/lit/ - Literature

>>11347323
Because most of academia is filled with marxists

>>11347323
My guess is that it's not because she's right-wing but because she compares the left to the religious right.

her philosophy is a pile of conservative crap. that's why

Because she was a schlemihl

>>11347349
literally this.

>>11347323
Because she's a bad writer and a worse philosopher. Her lack of understanding of Kant or Descartes for example is blatantly. Therefore, the construction of her philosophical "system" is pretty naive.

That said, I kind of like her because she has some very fruitful intuitions and her critizism of ethical motivation should be examined better and more well-disposed.

>>11347368
God damn Steve Irwin had haunting eyes

The SEP will give you a good explanation why.

ice cream lol

>>11347388
>Her lack of understanding of Kant or Descartes for example is blatantly.

Care to explain this point?


During a philosophy course I was enrolled in the professor claimed that Rand's ethical egoism was the equivalent to solely caring for yourself and never helping others. After I heard this, I raised my hand and mentioned that according to Rand, a person can be rationally self-interested in the success of another person. In this instance, helping them is justified because it is what you actually want to do.

For some reason, the entire class just laughed at me.

>>11347323
She was a massive hypocrite is the most major reason. She also had no fucking understanding of Libertarianism.

>>11347410
KEK. It’s because you defended a CONSERVATIVE PHILOSOPHER

>>11347388
>bad writer
It’s truly amazing how bad this woman is at writing female characters.

>>11347421
That being said however, I do not hate Objectivism and Ms. Rand had some great points. My hatred stems mostly from her hypocrisy and her blatant misrepresenting of political beliefs different from her own.

>>11347453
But hypocrisy is never an argument. Somebody littering and then lecturing you on not littering isn't in conflict. At most it makes the person one you don't want to associate with, but it doesn't automatically take from the logic what they are saying.

>>11347446
>>11347388
>ayn rand
>bad writer

In what way is she a bad writer? These literary tards obviously do not have the focus required to read Atlas Shrugged.

>>11347410
>Care to explain this point?

>Descartes
John Galt says "I think therefore I am" is wrong, because it is the other way round: "I am, therefore I think".
Descartes actually said the existence of the doubter (I am) was the condition of possibility of doubting (therefore I am). Thinking (doubting) is just the prove of the existence of the doubter.
Rand confuses the proof of a causality with the causality itself.

>Kant
Just read this mess and compare it to what Kant really said.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html

>>11347410
>haha this person had different beliefs than me how funny
>what an idiot to have different beliefs than me

Now if only I had some Soma

>>11347491
>how is she bad
I quite literally gave my explanation why she’s bad. Her female characters are unbearable, unbelievable, and don’t act like females. It’s astounding considering she’s a woman. If you gave her novels to a lit 101 class without ever revealing the author, they’d think it was written by a grumpy misogynistic virgin who’s never actually conversed with a real woman.

>>11347349
FPBP.

>>11347323
They hate her fine subtlety.

>>11347486
>But hypocrisy is never an argument.
First of all, I'm not the anon you're responding to.
Ad hominems are a pretty interesting point when it comes to moral philosophers. Normally, they're simply rejectably since knowledge is true or wrong no matter what the guy who gained it did in his life.
But a moral philosopher actually tries to gain knowledge about acting right. If a moral philosopher breaks his own code of conduct, you can't simply dismiss it - because it might always be an non-elaborated admittance his code of conduct is at least partly wrong.

>>11347508
Huh? Did you even read Atlas Shrugged? Dagny is an industrious, confident woman who owns the largest railroad corporation in the USA and who is constantly fighting against her idiotic male brother.

who the hell keeps making this post

>>11347349
This. There are 3 marxists for every ONE conservative professor on college campuses.

>>11347570
Exactly desu
>don’t act like females

>>11347665
Dont understand what you mean here

>>11347323
ayn rand is a total charlatan

>>11347410

Her work is like reading a crappy novelists idea of what Egoism is. It is just completely lacking rigour and just comes off as a try hard pop-fiction writer.

If you are actually interested in a discussion of the underlying ideas by much smarter invididuals read Stirner, Nietzche, Norzick, Friedman, Rothbard, etc etc. Just no point in reading her bland boring novels really. I couldn't make it through them.

>>11347491
>These literary tards obviously do not have the focus required to read Atlas Shrugged.
I have read it. It's basically a pulp novel where Mary Sue heroes fight implausibly evil villains. And while there's nothing wrong with such a thing in itself, unfortunately it's intended to be a commentary on reality.

Every. Damn. Day.

Stop with these threads.


YHBT YHL HAND

Atlas Shrugged was ranked the 2nd most influential novel of the 20th century, the Bible was ranked the 1st.

Let that sink in for a moment.

>>11347406

hey... wait a minute anon. something tells me that's a bit more than ice cream you're serving there!

>>11347323
She a piece of crap right leaning retard

>>11348501
Woah there buckaroo. She is a minarchist, and very far from being a conservaKEK

>>11348552
yea, what's up with rand being associated with conservatives when she continually denounced them throughout her career?

>>11348651

gee maybe it was the books she dedicated to the glory of free market capitalism

>>11347349
thread ended here

>>11347349
this but also she is a shit philosopher.

>>11347505
nice reference bro!
You wanna come over my house this weekend when my moms gone and watch fight club and then smoke pot and listen to NOFX?

>>11348829
this.

>>11347323
Because she is a feminist.

>>11347349
>marxists
Actual communist here. Stop using that word. No one in murrica understands what marxism is. There is no such thing as left wing in murrica, both of your wing are right, that's why you fly like shit.

>>11347570
Did she write stories with non - male brothers?

>>11347323
Because her philosophy is the ideological equivalent of edgy shadow the hedgehog recolor fursona OC

You really think anyone cocky enough to name their homebrew ideology "objectivism" is a good philosopher?

>>11347698
Here's Johnson on why Shakespeare's characters are so good
>Nothing can please many, and please long, but just representations of general nature. Particular manner, can be known to few, and therefore few only can judge how nearly they are copied. The irregular combinations of fanciful invention may delight a-while, by that novelty of which the common satiety of life sends us all in quest; but the pleasures of sudden wonder are soon exhausted, and the mind can only repose on the stability of truth
>Shakespeare is above all writers, at least above all modern writers, the poet of nature; the poet that holds up to his readers a faithful mirrour of manners and of life. His characters are not modified by the customs of particular places, unpractised by the rest of the world; by the peculiarities of studies or professions, which can operate but upon small numbers; or by the accidents of transient fashions or temporary opinions: they are the genuine progeny of common humanity, such as the world will always supply, and observation will always find. His persons act and speak by the influence of those general passions and principles by which all minds are agitated, and the whole system of life is continued in motion. In the writings of other poets a character is too often an individual; in those of Shakespeare it is commonly a species.
>Other dramatists can only gain attention by hyperbolical or aggravated characters, by fabulous and unexampled excellence or depravity, as the writers of barbarous romances invigorated the reader by a giant and a dwarf; and he that should form his expectations of human affairs from the play, or from the tale, would be equally deceived. Shakespeare has no heroes; his scenes are occupied only by men, who act and speak as the reader thinks that he should himself have spoken or acted on the same occasion: Even where the agency is supernatural the dialogue is level with life.
Now you don't have to completely agree with the good doctor here, but think about what he's saying about character building in fiction. Ask yourself, 'does Rand do the same?'

