ITT we recognize our mental superiority to others.
Please keep unchecked premises to a minimum.
Excerpt of the day:
"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 exist without the responsibility of consciousness."
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
ariwatch.com
peikoff.com
youtube.com
archive.is
sciencedirect.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Ayn Rand would not reject National Socialism on principle- "individualism" means "not lording one's power to disenfrancise others of rights-" Rand did respect the right of countries to self determination.
>Ayn Rand would not reject National Socialism on principle.
True. Individualism doesn't mean 'acting by oneself.' That is the meaning that people like Jordan Peterson ascribe to it- such people want to rewrite history.
Third rate novelist with 4th rate reactionary “philosophy” that had to pay people to larp it seriously. Rand is to politics, as Scientology is to religion. Suckers.
fuck that dusty cunt. she's made a whole bunch of politicians retarded with that drivel.
Do you have a specific criticism...one that I could criticize...or do you choose the safety of not making an assertion whatsoever?
>Do you have a specific criticism...one that I could criticize...or do you choose the safety of not making an assertion whatsoever?
Sure. The fact is that for all of her bullshit about rugged individualism and self reliance and her criticisms of the poor and the weak, she died penniless and on public assistance.
When thing were going good for her, she loved to preach about how the poor are weaklings who deserve nothing. But when shit went downhill for her, she was instantly in line at the government assistance office for her 'gubment gibs' just like any common nigger.
That makes her nothing more that your typical hypocrite.
Fuck that welfare mooching bitch.
-Laissez-Faire capitalism doesn't work. Laissez-Faire capitalism is a utopian fantasy. And like all utopias, it cannot actually exist. Therefore, as a philosophy, it needs to be judged on how it gets implemented in the real world, with all the real world's inherent inconsistencies. Just like Marxism, in the real world, produced the Soviet system in Russia, the real world implementation of laissez-faire capitalism, led by Rand-disciple Greenspan, produced the great recession.
-Reason has real-world limitations. While I'm all for valuing reason over superstition, the notion that one can use reason without emotion is science fiction. Maybe that works on the planet Vulcan, but human beings swim in a vast ocean of emotion. Emotion governs the "why" behind every exercise of reason, determining our choices of interest and intention. In the real world, people use reason as a way to buttress what their emotions desire.
-Ayn Rand was a emotional nut case. Regardless of what you think of her philosophy and writing, Rand's personal life was a complete shambles. She became involved in an adulterous affair with a disciple (a "reasonable" decision on her part, of course), and then went all "old bat of out hell" when he made the "reasonable" decision to start boinking some younger woman. The resulting emotional pyrotechnics were a perfect example of the impotence of Objectivism as a life creed.
-Her “philosophy” is devoid of gratitude. While individualism has some value, Objectivism largely discounts the fact the every successful person stands on the shoulders of those who have come before. In addition, success always involves an element of luck, often consisting of having had the luck to be born into a rich family with plenty of connections. Success devoid of gratitude and the noblesse oblige to help others brings out the worst in people.
Reality is NOT an objective absolute. There's no way to tell whether reality is objective or not because it can only be perceived subjectively. While it could be argued that the consensus of multiple subjective realities equals objective reality, the exact same logic would also assign objective reality to Jung's archetypes, which appear inside every human being's dreams. In any case, measuring something changes the thing measured, so simply perceiving "reality" changes the nature of reality. Therefore, so it can't be absolute.
-Facts do NOT trump feelings, wishes, hopes, and fears. As any sales professional knows, when dealing with human beings, facts ALWAYS run a distant fifth. That's particularly true when dealing with people who are operating under the fantasy that their decisions are based upon "fact." Emotion trumps reason every time, and nobody is easier to influence emotionally than those who are so unaware of that their emotions that they think they're making "reasonable" decisions.
-Every man does NOT exist for his own sake. While Rand believed that pursuit of one's own rational self-interest and one's own happiness is his life's moral purpose, the scientific fact is that man evolved as a communal creature, with bonds of family and community being tightly tied to health, happiness, longevity, and pretty much everything that makes life pleasurable. Objectivism thus runs counter to demonstrable scientific fact.
