>He has not mastered Rand and Kant, Hayek and Mises

Rand hated Kant and considered him despicable because of his ethics of duty rather than ethics of individual happiness.

> Rand
> Kant
> Meaningful discourse

Attached: 1480551582352.png (1000x967, 2.29M)

She just doesn't have any argumentation, pulls shit out of her ass and thinks you can make a philosophy by basing everything on your personal shitty mental states.

Attached: 1524002301869.gif (600x293, 2.14M)

>Rational Emotive Psychology is cool as fuck though
It's cool, but more importantly- it makes sense..

>Objectivism is flawed

"Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to [impede her passively]."
-Ayn Rand

Rand, in this passage, SAYS what NPCs have the right to expect.

>Mises pushed liberty
His ideas did.

haha epic bro violently kill those who impede you passively

never help anybody unless you immediately benefit from it

kill your father

>Rand hated Kant and considered him despicable because of his ethics of duty rather than ethics of individual happiness.
This, and his epistemology/metaphysics- but it's unclear whether they actually disagreed on these. Original language and time, and such.

Rand? Who is Rand? Oh you mean Alisa Rosenbaum...seems trustworthy.

Context my bro.
>live by cannibalism
Not even animals can survive as such.

>>[well reasoned argument]
>((()))
Nupol is cancer..

Justify ancap in the face of google and facebook's manipulation of the populace and anti merit tendancies

>pulls shit out of her ass
>personal
Not knowing that this "refutal" is based on axioms that make her premises right in the first place

Attached: Notanargument.jpg.jpg (960x733, 48K)

>Justify ancap in the face of google and facebook's manipulation of the populace and anti merit tendancies
I didn't (mean to) imply this.
When a company aids & abets your victimization, then the company has no rights to defend themselves..

Not sure why the common ancap/libertarian ignores this CONTEXT.

>Getting your political/philosophical views from jewish women
Imagine being this much of a fucking cuck. You're not white, im sorry.

Whats to argue? She is just another subversive Jewish mind pushing individualism for the goy. Hell she knew thats what she was thats why she didnt write under her real name.

>Objectivism is bad because it does not feel right
Emotion is the reward, not an aspect of cognition.

>Rand said to never group
False. She said to not group IN ORDER to lord over others.
Context, my son!

Another strong counter argument against Rand is that she was the paragon of the bush era and it was not very functional. Coulda been a psy op tho

Others being minorities aka jews. Tgere is literally nothing wrong with the group taking precadent over the individual.

I say her whole philosophy is based on her own solipsism. She never makes a strong argument, only goes for intuitions that are acceptable once those that share her own mental limitations. Objectivism is a sort of a helping philosophy for people that are similar to her, but it will never develop into any sort of coherent system. That's the only reason it's not appealing most serious philosophers.

>Rand, paragon of Bush era
Which one? How?

Daily reminder that Objectivism is not against men organizing a society on Fascist principles.

Unless the individual has to sacrifice his happiness for the group? Or would you love to die for some else's ideas? Some else's happiness?

>Tgere is literally nothing wrong with the group taking precadent over the individual.
Only 'nothing wrong' if its voluntary.

>objectivism is incomplete because it has no mysteries

>appeal to authority, the post

Ok lets say we have one individual faggot. No need to bother the faggot right? But what happens? They form groups of their own. Next thing you know this minority group is pushing their agenda on the primary group because it chose to ignore its best interests. This kind of thinking is why the white race will go extinct. Its a jewish mind virus.

There is literally no entrance conditions to post on Jow Forums
let that sink in for a while.

Ayn Rand is trash. The rest is Jow Forums required reading. Austrian Economics is a great way to avoid you from becoming a commie.

>Read this 1200 pages on economics
>Instead of this 1000 pages of a romantic drama

Whats the problem?

Rand is to philosophy what National Socialism is to tolerance of Jews

>Read economic pilpul, instead of a powerful book

The economic advisors of that era were all huge rand shills

“Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark in the hopeless swamps of the not-quite, the not-yet, and the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists.. it is real.. it is possible.. it's yours.”

Yeah, she had issues with her logic no doubt.
But...She wrote things like this
(which I love)
Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted [Frederick Mann: Obfuscation of meaning is a key element of the con games bureaucrats and politicians play.] - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.

>The economic advisors of that era were all huge rand shills
Imperfect disciples, at best.
Plus, they operated in a flawed environment... Which they may have believed Objectivism could get them out of... Without requisite change... No half measures between poison and non-poison.

My current favorite Rand work is her speech, "Conservatism, an Obituary."

>implying i havent read good romance like Thomas Mann or Borges.
Ayn Rand is trash.

>Mises

CRYPTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

A girl with an ancap tumblr could have written that.

I like her portrayal of Fred Kinnon, a union head who is fine with being an imperfect man in an imperfect world. The one scene, where he denigrates the intellectuals, is great.

Atlas Shrugged is a great romance

also she hated the jew as much as any of us

>A girl with an ancap tumblr could have written that.
Implying

a girl with an an-cap tumblr didn't predict the television

>Atlas Shrugged is a great romance
Yes. A real romance, where there is reason to love.

>also she hated the jew as much as any of us
If she seen what they have done, yes.

Kant is a cult leader wanna be,
(((Mises))) is a crypto libertarian
subversionist,
(((Rand))),
Hayek is a man who failed to see that World War I was not caused by simple economic problems, it was in fact caused by a certain group of people with a lot of monetary propriety, whom wanted to create a country we all know well enough, at which he misunderstood that WWI was the jump-start for industrial modernism that gave way to post modernism and Nietzsche's futile attempt at philosophy by presupposing you can have one without God.