>>11347323
It leads to abject villainy like this: https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/06/19/alec-deadly-asbestos-agenda-benefits-koch-industries/

>>11350125
TL;DR: Shakespeare's characters suck.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/naturalism.html

>>11347349
This

>>11347323
I like her work a lot.
She's evidence that there will always be exceptions to groups, even in kikes.

>>11347421
Every human being is a hypocrite.
There's no reason not to exploit a broken system while it's broken, it doesn't discredit you preaching an ideal system at the same time. If anything her being able to exploit it and be on government pay is evidence to how the system is broken.

>>11349790
So if a marxist moves to America they lose their marxism? Fuck off dumb ass

>Shakespeare's characters suck

>>11350278
They pretty much do

Rand was one of the greatest minds of the 20th century.

It is incredibly unfortunate that she is not very appreciated within academia...

>>11347323
Powerful hate is naturally generated towards a person and/or ideology when it is systematically pushed. As communism was liked by certain think-pocket groups in the 20th century, so was Ayn Rand. He writing makes it evident why.

>>11347446
As her writings hint, she had trouble empathizing. Any writing extolling selfishness in any form is pitiful, and would only be promoted by a decadent century.

If selfishness is doing what you enjoy, the best selfishness would be the joy of helping and giving to others, just like the greatest bravery is understanding your fears.

>>11347486
It doesn't matter that Marx left his family to starve while he was on his adventurous quest.

While Ayn Rand being hypocritical would not immediately invalidate all her arguments, it would add to your understanding of her arguments, motivations etc. The integrity of a man, attests to the integrity of his work(s)/ideas.

>>11350992
>the best selfishness would be the joy of helping and giving to others
...yes, this is what the heroines in her novels do. They provide for others through the pursuit of their own industrious self-interest. Her characters are not out to make money, that is certain.

Holy shit. Try actually reading her work before critizing her.

I swear, it is absolutely shocking how misrepresented her views are.

>>11347982
True.

>>11347498
Based.

Readers of this page, please save yourselves from selfish, pretentious "philosophical" idols like Ayn Rand. Read Heraclitus instead.

>>11347552
Can you give an example of her fine subtlety?

>>11347567
Besides, does irony exist in our society? what about duplicity? what about brainwashing? what about propaganda? what about vested interest? naagh, impossible.

>>11347323
>Why is her work so disliked?
Because almost everyone of her ideas is not only wrong, but massively wrong, wrong in a way that would be obvious for anyone with a grounding in philosophy. Often she doesn't even present arguments but just asserts her position and attacks the characters of the people who object. She almost completely avoided academia because they saw through her bullshit and instead peddled her works to laymen who didn't know enough philosophy to see how wrong she was. It's pretty much like asking why is [insert x]'s creationism not liked in biology. It's just not remotely tenable. Her ugly personality and cultish following only add to it.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/
Just read this. It's trying to be a sympathetic as possible to her but the author can't help but blow everyone of her positions out of the water.

>>11347498
Adding to this she seems to massively misinterpret all the thinkers I can remember her talking about including Nietzsche and Aristotle.

>>11350125
Based.

TL:DR is exactly the kind of mentality which would say, "selflessness? baah, too hard. let`s go with selfishness, wow now i can even find an excuse for it."

Your quote reminds me of Pratchett, something to the effect of "there are not different men, but about 12 molds from which all men are made, and all you get are slight variations of those".

It also reminds me of Pascal:
Ordinary minds marvel at extraordinary things, extraordinary minds marvel at ordinary things.

"Oooh look at that industrialist so intelligent, industrious, wow I want to be a titan!"; "Wow, look at that, you can be selfish and be selfless because you can help others while using them!"; "No, no, communism was bad and failed not because communism is bad but because communism was not implemented!"
Such ordinary, base, pitiful, disgusting human passions, when dressed in dolce and gabbana or in any fashion label that contains "Workers`" becomes so pleasing to the eye, so beautiful it makes my teary eyes want to take the rifle and shoot Americans, or join the BB&T corporation and make some monee.

>>11347410
I think the problem is that you didn't mention the difference between caring about anyone versus caring only about people you enjoy their company. Ayn Rand argued mostly that you should care primarily about yourself but that doesn't preclude you from caring about others if you find benefit in them. Take a friend. You enjoy being with them, they make you laugh etc but who would want to be friends with a boring person or someone you don't click with? If a friend is in trouble financially, you would surely give them some money because you don't want them to suffer. You selfishly care about them. You don't altruistically randomly give money to someone you know nothing about because it's a worthless sacrifice.
What you misunderstood is that it's irrational to care about the success of another person 'just because'. Why would I care for someone I don't know succedding? I would absolutely care for a friend because I like them. Ayn Rand held the same with her husband. He tried painting and she paid for him to get better because she loved him.

>>11347498
Ayn Rand argued that the 'I think therefore I am' is invalid because you need an external world to doubt anything. Your essence needs to exist before you're able to think. You're born before you think.

>>11347508
Are you kidding? I would argue that they're insanely feminine due to the fact that under that shell of being cold, they're endlessly horny and just want to fuck. One of the weirdest aspect is how all her female characters are obvious self inserts of herself.

>>11349764
Weirdly enough, while Ayn Rand could be considered a feminist, she hated the feminist movement and called it collectivist in nature. She argued that a person's sex is irrelevant to the job they do except if it's physical in nature.
I think there's only one part in Atlas Shrugged where Dagny is doing all the work at the beginning of the book and cries that she should be president. At first people dismiss her because she's a woman but everyone comes to understand that they would make more money if they accepted her than if they just conformed to stupid notions of not telling women take charge.

I still argue that her characters a bit too slutty and it puts off people.

>>11350259
>Every human being is a hypocrite.

Exactly the type of statement an objectivist will make. A bit like saying every bourgeoisie is greedy.

Objectivism smells of all those -isms we have come to love. While the masses consume the opiate of communism by the buckets, the few noble pink cheeked aristocrats left need an idol, need a light to save them from their troubled orgy, drugs laced lives. In comes Rand. Be it objectivism or nazism, such forbidden joys for the rich, and the British Royal Family too.
What is objectivism but one half "oh my god this is why i am poor. this is how the rich think." bullshit lifecoach advice dressed as philosophy which is so obvious it speaks less to the writer`s genius and more to total ruin of the creativity and audacity of the masses over the last 200 years, no small thanks to communism. And the other half being an "at first glance preposterous(clickbait), but then very wisely contained" extolling of selfishness, which though seemingly mindless, at a second glance actually is so deep and profound that nobody must have thought of this before.

even the fact she chose to write a novel betrays
1 poor decision making
2 waste of time
A philosopher would choose to write a book solely if
a his arguments are so complex to explain only extensive/prose-requiring metaphors would do
b he is such a masterful storyteller he can relate his ideas better(safer if the ideas are dangerous) as fiction
Rand is far from a masterful storyteller, and as far as comparing her writings to any decent philosophical fiction writings or allegories, she fails in both regards.