-Reading Rand creates instant jackasses. Anyone who's been subjected to a friend who suddenly "discovers" Rand knows that reading her works causes people to act like selfish idiots. They combine a patina of "reason" over a self-righteous justification of whatever their "id" happens to want at the time and then insist that they're just pursuing their own self-interest. They also become incredibly boring, about on the level of a newly converted Scientologist.
>Rand preached against socialism, yet used it
She used what she paid for.
And even if she used more than she paid for, we're speaking of Objectivism, not Ayn Rand.
>Laissez-Faire capitalism doesn't work, caused the Great Recession
Laissez-Faire is a political approach to economic activity (which is all activity, whether or not involving money). As such, government monetary and social policies have never allowed Laissez-Faire.
That said, individualism doesn't mean "acting by oneself" so much as "not using one's power to disenfranchise others of their rights-" as such, Rand doesn't oppose cooperation- but only forced "cooperation."
>Reason has real-world limitations. While I'm all for valuing reason over superstition, the notion that one can use reason without emotion is science fiction.
Reason and emotion are connected in that one uses reason to achieve desired emotional states.
>People buttress reason with emotion
That is something they choose to do- they are lying to themselves, and are usually aware of it, albeit only subconsciously.
>-Ayn Rand was a emotional nut case.
We're speaking of Objectivism, not Randianism.
>-Her “philosophy” is devoid of gratitude.
Yes, we all stand on the shoulders of giants.
But whom does this hurt? And why does it matter?
>Laissez-faire capitalism produced the great recession
How is a central bank's (with a monopoly on currency) monetary policy laissez-faire capitalism? The government created the housing bubble and facilitated the following collapse.
>Reality is NOT an objective absolute. There's no way to tell whether reality is objective or not because it can only be perceived subjectively.
Things are what they are- perception is not assignment of identity, but only identification.
>measurement changes that which is being observed
It can- but it doesn't change that what we observation is simply identification of that which exists in any given time.
>-Facts do NOT trump feelings, wishes, hopes, and fears.
Rand doesn't say that emotions don't exist- only that man, properly, uses reason to achieve certain emotional states.
>-Every man does NOT exist for his own sake. While Rand believed that pursuit of one's own rational self-interest and one's own happiness is his life's moral purpose, the scientific fact is that man evolved as a communal creature, with bonds of family and community being tightly tied to health, happiness, longevity, and pretty much everything that makes life pleasurable.
This is an observation of what nature has 'done,' not what man should/can do.
>-Reading Rand creates instant jackasses.
True!
> Anyone who's been subjected to a friend who suddenly "discovers" Rand knows that reading her works causes people to act like selfish idiots. They combine a patina of "reason" over a self-righteous justification of whatever their "id" happens to want at the time and then insist that they're just pursuing their own self-interest. They also become incredibly boring, about on the level of a newly converted Scientologist.
Most discover Rand when they are teenagers- they are already in a state of angst and indignation.
Who’s this tranny?
Objectivism is loved by soft brained, weak willed morons. Ayn was an horrible writer.
2008 recession was caused by lassez faire capitalism? what?
Hayek, in Road to Serfdom, speaks of the difference- he says that socialist policies can only be achieved by government forcing people to act- thus communism.
Yes, socialism is a path to communism.
Objectivism is for degenerate egoists. Humans are social and Folkish by nature. Take the NatSoc pill.
Objectivism is not anti-NatSoc
“You’re a wizard, Harry,” Hagrid said. “And you’re coming to Hogwarts.”
“What’s Hogwarts?” Harry asked.
“It’s wizard school.”
“It’s not a public school, is it?”
“No, it’s privately run.”
“Good. Then I accept. Children are not the property of the state; everyone who wishes to do so has the right to offer educational goods or services at a fair market rate. Let us leave at once.”
“Malfoy bought the whole team brand-new Nimbus Cleansweeps!” Ron said, like a poor person. “That’s not fair!”