One cannot even account for logic without God. Godel proved it.

One cannot even account for morality without God, ant's method's explain it.
Checkmate faggot.

There is only presuppositionalism, and science is nothing more then a presuppositionalist tool, anyone who claims that evidence exists, has committed a categorical fallacy, by in which stating it exists and comparing it to something that does, without even proving deductively that it objectively exists in the first place. Everyone uses their own opinion and will power to suffice an axiom to enforce a Kantian form of evidentialism. This is a giant fallacy, and the left abuses the fuck out of it to manipulate philosophy classes into thinking that presuppositionalism isn't all there is and is in fact morally egregious, under Clifford's atheistic form of ironic morality. Which ironically presupposes that you can have morality or even a fucking standard for it, without a self evident objective axiom to base it off of.

There is Faith, and only faith there shall be.

Attached: 1539514932121.png (427x576, 310K)

She saw what they did in russia

to hate the commie is to hate the jew

>parroting the ideas of others
>having ideas on your own, regardless if they were or were not arrived at before.
choose one.
then contemplate the 'discussions' whereby the main qualification of the participants is having read some graphomaniac's ideas. what would the discussion sound like, anyway? quoting mises at each other and being smug about it?
grow a fucking brain.

>Originality without God is even possible
>Originality with God is even possible

Ecclesiastes 1:14

>"I have seen all the things that are done under the sun, and have found them all to be futile, a pursuit of the wind."

Hmmm, post modernist reduction of materialism and God condemns it.

Mathew 5:37

>"But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No.’
Whatever is more than these is of the evil one."

So God pretty much accounts for logic and explains that contradictions are a lie. Clearly understands absolute values. HMMM its getting fucking good but wait, there's more.

Luke 18:18
>"17Truly I tell you, if anyone does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child, he will never enter it.” 18Then a certain ruler asked Him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone"

Clearly maintains absolute morality by appointing God's Omni-benevolence as THE axiom of morality.

Shits pretty damn logical when you interpret it in a philosophically reductionist point of view. Really gets the noggin joggin, knowing this game from a 2000 year old sand people book. This level of critical thinking...... doesn't it set off a few alarms about how accurate this shit is? But oh no, don't believe a word of it, because God hates homosexuality my good man.

Attached: 1539386489489.jpg (1275x1200, 518K)

>hurr durr ...
what?

Why is there a picture of a cartoon bible next to atlas shrugged? The bible is objectively the best book ever, atlas shrugged is the ramblings of a literal "who?"

>Rather then reading about someone else philosophical viewpoint, because it wasn't entirely relevant, i'm going to decide ad hominem.

Sorry if my savant-ism with philosophy pisses you off with how off base it is to the topic, but that's what it seems like from my point of view regardless when someone brings up philosophy and God isn't even mentioned.

The three passages that i sited in my post were deliberately sited to explain why the idea of accounting for logic, morality, and goals in life without God makes no sense (For the reason why OP posted this thread implying with Rand and Kant) implicating that he could assert objectivity without proving anything with nothing more then sheer will rather than making an appeal to God. His position is subverted by a materialist position, which is why I cited Ecclesiastes, post modernism loves to cite Rand and Kant as puppets to try to mock objectivity. (By implying it doesn't work because they know why, it doesn't include God.) But they don't even tell you that or actually explain why, because they're not there to tell you the Truth. Its all fucking dis info pilpul designed to subvert their morality into secularism which makes them vulnerable to the other leftist classes at colleges that begin to mold their political beliefs by telling them what to believe and how to do it.

>reading philosophy
You think I'm going to expend valuable time reading shit I already have figured out because some bozo's name is attached to it?

Attached: 1318959031579.png (255x202, 124K)

Cant understand the Bible if youre a low iq atheist.

>Leaf
>Can't into Kant
>Unironically believes economics and philosophy may co-exist
>Abhorrent Rand posting
The absolute state of Canadian intellectuals.

Attached: DF1YNPI.jpg (583x600, 101K)

>uses familiarity of Rand as a metric of measurement
>Rand, much like Marx, didn't work a day in her life

you pseudo-intellectuals always put knowledge on a pedestal in an age when the dumbest guy in the room is the one who left his cell phone at home. try reaching for wisdom

You're a fucking retard that thinks they are smart because they read something and believe it. You aren't smart.

>You're a fucking retard that thinks they are smart because they read something and believe it. You aren't smart.

Apply this to the bible, this really doesn't disqualify his intelligence, i mean you quite literally fucking do this every day. Pretty vague, im sure you mean something else more specific, not trying to be an ass or anything but this doesn't refute his dumb as fuck position desu.

>mastering Rand

Considering the sex scenes she wrote, that's an apt term.

>thinking Ayn Rand contributed anything

>muh individualism
Wrong. Humans are tribe animals, they cannot, have not, and never will survive completely on their own as """individuals""". They are dependent on a group and have been since our ancestors have been apes. Tribalism is the natural state of humans and this is what every ideology should respect. Individualism is a kike trick to abstract away group cohesion and ethnic affiliation so they can insert themselves as parasites into the tribal host society.

tl;dr: Fuck off kike

> Ayn "fuck you, the country, the world and everyone else because I should get to do what i want" Rand