Should you be an objectivist? Let me rephrase the question - should you be a communist? In a society where there are literal piles of shit walking around on the street, an intellectual class totally oblivious of what existed before, where humans are reduced to cockroaches in all levels of society from the poorest to the richest, from the homeless to those with the most PhDs would you ever want to choose any of the groups they pertain to? "Look! Cockroaches! I have to become an individualist! Read Ayn, quickly!" What is an individual. An individual cannot exist without his society, and real society cannot exist without real individuals.
Our fates are interlinked and cannot be disconnected. This doesn't mean you should fall head over heels with every fad the masses embrace, but neither does it mean you should get high in ivory towers. It means the destiny and survival of your children depends on the destiny and survival of our whole species.

>>11347349
This is not the primary reason though. Rand is disliked because:

1. She claimed she was only ever influenced by Aristotle, which is not true because her work contains a lot of Nietzschean elements (among others)
2. She was a bad writer and her novels are bad
3. Her philosophy is just bad. She claimed people are only rationally self interested, which is horseshit. Anyone who has ever loved knows this.
4. Her philosophy only appealed to young entrepeneurs from Silicon Valley, making a shitton of money and seeing themselves as Randian heroes. Academics don't want to be associated with those uncultured beings.
5. No intelligent person believes capitalism is some heroic adventure where individual heroes create new stuff for the benefit of all. Most CEO's didn't create shit, but use exceptional convincing skills, charisma and 'borrowing' from inventors to establish their companies (look at Elon Musk and Tesla).

It does not have anything to do with le marxism boogieman. Rand is just a bad writer, a bad philosopher and a bad person in general.

>>11351074
good article, thanks anon

>>11351074
B-but the marxists!

In all seriousness though, it seems like Rand was traumatized as a child by Soviet Russia and her whole life she tried to overcome this trauma by 'beating' the Soviet Union with the most insane capitalist ideology available

Who would live in a world ruled by Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates? Would we worship those people as exceptionally talented and creative indidivuals or are they just salesmen with a lot of luck? A few days ago Musk cited some sci-fi writers as his favorite philosophers lmfao

>>11351251
1. She said that she was most influenced by Aristotle. Nietzsche was an obvious influence on her but I would argue that she liked writers that were themselves Nietzschean and she took in their values unconsciously. She later distanced herself from Nietzsche because she did not value using others. They share similarities but the biggest difference is still independence while remaining in civilization, something that is contrary to Nietzsche that argued independence including civilization.
2. How are they bad?
3. That's not what she says on love and you either don't know what loves means or what she said. She argued a selfish love in which that person is of value to you, not a duty love or an altruistic love where you don't care about yourself.
4. that doesn't make the people who like it to be wrong. Ayn Rand did not see making the most money to be the goal or a value, but earned money. In The Fountainhead, Roark remains poor for many years before finding success. What she argues is to remain true to yourself and only seek to create the best. People that just want to make money only superficially like that aspect of hers and that does not make her wrong. Conservatives are the same while forgetting that she was an atheist.
5. You're looking at the economical system rather than the spiritual which Ayn Rand argued. She said that Capitalism is the only system where you can put out a work and through your own work become a success. CEOs are only prevelant in Atlas Shrugged and while that might be true to say she took that aspect too far, The Fountainhead makes it clear that it's not the position of CEO that is important but creating a product to the best of your abilities. Many CEO (like Dagny's brother) are idiots that only seek to make money. Elon Musk is literally that. He accept government subsidies, lets them invest in his company to rise his stocks and makes money. That doesn't make him a good CEO, just a good CEO that made a lot of money.

Overall, you just have a large misunderstanding of Ayn Rand and her work.

>>11347349
Attendee of University with one of the top 3 most staffed philosophy departments in the world here, we don't have a single Marxist on the payroll. Climb off Peterson's cock and stop acting like this 'Marxist Academia' boogeyman isn't a red scare smokescreen you throw out to obscure the fact that you're simply uncomfortable with new ideas. Debate with dignity instead of turning every exchange into a bad-faith fuckfest for dilettantes and shitheels.

>>11347323
It's because it's bad work, and she also happened to be a real bitch of a human being. The confluence of these factors makes it piss easy to harshly condemn her writing, because she doesn't bring a single redeeming thing to the table. The only people who respect her are those desperate to have their success and selfishness validated from without themselves. Mark Cuban might have to feel bad buying a $377 million yacht instead of donating to humanitarian causes, but momma Ayn offers him volumes of convenient excuses to be a selfish hedonist. In short, she's small minded. And her biggest claimed influence, Aristotle, would certainly see her for what she was.

The problem isn't that Rand's novels "lack rigour" or her philosophy is stupid. The problem is that every other shitty famous philosopher gets off leniently if their views are consistent with leftist dirge

>>11350259
The survival of your dear son, the heir to your fortune, means nothing if the species will fail. And vice versa, your sacrifice, even if it be total and unrequited, even if you be scorned or, worst of all, dare I say it, forgotten, means everything, if it advances the species. Because then, your bones build the species, your sweat, your ideas, your rotting DNA. Your descendants won`t know your name, or will just learn about you as a "faggot" at school, but you will have built them, without them even realizing it, because what you did works. That is the key, if it works, like DNA, like meme, like language(to some extent) it works, so it stays. Does communism work? Present-day capitalism?

It doesn't fucking matter whether you are an economist or a welder as long as what you do you respect and do it to the best of your ability, not making some shitty car that breaks every 2 years so you can fill your CEO pockets full of planned obsolescence(and (cough)human road-kill) cash you don`t need.

How many died to build this language we use. Do we ever honor them? How many Leonardo`s died in the Middle Ages never to be heard of? It suddenly turns out Leonardo`s nothing special. He just happened to live at a time when other men, men unknown, anons like you and me, cherished his work and thus preserved it and his name. What if they hadn't? If the condicio sine qua non for you hearing of Leonardo or any of his work is a scribe, who is the hero, the genius, or the scribe? Or both?

Who is the hero? The industrialist, who provides the investment to create a productive and useful business, or the workers, whose sweat and toil goes into the products that the masses use? Or both?

Of course you should be entitled to every single billion you inherit from your parents. You should be retarded to consider not respecting the efforts and wish of their lifetimes to make you happy and insured in life. At the same time who made you? Was it your mother? The man who produced the drug that saved her from death while she was giving birth? The rice that fed your grandma? Or was it not all that came before you? Should you then invest in logging without forest renewal? What is the etymology of the word nature(natus)? Who produced you? You are given a fucking life. Even if your parents gave you a fucking swiss bank and 10 corporations, still, who gave you the majority of your life?

You invest your pitiful body in the concrete that builds this engine and your label(name, title,, etc.) better burn when you die, for you are nothing! A fucking anon. That is what we all are. There is nothing grander because <you> are not the judge of greatness. Destiny is. The ends can never justify the means for the means are the only ends we will ever get to. Wonder why both communism and Rand had it in common to think otherwise?

In such a society I would rather be a... naught, in such a society. I don`t want to pertain to any of your disgusting schools of thought.