“Everything that is possible is fair,” Harry reminded him gently. “If he is able to purchase better equipment, that is his right as an individual. How is Draco’s superior purchasing ability qualitatively different from my superior Snitch-catching ability?”
“I guess it isn’t,” Ron said crossly.
Harry laughed, cool and remote, like if a mountain were to laugh. “Someday you’ll understand, Ron.”
Professor Snape stood at the front of the room, sort of Jewishly. “There will be no foolish wand-waving or silly incantations in this class. As such, I don’t expect many of you to appreciate the subtle science and exact art that is potion-making. However, for those select few who possess, the predisposition…I can teach you how to bewitch the mind and ensnare the senses. I can tell you how to bottle fame, brew glory, and even put a stopper in death.”
Harry’s hand shot up.
“What is it, Potter?” Snape asked, irritated.
“What’s the value of these potions on the open market?”
“What?”
“Why are you teaching children how to make these valuable products for ourselves at a schoolteacher’s salary instead of creating products to meet modern demand?”
“You impertinent boy–“
“Conversely, what’s to stop me from selling these potions myself after you teach us how to master them?”
“I–“
“This is really more of a question for the Economics of Potion-Making, I guess. What time are econ lessons here?”
“We have no economics lessons in this school, you ridiculous boy.”
Harry Potter stood up bravely. “We do now. Come with me if you want to learn about market forces!”
The students poured into the hallway after him. They had a leader at last.
Harry and Ron stood before the Mirror of Erised. “My God,” Ron said. “Harry, it’s your dead parents.”
Harry’s eyes flicked momentarily over to the mirror. “So it is. This information is neither useful nor productive. Let us leave at once, to assist Hagrid in his noble enterprise of raising as many dragon eggs as he sees fit, in spite of our country’s unjust dragon-trading restrictions.”
“But it’s your parents, Harry,” Ron said. Ron never really got it.
Harry sighed. “The fundamental standard for all relationships is the trader principle, Ron.”
“I don’t understand,” Ron said.
“Of course you don’t,” said Harry affectionately. “This principle holds that we should interact with people on the basis of the values we can trade with them – values of all sorts, including common interests in art, sports or music, similar philosophical outlooks, political beliefs, sense of life, and more. Dead people have no value according to the trader principle.”
“But they gave birth to y–“
“I made myself, Ron,” Harry said firmly.
“Give me your wand, boy,” Voldemort hissed.
“I cannot do that. This wand represents my wealth, which is itself a tangible result of my achievements. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think,” Harry said bravely.
Voldemort gasped.
“There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist.”
Voldemort began to melt. Harry lit a cigarette, because he was the master of fire.
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. The minimum wage is a tax on the successful. The market will naturally dictate the minimum wage without the government stepping in to determine arbitrary limits.”
Voldemort howled.
“I’m going to sell copies of my wand at an enormous markup,” Harry said, “and you can buy one like everyone else.”
Voldemort had been defeated.
“He hated us for our freedom,” Ron said.
“No, Ron,” Harry said. “He hated us for our free markets.”
Hermione ached with desire for the both of them to master her, but nobody paid her any attention. They had empires to build.
This fan fic is unfair to objectivism, but gave me a good kek.
>Do you have a specific criticism
>She didn't add anything new to the philosophical discussion
>What she did provide was unoriginal, and in worse form than the original arguments;
See: Plato and Spinoza for actual rationalism.
Rand's Objectivist Epistemology sloppily asserts as axiomatic, certain premises that are, and have been, in active debate, and then proceeds to draw her conclusions, which anyone can do if you skip over the foundation.
At times she literally pulls postulates straight from her ass. For example, she discusses how infants and babies form concepts in their minds, without any data or studies to back up her postulations. She then draws her conclusions and builds and entire argument of "objective" concept formation that rests on a foundation of bullshit. There's no reason to read more than the first ten pages to realize it's a waste of time.
