrated that Rand reduced moral duties to hypothetical imperatives; she's effectively a pragmatist as a result.

Also: muh is from ought.

That people leaving shitholes is what people SHOULD do. Same goes for you.

(((Genius)))

(((Society)))

(((Important)))

(((OP)))

>I was always frustrated that Rand reduced moral duties to hypothetical imperatives
The vast, vast majority of secular philosophy and literature must also frustrate you then.

You're right, it does. One thing that I obliquely agree with Rand on is that Kant almost singlehandedly produced the identity crisis in philosophy that vitiated the likes of Plato, Aristotle, and the Scholastics and gave rise to scientistic dogmas like logical empiricism and other neo-Kantian aberrations. I don't think this makes Kant evil, but I do think it means his philosophy has unintentional pernicious effects.

fuck you american
i would rather cut my dick off than leave my homeland

Reality, reason, and "Man" are abstract spooks.

Attached: Whack a spook.png (550x550, 228K)

>She was the philosopher who integrated mind and body and solved the empiricst-rationalist split

She didn't solve shit. Objectivism is high school tier amateur hour philosophy. Read a few more philosophy books. There's a reason why she's ignored in academic circles.

Many people come to philosophy through Rand. Low IQ people go no farther, and thinks she's a genius. High IQ people spot her as a fraud, and move on to actual geniuses, like Nietzsche and Kant, et al. Her criticisms of Kant are laughable and outright painful to read.

Atlas Shrugged is a great book, but I'd caution you not to read much more of her work. It will make you dumber.

>Also empiricism and rationalism are irreconcilable - Hume drove a stake through that coffin.

>Isn't familiar with Immanuel Kant.

Steiner is quoted by eurosexual fags

Look at that Kike face. This worthless Jew whore has nothing to teach White people.

>i would rather cut my dick off than leave my homeland
Your overlords appreciate your loyalty to their pocketbooks.

I think it's more the nonsense traditions that have followed out of the Germans - mostly Hegel - that have had the worst impact on contemporary philosophy in the West. You can say people were reacting to Kant, which is true, but I find Kant incredibly benign for the most part. It's strange to me that people have such incredibly strong, almost visceral reactions to his work.

>actual geniuses, like Nietzsche and Kant
bwahahah

a freak and a socdem, true geniuses

And this is why you fail. There are some nuggets in Atlas Shrugged, but it is her third best novel. I feel like you might be regurgitating something someone told you to think.

>Your overlords appreciate your loyalty to their pocketbooks.
so you are suggesting that i should leave my people and travel to your shithole where i will sell my foreskin to your overlords

Contemporary empiricists, with all their naturalist/materialist/physicalist commitments, aren't biting that bullet. They will not bite it.

(((Objectivism)))
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Objectivism_scholars
Just look at all the fucking Jews in this list

I don't know about "your people" - you're only really close to your family and friends, aren't you? I wouldn't want to leave them, but if you could take them with you it's likely you'd be better off in a richer and less intrusive country.

you do realize that is how your shithole is becoming more of a shithole

Ethnically yes, but all are atheists

Either way I fail to see the point

Kant knocked the bottom of #1 and #2 more than a century before Ayn Rand was born. #2 is obviously false. See Schopenhauer's exposition on the distinction between conceptual knowledge and perceptual knowledge if this isn't clear to you. The premises in #3 and #4 cannot be established as objectively true facts by means of reason as Rand defines it. What constitutes the 'ideal' political-economic system is a function of her personal value judgments, not an objectively true fact arrived at by pure reason.

Attached: magee logic proofs.png (806x1274, 424K)

shit ton of atheist are still zionists
youtube.com/watch?v=avep_1vbUOA

I see the neo-Kantian influence most pronounced in thinkers like Carnap who promulgate a sort of pragmatic-linguistic idealism, where the world is nothing more than a linguistic framework, and where a linguistic framework is selected solely based on its pragmatic merits. This is highly Kantian, but instead of reducing the world to phenomena, it reduces it to language, all the while retaining the noumena.

If you fail to see the significance of the fact that a movement which undermines the very notion of a cohesive society is largely composed of people with a long history of subverting and undermining their host societies then I don't know what to tell you other than lurk moar.

Life is getting better for people though. People are making more, have more leisure time, have more and better options in goods and services, live longer, live healthier - an incredibly long list of things.
There are some bad thing, surely - romantic relationships are, on the whole, probably in a worse state, but those are issues experienced all across the first world and aren't obstacles to individual happiness since mistaken mores and assumptions can be corrected for in family life.

Your region is getting better too, but you'll recognize you're in a much poorer, much more controlled area.

ahhh yes
i do see it
ALL HAIL CAPITALISM !

Attached: Degeneracy_cc75c7_6477839.jpg (1200x868, 238K)

Reality doesn't exist as an absolute, but it depends on an observing to mind in order to exist. Without an observing mind there is no reality, as proven by quantum mechanics.

t. brainlet

She is misguided because she does not do philosophy on the basis of the being/existence distinction.

So she passes bessides many fulcral philosophical puzzles such as identity through time, the one and the many, infinity and so on.

Can you say more about the being/existence distinction?