>>11351287
>1. She said that she was most influenced by Aristotle.
No she didn't. She explicitly stated she was only influenced by Aristotle.
>2. How are they bad?
Lol, read this thread
>3. That's not what she says on love and you either don't know what loves means or what she said. She argued a selfish love in which that person is of value to you, not a duty love or an altruistic love where you don't care about yourself.
I don't care what she says on love. She is just plain wrong in saying people are fundamentally self-interested. What about the father who would sacrifice his own life for his child? Selfless love is possible and a lot of people experience this with their spouse, children, parents etc. Love is not something that happens out of ideology, it occurs normally. You cannot force yourself to love someone selfishly if you don't. Loving someone just because that person makes you feel good is not love
4. They were actually the only followers she had. Silicon Valley entrepeneurs with zero (0) understanding of philosophy. She just poses her views without much to back it up, as if her fictional novels are arguments for a better world. It is as if J.S. Mill would write a novel in which the whole world is utilitarian and it would be a utopia, then saying: see, I don't need arguments, just look at my novel! It's absolute JK Rowling tier of reasoning
>5. Blabla
Yes, so how current CEO's behave shows Rand's world is not possible in any way. CEO's do not care about creativity, just money.

>Overall, you just have a large misunderstanding of Ayn Rand and her work.
This is what Randians (and all dogmatists ever) always claim. There is not much to understand.

>>11350259
Too often I wish the ancients would be alive today. Just to talk to them, or maybe to let them guide us. Yet more and more often I am thankful they are dead. So they wouldn't have to see all of this. No just destiny would allow them to see this.

>>11351312
>The problem is that every other shitty famous philosopher gets off leniently if their views are consistent with leftist dirge

Not fucking accurate. First, she's not a philosopher. More importantly, the influential left-leaning philosophers are subjected to immense rigor. Try bringing up Foucault without starting a fight. The only really famous philosopher right now is Zizek, and he's a stern leftist and is controversial for that very fact.

>>11351312
>every other shitty famous philosopher gets off leniently if their views are consistent with leftist dirge
Name someone you believe is getting off leniently? Butler? Derrida? Who do you have in mind? Or is it rather that you have no idea about current philosophy, but you've read a few blogs which told you all about it?

>>11351342
>She explicitly stated she was only influenced by Aristotle.
She was influenced primarily by Aristotle but that's still just nitpicking over nothing. It doesn't matter who she said she was influenced by. Her philosophy is more of an updated version of Aristotle.

>Lol, read this thread

most of the thread says nothing about the writing or her books other than it lacks realism which wasn't her goal. I'm asking you specifically why you think they're bad instead of just saying they're bad.

>I don't care what she says on love
If you don't care then how can you know what she said is wrong you idiot? Why is it wrong to say that people are fundamentally self interested? I swear to fuck everyone always brings up parent-child love and nothing else. You have a large misunderstanding of what love means. Selfless love would be unconditional love with is impossible. If you love someone, you love them for who they are, not 'just because'. You don't love a random person down the street, romantic or otherwise 'just because'. If you love someone, you have an interest in themselves selfishly. If you didn't, you wouldn't care about that person. Again, take friendship. Would you be friends with a boring person with nothing of value? It's the same. You are around people you 'click' with and that you enjoy selfishly. If you didn't, you would be a worthless human being that likes being around others for no reason.

>They were actually the only followers she had.
No, she has other followers, that's just your idiotic range. They're just more vocal about praising her. And even then, who cares?

>blabla
Yeah fuck off. Not all CEOs get subcidies by the governbment either.

>>11347491
>she was filled with the womanly feeling of being possessed
Some of you underagefags will meme about wtf I love based ayn now. But truly she was a self-loathing person who hated her gender and wanted an ubermensch to sodomize her. Why do you think her female leads get ravished/raped so often?

>>11351379
>why you think they're bad instead of just saying they're bad.
I like books with elegant graceful prose, Rand has clumsy workmanlike prose.
I like characters who seem human and lifelike, Rand prefers two dimensional ciphers who serve to help her make her points rather than acting like real people.
I like a well structured plot rather than the meandering directionless plots Rand favours.
If a writer has political points to make it prefer them to be woven subtly into the fabric of the novel (like Tolstoy or Dickens) rather than glaring and tone jarringly as Rand does.
Literature will always be subjective, but there are plenty of good faith reasons to dislike her novels. Maybe you like the way she handles things: good for you. Personally I don't.

>>11351392
>>11351392
She loved wanting to be dominated but never found someone that could do it. The true tragedy of her life.

>>11351415
>I like books with elegant graceful prose, Rand has clumsy workmanlike prose.
Oh wow, 'I don't like it' without any examples. Seems that all you have are preferences of 'I like X, if you don't have X you're a bad writer'. Such empty criticism is laughable.

>If a writer has political points to make it prefer them to be woven subtly into the fabric of the novel
Another preference. And what if it's a political novel? The Fountainhead is hardly political, where's your criticism for that book, huh?

I swear you only read Atlas Shrugged and nothing else.

>>11351364

Welcome to /lit/. You must be extremely new. Next time you see a topic about any famous "upper brow" book, observe the teams of people claiming that every full stop is filled with profound metaphysical wisdom.

she doesn't actually know what she's talking about and her books are poorly written.
I'm not going to complain about her ideas because thats what most people on this thread re doing but i will complain about her books
Atlas shrugged has a dumb premise, that the rich are being taxed more. It's set up as if this were a dystopian society when in actuality it would run just fine. The fountainhead has a neat premise of an architect in training but that includes a major problem as well. While it is not uncommon to have a book deliver a message, it is recommended that you have some sublete. Ayn Rand throws that out a window from her 1950 skyscraper. He characters might as well tattoo there ideologies on their foreheads and it would be less intrusive than the character interactions.

>>11351428
I'm not sure you've grasped what 'personal' and 'subjective' mean.
I personally like eg:
>But I was in search of love in those days, and I went full of curiousity and the faint, unrecognized apprehension that here, at last, I should find that low door in the wall, which others, I knew, had found before me, which opened on an enclosed and enchanted garden, which was somewhere, not overlooked by any window, in the heart of that grey city.
Personally, I've not found any sentences of Rand's as elegant and poetic as that. It's an opinion; I don't find her as enjoyable as Waugh. Are you looking for someone to try to objectively prove she's a bad writer?

>>11351251
>3. Her philosophy is just bad. She claimed people are only rationally self interested, which is horseshit. Anyone who has ever loved knows this.
I know you ain't read Rand

>all the brainlets ITT saying she's disliked because she was a bad person
heidegger was literally a nazi and sarte & de beauvoir used to literally rape children together

>>11351763
Kek this. Sartre and his wife literally signed a petition to decriminalize pedophilia.

>>11351781
Mhhmm... source on that?

>>11351851
>de Beauvoir, alongside most of the Marxist French intelligentsia, signed a petition demanding nothing more and nothing less than the legalization of pedophilia and the immediate release of three individuals who were due to serve long jail sentences for sexually exploiting several boys and girls aged 11 to 14. The petition signed amongst others by de Beauvoir and Sartre was published in Le Monde

https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/simone-de-beauvoir-a-nazi-a-pedophile-and-a-misogynist/

>>11351909
Wtf?