Not to mention the fact that the last 100 years of physics has been heading away from the idea of an "objective" reality independent of observation and relative position.
ok retard
AYN RAND USED A PUBLIC TOILET OMG LOL SHES SO HYPOCRITICAL!
cringe
>Based Ayn
OP, what's the quote from? I don't recognize it. I've only read the Fountain Head and of course Atlas Shrugged.
HOW CAN MIRRORS BE REAL IF OUR EYES ARENT REAL
ok buddy
This is a good assessment, and why philosophy departments almost as a whole dismiss and do not teach randian objectivism. The few academics that do Rand scholarship are usually based in business faculties, in chairs endowed by Rand acolytes for a singular purpose of legitimizing her second rate work.
Some of the harshest critics of Rand are conservative political philosophers, like the Bloom “Great Books” scholars, that focus on the classics and foundations, and a Socratic discourse.
>Ayn Rand
What do I read in order to introduce myself to her work? Do I try to chronologically start from her first publishings, or do I seek after a particular book around the middle or late in her career?
how can u know ur in a virtual reality if u dont know ur in a virtual reality???
ok reddit
Read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.
>Ayn Rand would not reject National Socialism on principle.
Socialism by nature "sacrifices" the labor of individuals for the "greater common good."
You've just contradicted her writing. Your Marxist professors have you well trained.
>implying that one's good is not maximized by helping others
Your (((capitalist))) teachers have trained you well.
i have read virtue of selfishness and introduction to objectivist epistemology
id say that virtue of selfishness is FAR more self explanatory than the latter
also its short
everyone must realise that mainstream Objectivists are fags
e.g. the ayn rand institute
the most based objectivists are the dead/retired ones
charles tew is the best objectivist, he has videos explaining why ARI is wrong also
charles has an active YT and he does a podcast/weekly Q&A videos
youtube.com
here are charles' videos dismantling yaron brook
youtube.com
youtube.com
there are even sites dedicated like ariwatch.com
there is alot (1000s of hours) of Objectivist content online
here is some from leonard peikoff
peikoff.com
youtube.com
ok rabbi
>Yaron Brooke
>other mainstream objectivists
I like Nathaniel Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism- much better than Peikoff's.
>wasted digits
You are obviously unfamiliar with her work.
Enjoy your high cost of living, your immigrants depend on it.
>Sears failed because they chose to act like Objectivists
Remind me where, in Objectivism, it's stated that a being (person, company) rationally competes against its own interests...
Man is not an island to himself!
The CEO is a Randroid.
>The CEO is a Randroid.
He SAYS he's an objectivist...but Objectivism doesn't state that a person's lungs should be made to compete with his heart- which is what the CEO enacted within Sears.
Man is his brother's keeper!
you know this e-celeb communist fucktoy called Desteeny?
he calls himself a Capitalist.
We'd all be better off if we all acted more like Rand preached.
I enjoy the shilling on pol- most particularly the post saying "Unless you consider yourself a particularly strong debater, please stop debating him.
can u elaborate on that? i probably understand it in another context
I forget the exact phrasing, but it was implied that Destiny is a much smarter than conservatives, who embarass themselves when trying to debate Destiny.
What pisses me off about objectivism is that it doesn't acknowledge human nature at all. Because of their individualist meaning, they think that anyone can achieve whatever they want, not making distinctions about differences in intelligence of some people, for example. She even said racism is wrong because is the individual that matters. Therefore, objectivism is based on the principle of a blank slate, not human nature.
Personally I would recommend The Fountainhead first (the philosophy is mostly concertized aside from a few speeches). Then either the Romantic Manifesto or perhaps Philosophy: Who Needs It. The Ayn Rand Lexicon is good to start with I think as you can jump straight to topics that interest you. After that you can branch. E.g. Atlas Shrugged, We The Living and then OPAR (by Leonard Peikoff). Peikoff's lectures on the History of Western Philosophy is absolutely essential. I would leave Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology to basically dead last. It's her most technical work, and it really is only of interest to those who have a desire to understand concept formation.
Objectivism is based on human nature.
You realise most blacks aren't objectivists so obviously they aren't going to achieve highly.