I get it

I remember coming across Carnap in a philosophy of science course during undergrad, but I can't recollect all that much about him - I think we only spent a week on one of his papers though.
I find Kant's relation to pragmatism - which I'm against when it comes to morally significant human action - to be odd.

Admittedly, I don't know what Kant thinks about pragmatism. Given that he is a deontological ethicist, he would reject it as a moral doctrine, and would certainly reject it as a doctrine of truth as well. Beyond that I don't know.

I don't see any of that ever. Do you need everyone within thousands of miles of you - people you'll never meet or interact with - to conform to whatever norms you personally approve of? I really couldn't care less what people are doing so long as they're not bothering me or my family. The same goes for you ultimately.

A simple way to put is Heraclitus/Parmenides.There is great philosophy being done currently on this line by continental philosophers such as Badiou.

they ARE going to bother your offspring sooner or later , they are going to influence the majority and then ultimately , some one you know if you let them to do so
but all of this can be avoided

Attached: 1519343934705.jpg (1024x668, 255K)

Kant himself is surely an anti-pragmatist - it's just that the CI doesn't necessarily escape the kind of subjectivist-land he despises.

I don't know what you mean. Something to do with change vs. the one?

Perhaps. What do you mean, though? Applying the formulas is liable to subjectivity, even if done correctly?

>they ARE going to bother your offspring
If it's non-violent I'm willing to forgive people bad behavior after speaking my mind. We don't live our lives in bubbles free from all unpleasant or unwelcome behavior; when it comes up we can deal with it and move along.

Johannes here let other people fuck his wife.

Well yes. It's the same thing with the CI as with the Golden Rule - what you would will is necessarily willed towards meeting ends, and those ends are chosen according to your preferences. This is the case despite all Kant's expositions on what a Good Will must abide by and the constraints of reason surrounding it.

>move along.
fucking hell
this is why Jow Forums has dropped lolbertarianism

Not really.

In this line of thinking "that a thing is" and "what is this" are separate. Analytical/anglo philosophy doesnt see it this way.

As a former Objectivist, I will concede that her bridging the fact-value gap by making man's volition the focus is interesting. It's actually a solid defense of rights.

The problem is that she's an atheist, which puts her metaphysics on quick sand. It's too bad she never bothered to figure out what the Bible actually says or even bothered to read solid theologians like Calvin, Turretin, or Bavinck.

The alternative is to hold grudges and be miserable and angry about other people whom you'll likely never encounter again in your life.
A completely pointless and miserable state to be in - you let things go in your life because they're not worth anything to hold on to.

>She was certainly a very unique and genius individual
>genius...died broke and living on the Social Security she spent her life trying to upend. Nigger hypocrite Jewess

Attached: laugh.jpg (480x360, 14K)

it is worth it
leaving a better future for your nation is worth it
going down in history as a fighter and not as a coward is worth it
that is how you live forever

Attached: musolini.jpg (1024x834, 737K)

If you knew anything about her you would know that she wrote an essay on why taking from welfare was completely legitimate. She is one of the best selling authors in human history, dont you think she paid in more than she took out?

You can shun, scorn, and disassociate with people you think are doing things wrong and whose behavior you want to discourage.
Setting the precedent "if I don't like x then it's OK for me to violently attack people" leads to misery and completely pointless strife over nothing greater than petty feelings.
The fact is that it's NOT acceptable for me to attack you because I don't like how you're living your life, and if I did then what grounds could I ever have for objecting to other people doing the same to me? Live by consistent moral principles for Christ's sake.

Even if she HAD taken more than she had taken from her, that would be fine - taking stolen property from thieves is always better than the thieves keeping it themselves after all.

Jewish ideology that promotes individualism for Europeans in a world where the rest are united against us.

Get lost loser

>the rest are united against us
You're incredibly out of touch with reality should you unironically believe this.

it is not just petty feelings you dumb mutt
morality is born from history , history has taught us that being a degenerate leads to shit results , it taught us that ignoring it leads to shit results and maybe even collapse of civilization

My own government is against me, not the rest of the world.

das ugly khunt.

Hmm, I am not so sure. The Golden Rule, as Kant himself criticized it, is a hypothetical imperative which is conditional on one's own preferences for treatment. By contrast, his own categorical imperative is an unconditional command. Treating others as ends in themselves, and never as mere means, is not conditional on anything, and is therefore not a hypothetical imperative.

Ah, okay. I am familiar with this distinction when you put it that way. How do you see this as connected to the distinction between the meanings of the terms 'being' and 'existence'? For example, some philosophers (e.g. Quine) would deny that these words have different meanings, and that they are really synonymous.

>it is not just petty feelings you dumb mutt
It really is. Are you familiar with the millennia-old distinction between nomos (convention) and phusis (nature)?
Convention and moral truth are entirely separate categories. Also, I can think of literally nothing more degenerate than causing death and suffering because people are doing something you don't like the idea of them doing. That's what animals do - they react to things they find unpleasant viscerally and without any moral inhibition.

I have to admit, this is what fascists always get wrong. They treat morality and moral imperatives as the contingent creature of history, which gives morality a conditional and non-absolute nature. The do the same with race. Once you understand that moral duties are the unconditional commands of reason you will understand that mere historical contingencies are a sad substitute for moral laws.