>>11352251
lol faggot

>>11351909
Going to need a better source for that

>>11347323
She is a piece of crap who is only read by republicans, who are also pieces of crap

>>11351311
based dubs

>>11351311
>Climb off Peterson's cock and stop acting like this 'Marxist Academia' boogeyman isn't a red scare smokescreen

According to a 2006 study, 25% of sociology professors self-identified as being a marxist.

http://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html

>>11350267
Why the fuck would a Marxist move to America?

>>11351287
>>11351311
These critiques are so vague and cliche, it's almost as if the people who react strongly to Rand all share the same attitude.

Can we just stop at talk about how one of the main plot points in Atlas Shrugged is is building solidarity among the wealthy businessmen and participating in a mass strike, and them having them all live in a commune. How incoherent of an ideology can you have when your philosophy is supposedly antithetical to communism, but then you make your characters in-act communism in your book.

>>11352946
It's crazy what difference economic theory can make on a society/commune isn't it?

Well she's a fiction writer lol, as a novelist she's pretty good even though it's a bit superfluous at times. Nobody reads her essays etc. I got something from the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, as long as you don't take it too literally

>>11352915
If criticisms of her 'philosophy' are vague, it's a function of the vagueness of her own writing. Vague criticisms of Kant or Plato do not hold up, because they were rigorous and dedicated analytical minds. A refutation can naturally follow a step-wise progression because their work has structure and elegance. But Ayn never wrote, "I believe in Objectivism, as opposed to something else, for this set of reasons, which are sensible because X" in a book called "A Critique of Utilitarian reason". Instead she wrote industrialist fanfiction and whenever she talked about Objectivism in interviews she just sounded like a mentally handicapped prick or perhaps an alien doing a really poor job of blending in. No need to engage in elegant critique of inelegant concepts, at least in the realm of philosophy.

>>11352776
>Sociologists
>2006
>25%

Yes anon, becuase a contingent of a rather small department at any given university identified as a marxist twelve years ago we should really be terribly concerned. Tell me, have you read each volume of Capital? Do you know what being a Marxist even consists in? You don't, you're fearful and it's clouding your ability to make sober judgments, This red scare has worked on you and you feel like your way of life is at risk. Man up.

>>11353045
What? You’re an idiot.

Imagine if 25% of academics self-identified as being national socialists.

>>11353095
If one academic identifies with non-left wing ideology they're instantly harassed

>>11348829
this as well. her philsophy isn't better just because all professors are leftists

>>11353095
>>11353102
Firstly, there's a massive gap in political severity between identifying as a Nazi and identifying as a Marxist. Marxism may have led to unfavorable outcomes during the twentieth century, but those outcomes were by-products of the ideology in the hands of bad-faith actors, not features of it. Nazism, on the other hand, has extermination in its mandate. Read Gerbils's diary if you have any delusions concerning that. The fact that you would draw any sort of equivalency between Marxism and Nazism is laughable, and only furthers my point that you're ignorant to the tenants and philosophy that make up Marxism. When a sociologist claims to be a Marxist, they really mean that they want wealth redistributed, human rights to be the primary concern of government, and for strong corporate oversight to enforce those human rights. When someone identifies as a 'National Socialist' (one of the most disgusting euphemisms of the last century) what they really mean is they want to live in an ethnically pure nation, and that's essentially their single issue. They're even willing to tolerate living in a police state if that's what it takes to accomplish this. In short, they are irrational, hateful people whose concern is entirely unpolitical in nature. Marxism is a political statement, Nazism is a racial one. The former can be discussed, debated, rationally defended and detracted from. The latter, however, is a disgusting and irrational cancer on society's collective psyche.

Secondly, you would know if you'd spent any meaningful amount of time in a University's philosophy, economics, English, history, or finance departments that conservatism is alive and well. But this is a dog whistle. You're not looking for conservatism in the true sense, namely those schools of thought based around economic non-interference or around the idea that art should be interpreted contextually rather than personally, or any other classically conservative concept. No, you're looking for academics who make divisive claims about race, the role of women in society, or the dangers of giving people sexual freedom. The fact is, people who make it their business to advance these claims simply aren't academics, and cannot hack it as such. The reason they aren't common in universities is not personal, or political, it's intellectual; it is a matter of capability. It's the same reason you won't find double-amputees flipping burgers for a living. They're the double-amputees of the academic world, disabled in every meaningful sense of the world. But they know how to make themselves sound convincing to the ignorant, and as the saying goes 'in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king'.

>>11354611
>guys, it wasn't true communism!

>>11354699
>>guys, it wasn't true communism!

If that's what you got from my post then your reading comprehension is as poor as your rhetoric.

>>11347349
True but also her philosophy is kinda shit in a lot of places.

>>11354711
What I got from it was, you don't think hard or honestly about political theory and declined to read further.

>>11354711
In order to significantly redistribute wealth, a massively powerful state is required.

If you do not realize that whenever a government has been given this ability incredible atrocities have been committed, you are probably a bit retarded

>>11354755
There's another dog whistle. If you'd read my post you'd know that I bothered to read Gerbils, but because my conclusions evidently are not the same as yours I'm not an 'honest thinker'. Because anyone who thinks 'honestly' about these matters would be on your side. Isn't that right, Nazi boy? Fascist tool?

>>11354767
>In order to significantly redistribute wealth, a massively powerful state is required.

Oh but it's already been done in the US, three times now. First, following the Great Depression when the highest income tax bracket was 94% (coincidentally bringing about the most prosperous period for the middle class in American history, which conservative often hearken to). Second, when Ronald Reagan implemented Reaganomics and tilted the scales in favor of the ultra-wealthy. And finally in 2017, where in the face of an increasingly impoverished middle class we've doubled down on Reagan.

So it seems that, by your definition, we've got ourselves a massively powerful state and have had one for a long time. I'm guessing you don't count the Vietnam War or institutionalized racism to be atrocities, leaving you in a bit of a weak position. Unless I'm missing third option, you've gotta either admit that peaceful wealth redistribution is possible, or admit that the redistribution of wealth in the US has come at the expense of vulnerable communities and the middle class, meaning that conservative economic policy has failed in its stated goals.

>>11354767
I don't even have a problem with commies but how the fuck do people like you make their way here?

>>11354793
If a state decides to heavily tax the wealthy so that it may provide financial assistance to the poor, this does not mean that the state is following a marxist social policy methodology. Likewise, if a state decides to collude with corporate interests, we do not call that state fascist. There are many other things that comprise a marxist state and if you’re really saying that the United States was marxist because the tax rate on the rich was 94% (that wasn’t the effective tax rate, btw) you’re just being dogmatic.

>>11354918
>There are many other things that comprise a marxist state

Of course, I agree wholeheartedly. It's a very complex political system and I wouldn't be so reductionist as to claim that the US is employing or ever has employed Marxism. Rather my point in my original post is that modern academic Marxists are extraordinarily rarely 'true-marxists' in the sense that they advocate for state control of all systems of the economy. I've spoken with many, and at the end of the day they don't mean to be taken literally. It's a sort of 'moniker-in-protest' that they adopt to place themselves in opposition to a system that promotes the interests of the wealthy over the interests of everyone else.