The blank slate is part of human nature.
>The blank slate is part of human nature.
How? Since the concept of blank slate denies human nature.
it means you aren't born with knowledge
you are only born with the ability to gain knowledge
>racism
Rand acknowledged differences in intelligence- the racism she denounced was of a different kind- that one does not deserve anything because of their race.
>human nature
You mean human desires?- how do we gain these desires- by experiencing senstations (taste), and seeking that which satifies such (food).
Then we just learn to be racist, intelligent or even choosing our sexuality based on knowledge, right? You just need to learn how be human. Everything that is wrong with the world right now, is because we don't accept we are just rational animals with intrinsic nature. We don't learn how to behave or adapt to an environment just based on culture.
That’s not Rand’s argument. She turns to the (scientifically disproven) “blank slate” argument in reaction to criticism that individuals have a **natural** inclination, a **human nature**, to social collectives, whether as a family unit or teams in hunter gatherer groups, or in further specialization in forming villages and cities. That would be impossible in her argument, of pure self interest. So she creates a specious “tabula rasa” premise, in her own terms, not based on fact, observation, or rational argument ... that it’s not human nature, but taught ... and then build her larger framework and argument on the faulty foundation. Of course she never adequately establishes how or why the “blank state”is natural human nature/state, or why “objective self interest” isnt learned behavior, and subject to the same criticisms she posits to “collective” learned behaviour; irony and self reflection is not Rand’s strong suit either.
It’s just another example of why Rand gets BTFO by 1st year philosophy, rhetoric or logic students. It’s just nakedly objectively wrong. See
>intrinsic nature
Intrinsic is our bodily reaction to phenomena- liking certain sounds and tastes and smells. But we don't have intrinsic ideas.
>social nature is taught
Just because learning is subconscious does not mean it's innate.
>Rand creates a specious “tabula rasa” premise, in her own terms, not based on fact, observation, or rational argument
Rand posits that knowledge is remembered experiences, grouped into concepts- and she rejects that knowledge of concepts are innate- but this is a scientific question, which may prove her wrong in this regard- but did Rand propose tabula rasa because she knew how the mind worked OR to rail against Plato?
ok rabbi
It's really disappointing that so many adults find her meaningful.
Subconscious things include things that not only are not taught, but are in fact consciously rejected. ie innate
>The research involved three experiments. In the first, 152 college students were asked a series of questions about relationships, including how disgusted they felt about various configurations of interracial relationships and about their own willingness to have an interracial romance. The participants overall showed high levels of acceptance and low levels of disgust about interracial relationships, and pointed to a strong negative correlation between the two.
>Skinner said, participants showed higher levels of activation in the insula—an area of the brain routinely implicated in the perception and experience of disgust—while viewing images of interracial couples.
“That indicates that viewing images of interracial couples evokes disgust at a neural level,” Skinner said.
>Participants were quicker to associate interracial couples with non-human animals and same-race couples with humans.
>Overall, the current research provides evidence that bias against interracial romance is associated with disgust, that interracial couples actually elicit a disgust response among observers, and that these feelings of disgust translate into dehumanization of interracial couples. The current findings provide evidence that interracial couples are implicitly dehumanized, such that they are less readily associated with the category “human” than same-race couples (and more readily associated with the category “animal”).
archive.is
sciencedirect.com
Rand was a kike that managed to alienate normies from libertarianism. Idk if this was deliberate or a (((coincidence))). She made me realize kikes subvert instinctively and being mad at them for it is like having your picnic next to an ant hive. Same outcome everytime so don't fall prey to the "good jew"
These studies are meaningless with our current understanding of the brain.
That said, I am partial to innate neurological responses to patterns- but this doesn't mean that concepts are innate.
I have to disagree. If liberal people who support racemixing, many of whom are mixed race themselves, are disgusted by race mixing that goes against everything they're taught and purport to believe. That points very strongly for an innate concept that is not overruled by a lifetime of education.
That Jewess was promoting "muh individualism, you should only think of yourself, nationalism is collectivism" she died on welfare
I don't believe it's possible to study reactions without the biases one develops through life.