Mostly they're sympathetic utilitarians who embrace the romanticism of being punk-rock about knowledge, not political subversives who seek to indoctrinate.

Why is Nozick respected and feared even by the hard left while Ayn Rand and Rothbard are scorn?

>>11354966
>modern academic Marxists are extraordinarily rarely 'true-marxists' in the sense that they advocate for state control of all systems of the economy

Not in my experience. I just recently graduated with a degree in polysci/philosophy, so I was decently exposed to both departments, and even worked as a research assistant for a professor in the polysci department.

What I saw, was pretty shocking. I would argue that at least half of the political science department was filled with professors who self-identified as marxist, and I mean REAL marxists. The philosophy department was about 1/3 marxist from what I observed. When I would speak with these professors I would always try and ask them what changes they would like to see in the USA, and the majority of the marxists actually said: “revolution, probably violent.” The graduate students were even worse.

>>11354999
Because he's an extraordinarily talented philosopher. There's a subtext going on in this thread where people are intimating that people dismiss Rand because of her political association, but that's not the case. Among philosophers, quality trumps all in matters of the judgement of philosophy. I differ with Kant on a number of his conclusions, but he's fucking Kant, and I have endless respect for his work. I've known Jewish philosophers who don't care for Heidegger because of his association with the Nazi party, but they recognize the philosophical value and influence of his work regardless.

>>11355027
And what makes a good philosopher?

>>11355008
Our experience differs. As a Philosophy/English major I bumped into many more of the true Marxists in the English department, mostly very romantic and passionate people, which I'm deeply sympathetic to. And even among them I can't recall any hoping for a violent revolution (just a regular one). The students were much more militant, as you describe, but that's to be expected in turbulent times. Meanwhile the philosophers were, broadly, very sober with the exception of a few Continentals who I absolutely loved speaking with.

>>11355052
Attractiveness/style.

>>11355061
What type of university did you attend? I attended a state school in the USA.

>>11355070
Private university in the US, Mid-Atlantic area

>>11354999

>respected and feared

lel.

The left may give Nozick a pass because his political thought, by his own admission, is completely and totally inapplicable in real life, due to historical injustices rendering his entitlement theory null and void. I believe he even suggests himself that the Rawlsian difference principle could be the answer to the open question about rectification of injustice.

Nozick is generally respected because he is, most of the time, a brilliant philosopher. His political philosophy however, is nothing but a thought experiment.

>>11355052
A lot of things. There's the strength of their logic to stand up to scrutiny, the structure of their arguments, the quality of their arguments, their capability to find a rational basis for their most outlandish claims, their ability to account for various experiential quirks (phenomenology) in their philosophy, their ability to reckon with great thinkers of the past, and even their intuitive appeal. It may sound a little ridiculous, but once you read enough philosophy you really do get a sense for quality, the ability to spot missteps intuitively.

I think that, in a way, that's the most important thing for a philosopher to master. Plato, for instance, is perhaps the greatest Western philosopher. But his account of love in the Phaedrus is almost entirely phenomenological and intuitive. Yet we still regard it as a great work of philosophy.

Anyway, the point is that different things make different philosophers great, so there's not an easy answer

What is harder to find:
1 Good right wing philosophy
2 Good left wing economics

>>11355061
>deeply sympathetic with the Marxists
Tfw the marxists are the “cool kids” in academia that everyone wants to hang out with. No wonder colleges are such a hotbed for leftist utopians and their drivel. Im also glad that they basically prepare high school English teachers to spread the same shit in the high schools so I had the absolute pleasure of learning about Marxism, post colonialism, feminism and gay/queer theory in grade 12 (Canada). Not only that but they force you to put classic literature through only these lenses, reducing all their meaning to easy-to-digest political statements. They literally could not shove postmodernism down teens’ throats any harder. Where the fuck is the intellectual honesty? Read outside your comfort zone, everyone.

>>11355217
My buddy is an english teacher in the USA for people in grade 9/10/11. Students here now have the option of taking the “traditional” route to taking an english course, OR they can take an alternative “critical theory” route. Basically, the latter route teaches critical race theory in grade 9, critical gender theory in grade 10, and so on.

It’s absolutely horrible to think that this is the introduction children are now receiving to english literature.

>>11355217
That's a deeply cynical reading of my post. I said that I was deeply sympathetic to passionate, romantic people. I try to be one whenever possible. Regardless, you clearly have a poor understanding of the function of Post-modern thought, it's a folly a lot of freshman English students tend to fall into. The point isn't to displace all forms of meaning outside the queer, the colonial, the environmental, the marxist. Instead the point is to use these schools of criticism as tools to mine more and more meaning from any given text. Of course people pick their favorites, but that's not the idea. I'm a reader-response critic, more in-line with Sontag. But that doesn't mean I hate my cohorts who are more interested in environmental criticism.

>>11354771
>>doesn't want another mass starvation and failed communist state
>must be a nazi!

>>11355296
>P1: Harshly critical of Nazism
>P2: Accuses P1 of lacking intellectual rigor without providing any arguments
>P1: Gee, P2 sure is sounding like a sneaky Nazi apologist
>P3: P1 wants communism and mass starvation!

Keep trying, really

>>11355272
>The point isn't to displace all forms of meaning outside the queer, the colonial, the environmental
It almost always happens. Criticism can take many more shapes than pointing out each marginalized groups but that's the most romantic. (I understand the environmentalism view though)
>Of course people pick their favorites, but that's not the idea
The whole movement seems to pick its favorites.
I know how easy it is to romanticize the literary 'counter-culture'/anti-establishment leftist types, but their line between love for humanity and political action is so blurred that neither them nor people from the outside can easily detect or be critical of anything rotten. It's hard to put down my thoughts on this, too. For the most part I just hear of literary education centering around pomo theory and critical lenses that may get students thinking but in more of a linear way than literature should really be understood. And when you're writing a paper as a school project you end up looking for things that really aren't there, or stretching things, which can easily bend the author's meaning when you think back on the book. When I read things I sort of "feel" the motifs, struggles, the workings behind-the-scenes etc which can be hard to catch and write down, especially if they don't fit any of the pre-loaded biases and lenses you're (even accidentally) trying to see the book in.

>>11355322
>thinking someone needs to dog whistle for natsoc on 4chan...

>>11355455
Ideological favoritism is a hazard that modern literary criticism often falls into, but that's clearly the fault of the way its taught rather than the fault of the theories. When I was taught to do literary criticism, my professors had us read each of the foundational texts of the modern schools then told us "write a feminist critique of Frankenstein, write a queer critique of Dracula, Write an Environmental critique of Cloud 9.", etc.. The point being that we couldn't just say "Well I'm a colonial critic so that's what I'll put these all through". Sure, a lot of the criticism was a reach, but invariably some students would hit on something really insightful or brilliant through the application of each school. And it isn't dogma to say that Dracula is rife with homosexual imagery, it's simply another ray of light that shines from the text. Only real fools claim theirs is the 'true' way to read a text, but the rhetoric these days seems to be that theorists are \at war with every meaning besides their own. But all you need to do to disprove this is open up any database of literary criticism and type in a classic and you'll find popular interpretations of all sorts.

>>11355474
Maybe not on /pol/, but here? Nazis tend to stick to their own threads and get pissed on when they're found in others.

>>11347323

Most people believe her so-called philosophy to be very reprehensible.

>>11353095
>believing in an economic system is the same as believing in gassing jews

>>11355500
There are multiple ways of interpreting a piece of literature, yes. However, those multiple interpretations are constrained by the number of MEANINGFUL interpretations. How the fuck does making critical interpretations of dracula having homosexual connotations do anything to help me better live my life?

>>11355253
Jesus christ that is terrifying. By prioritizing literary criticism over other ways of interpreting literary texts, all you will end up doing is producing bitter, cynical, and deeply hateful human beings. The current state of college campuses, like Evergreen, exemplify this.

>>11355614
>How the fuck does making critical interpretations of dracula having homosexual connotations do anything to help me better live my life?

Because that's not the point of art, and historically hasn't been. Art is about the human condition and how we ought to understand it as well as ourselves. It helps us communicate ideas and feelings and truths between each other which are too complicated to be communicated in a sentence. So when Bram Stoker wrote that all the other male characters in Dracula stood in awe silently admiring the masculine form of Harker(?) for "several minutes" after seeing him penetrate Lucy with his stake, what does this communicate? It's a provocative, bizarre, and fascinating question. He almost certainly didn't intend for this, yet there it is, clear as day in the text. So where does this come from? Is there a homo-social desire inherent to human men? Where else can we see this in art?

The questions are almost endless, but they are raised in pursuit of ultimate truths. And when you're looking for the true nature of humans, things are bound to get pretty weird.

>>11355614
>How the fuck does making critical interpretations of dracula having homosexual connotations do anything to help me better live my life?
It helps you understand how that novel works and achieves it's effects. The constant sexual undertones in Dracula are key aspects of that novel; the uneasiness that Dracula might 'steal your girl', or even seduce you, the knowledge that deep down you aren't in control of your sexuality and nor is your gf and this lack of control can be used against you etc etc. Shit, how do you even begin to understand dracula without all the sexual stuff?

>>11347662
Because smart people are openminded and left-wing or alternatively anarchists.

>>11355775
>>11355670
So the objective goal of reading literary texts should be to understand the subconscious nature of human beings? I think the goal of education should be to provide students with tools, ideas, and concepts necessary to live a proper life, not to provide meaningless abstract observations on things the author didn't even fucking intend for you to make observations on.

A professor of mine once said the school where he did his undergrad a a contingent of Objectivists. I don't know if that's still the case.

>>11355967
>So the objective goal of reading literary texts should be to understand the subconscious nature of human beings?

Firstly, there's no 'objective goal of reading'. That's nonsense. It's like saying the objective goal of drinking is hydration. If that was the case we'd have never drank anything but water. Different intention for different settings.

Secondly, the underlying goal of the humanities in higher education is the achievement of a deeper understand of 'humanity'. Art itself is a human endeavor, and its study is, essentially, the study of purely human creations beyond the realm of the solely utilizable. What you're describing is vocational education, or the goal of self-help and advice books. But "higher education" is concerned with "higher" pursuits. Theoretically, the idea is that one ought to be prepared to live freely after finishing high or secondary school. Universities are meant to be for the intellectually curious or those people who need extremely specialized training.

I know how to live a good life, and I know how to be a good person in this world. I studied because I wanted to know more about what it is to be human, and what that meant for me.

>>11355253
oh my god

>>11355967
>to provide meaningless abstract observations on things the author didn't even fucking intend for you to make observations on.
Actually, Stoker is quite clear about his references to Mesmerism (an early form of psychology and hypnosis). There are numerous mesmeristic phenomenons and techniques described in Dracula. Van Helsing even says he has to visit Charcot to communicate with him (Charcot was a famous French mad-doctor; he was a pupil of Mesmer and a teacher of Freud).
Dracula is all about the unconsciousness and the underlying animal nature of men.

>the objective goal of reading literary texts
There isn't an objective goal in reading literary texts since it's always a subject (with its own goals) who reads them.
Traditionally, literary texts were produced to preserve "knowledge" and to entertain (that's why the Iliad, the Bible or other mythical texts were "written"). After the "start" of philosophy (read: science), scientific texts slipped into the role of maintaining and transfering knowledge (read: science) - therefore, the main-purpose of literary texts nowadays is to entertain. An important exemption are philosophers in the tradition of the French moralistes who constantly try to distance themselves from their own opinions since they're very critical about the possibility of a general and universal knowledge when it comes to human matters.

>>11356160
>An important exemption are philosophers in the tradition of the French moralistes...
*that's why they're writing literary texts instead of scientific ones. Houellebecq might be used as a contemporary example.

>>11355253
that is unbelievable. is most of the west like this?

>>11351503
I'm looking for more than just 'goddamn why are her characters idealistic and avatars, I prefer if she didn't do that' which I get why people hate that but doesn't explain why she's a bad writer.

>>11353021
>If criticisms of her 'philosophy' are vague, it's a function of the vagueness of her own writing.
>implying the criticisms are vague on purpose
Fucking lol imagine thinking that's true. Imagine a critic writing a vague criticism of a bad movie because what they had to watch was bad then blaming the movie for their poor lack of skill.

>But Ayn never wrote, "I believe in Objectivism, as opposed to something else, for this set of reasons, which are sensible because X" in a book called "A Critique of Utilitarian reason".
How can you say she only wrote fanfiction when she also wrote nonfiction? She wrote fiction because she understood that it was a better vehicule to communicate values more abstractly but also wrote books that detail her philosophy if you wanted more.

On Utilitarianism:

>[Utilitarianism's] “The greatest good for the greatest number” is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity.
>This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to justify the most vicious actions.
>What is the definition of “the good” in this slogan? None, except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.
>If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the following examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynching mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the community.
>There were seventy million Germans in Germany and six hundred thousand Jews. The greatest number (the Germans) supported the Nazi government which told them that their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller number (the Jews) and grabbing their property. This was the horror achieved in practice by a vicious slogan accepted in theory.
>But, you might say, the majority in all these examples did not achieve any real good for itself either? No. It didn’t. Because “the good” is not determined by counting numbers and is not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone.

>>11351121
>You need an external world to doubt anything
[Citation needed]
>Your essence needs to exist before you're able to think
Again, you're confusing an individual's proof of causality with causality itself. How do you know you exist? By thinking.

>>11355253
This is a great thing to be doing. Traditional ways of reading literature present one-sided views to the students.

>>11356714
It's pretty fucked now
I'm in Australia and things are progressing down that route now, even when I went to high school years back my teacher at the time for literature was a 23yo feminist dyke so you can imagine the quality education received.
Culturally everyone seems to be going down the toilet, I cannot wait to move to Kazakhstan

>>11357111
What countries actually still teach traditional ways of interpreting literary works?

My little brother told me last week that his high school decided to stop assigning To Kill A Mockingbird because of the explicit racial undertones in the book.