What I'm proposing is that certain patterns (sound, visual, touch) may produce certain reactions in the brain- that they may induce certain percepts- but I note that these induced percepts are unrelated to the concepts through which we understand the world.
Every once in a while Jow Forums isn't complete shit. This was one of those times
Always amazed by the capacity of Jews to consciously hold two mutual exclusive beliefs as true
nah, Jow Forums is still shit, i stole it from somewhere else
ok rabbi
one time she pooped in a public toilet lol what a hypocrit amiright reddit?
she lived in america lol rand so dumb she should have just invented her own country so she doesnt sound so hypocritical
>Rand lived in America
We all know that if you're imperfect, that you're basically Satan.
Did you also know that Rand kept pets while in a building that did not permit animals!
i guess that settles her philosophy, lol anyone can debunk this pseudo intellectual now a days.
I see that you dissuaded people from reading Intro to Objevtist Epistemology, but I believe that it is key to explaining why ideas are not innate.
Lot of uncurious minds in here with the same boring arguments.
>Muh public assistance Medicare! She took it therefore her philosophy is flawed! Kekekekek
I always found this one weird because - with in the context of the time period we are in.. we have to take government roads no matter what your position is. IF you pay into something your whole life - why not take it? Also how does that invalidate her claims? ,... what ever
>She did X and Y in her personal life!
Yea and Aristotle most likely fucked a lot and maybe Einstein was into pee play... not sure how any of that invalidates the theories.
>My Beef with Objectivism
I say this as someone who was part of an Objectivist club in university... My beef is this - her theories are correct. Her stance on art should be argued - but the base theories are correct... got it.
>So whats the beef?
OTHER FUCKING OBJECTIVISTS! They are always infighting... SO much drama for such a small niche in philosophy, and the in fighting killed the movement.
I actually have stories about how obnoxious objectivists can be in person... but ill save that.
>objectivist idea about art
What's your beef?
You can have good art, and define it like she does and that is fine... But you can find morally good "bad" art personally, and in this way it is gets a little grey.
For example if I had a kid and they drew something - for me this may be the most morally important peice of art.. But to an outside objectivist observer it would be modern art garbage... They would not be technically wrong - but for me it would still be an inspiring piece of art that my kid drew.
based aussie
Great fucking story.
Yes- the relative nature of things is a weakness in humans, and also objectivists- but as Milton Friedman would say, "You've got to have a sense of proportion." (and also context).
But as far as the in-fighting with objectivists... do you not see that as a problem?
I find it almost inherent in how Rand herself would handle arguments - and since everything is so black and white in her world - it is very easy to write people off forever (and she did)... I see this stretched to the modern movement, and it is really hurting it.
>infighting as a problem
Infighting is prevalent, in general- and I don't see it as a problem- what is the quality of those who choose to bicker?
As to Rand's fighting: she made sure those who could say they were associated wiht her did not deviate from her philosophy.
Regarding infighting in general, I remember Lord Acton:
"At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, have been soemtime disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition, and by kindling dispute over the spoils in the hour of success."
Lmao you pathetic racists never fail to make me laugh with your "pol humor" threads
Face it, most poc will be infinitely more successful than any of you sad virgins ever will be. You are on the wrong side of history, get over it losers.
Why is it always a leaf? Do you get paid for (you)s? How many (you)s to buy a loaf of bread?
WRONG
Fountainhead seems to be a generally-recommended intro, but I wasn't really a huge fan of it. As much as Atlas Shrugged influenced my early librarian years, all her writing and characters just seem to be blatant husbando/self-inserts and Disney villains.
I'm not saying she doesn't make valid points, but it's like she did all her fictional writing with one hand holding a pen and the other down her pants. It poisons many of her philosophies because part of her entire worldview is around the Ideal Man being both attainable to the Everyman while simultaneously being her ideal, perfect, flawless Olympian husbando with a 17.76" wang.
>Ayn Rand wrote epic characters
Taht's the point.