>>11357199
I doubt any first world countries do in public schools, my Dad is a literature teacher in Singapore and Malaysia (from 90's to early 00's and now from 2014 to current) and he teaches traditional styles still. I think it just depends on the school largely, but obviously the way governments are going any state run education is going to be largely garbage
Can't wait until they start teaching Rupi

>>11356844
>How do you know you exist? By thinking.
You know you exist because reality is real and you're able to perceive it and interact with it. Simply saying that 'by thinking' is undefined and actually means being self aware of your own consciousness interacting with whatever 'illusion' (reality) you're interacting with. Without anything to interact, you would have no self-awareness of this 'thinking'. Descartes says that you need the existence of the doubter was the condition of the possibility of doubting, but you equally need 'something' to be doubting. You don't exist independently before whatever you're doubting to first declare that you exist and THEN say that what you're doubting.

Essence and existence precedes thinking. When you're born, you exist and you experience the world before being able to think. It's only when you develop cognition, reason and an awareness of reality do you 'think' and 'know you exist'. As Ayn Rand argues, you exist and then you think, not the other way around.

I know I exist because I'm alive and aware of reality. And no amount of rhetoric can change that.

>>11356833
>What is the definition of “the good” in this slogan? None, except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.

See, this is terrible, garbage, embarrassing, shitty philosophy. Why? Because instead of responding to anything that Mill actually read, she responds to a slogan. It's tantamount to me saying that Stalin was a great guy because one time he said that the working class was the lifeblood of the nation. Mill's entire thesis is based on our perception of well-being and how we can best promote that well-being. Now the definition of well-being is a separate and essential realm of philosophy which demands rigorous inquiry on its own, but for the purposes of this discussion let's distill it to objective list theory. Here we can offer things which promote human flourishing such as food, shelter, safety, love, community, education, physical health, mental health, access to artistic outlets, access to education, skills, etc. Now, according to utilitarianism, depending on which form you endorse, with every action you take you should try to consider the ramifications for yourself and your fellow man, and whichever produces the greatest amount of human flourishing is the choiceworthy option. Now here's the rub, different things affect human flourishing in different ways. Taking away someone's access to sushi will certainly have an effect on their well-being, but compared to taking away their freedom? In some circles, freedom is considered that maximal human suffering, and that depriving a person of it should way heaviest of all things on the utilitarian scale. In other words, if the enslavement of 10,000 people would guarantee high well-being for the rest of the world, we would still likely arrive at the conclusion that this is an immoral decision.

So here we have Ayn not actually responding to the core tenants of Mill's utilitarianism, then proceeding to misrepresent it, then claiming that the Nazis would be morally vindicated by it. She has, essentially, offered a bad-faith argument against something she was clearly ignorant of in the first place.

>>11357257
>I know I exist because I'm alive and aware of reality. And no amount of rhetoric can change that.

Why?

>>11357258
You could have just asked for what Ayn Rand said on Mill instead, idiot.

>Religious influences are not the only villain behind the censorship legislation; there is another one: the social school of morality, exemplified by John Stuart Mill. Mill rejected the concept of individual rights and replaced it with the notion that the “public good” is the sole justification of individual freedom. (Society, he argued, has the power to enslave or destroy its exceptional men, but it should permit them to be free, because it benefits from their efforts.) Among the many defaults of the conservatives in the past hundred years, the most shameful one, perhaps, is the fact that they accepted John Stuart Mill as a defender of capitalism.
>The terrible aspect of Mill’s influence is the fact that his followers become unable to consider great values—such as truth, science, morality, art—apart from and without the permission of “the people’s desires.”

>>11357258
This one doesn't come from Ayn Rand but she approved of it.
>A weary agnostic on most of the fundamental issues of philosophy, Mill bases his defense of capitalism on the ethics of Utilitarianism.
>Utilitarianism is a union of hedonism and Christianity. The first teaches man to love pleasure; the second, to love his neighbor. The union consists in teaching man to love his neighbor’s pleasure. To be exact, the Utilitarians teach that an action is moral if its result is to maximize pleasure among men in general. This theory holds that man’s duty is to serve—according to a purely quantitative standard of value. He is to serve not the well-being of the nation or of the economic class, but “the greatest happiness of the greatest number,” regardless of who comprise it in any given issue. As to one’s own happiness, says Mill, the individual must be “disinterested” and “strictly impartial”; he must remember that he is only one unit out of the dozens, or millions, of men affected by his actions. “All honor to those who can abnegate for themselves the personal enjoyment of life,” says Mill, “when by such renunciation they contribute worthily to increase the amount of happiness in the world . . . .”
>Capitalism, Mill acknowledges, is not based on any desire for abnegation or renunciation; it is based on the desire for selfish profit. Nevertheless, he says, the capitalist system ensures that, most of the time, the actual result of individual profit-seeking is the happiness of society as a whole. Hence the individual should be left free of government regulation. He should be left free not as an absolute (there are no absolutes, says Mill), but under the present circumstances—not on the ground of inalienable rights (there are no such rights, Mill holds), but of social utility.
>Under capitalism, concluded one American economist of the period with evident moral relief, “the Lord maketh the selfishness of man to work for the material welfare of his kind.” As one commentator observes, the essence of this argument is the claim that capitalism is justified by its ability to convert “man’s baseness” to “noble ends.” “Baseness” here means egoism; “nobility” means altruism. And the justification of individual freedom in terms of its contribution to the welfare of society means collectivism.
>Mill (along with Smith, Say, and the rest of the classical economists) was trying to defend an individualist system by accepting the fundamental moral ideas of its opponents. It did not take Mill long to grasp this contradiction in some terms and amend his political views accordingly. He ended his life as a self-proclaimed “qualified socialist.”

>>11357262
Because to deny reality means that you are delusional and I am equally a delusion. I am conscious of my own awareness of reality and that is self evident proof that I think and I am alive. I can interact with you right, on 4chan, and am living, able to do this. I am self aware not of my 'thinking' by doubting whether I am or am not typing but that am interacting with reality.

>>11357264
>become unable to consider great values—such as truth, science, morality, art—apart from and without the permission of “the people’s desires.”

This is the kind of nonsense that only someone who's never read Mill could cook up about him. Utilitarianism is a system of ethics, same as deontology or virtue ethics. It is literally the product of the pursuit for moral truth. The fact that society falls in line with Utilitarianism is not a black mark against it, but rather one of its most striking supports. It's an ethical philosophy that centers around the ability of human beings to make informed value judgments, which is inherent to our experience of the world. This distillation of utilitarianism as a perversion of humanity is an inversion of the truth. It's a celebration of one of the most human things we can do, and often lies beyond the bound of reason. It's essentially having faith in human beings to cultivate themselves so that when the time comes to make a moral judgment, they'll know the right answer. But because people like Ayn can't escape their tired, cynical, and analytical view of ethics and morality, they can only see it as "OH SO YOU'RE SAYING I SHOULD MURDER PEOPLE IF IT MEANS I GET INFINITE BURGERS, HUH?".

>>11357257
You know nothing. You assume logic and hope from there on.

>>11357273
Yep, could be all delusion. Could be nothing at all. Because first you must prove the validity of logic, without using logic.

>>11357284
>OH SO YOU'RE SAYING I SHOULD MURDER PEOPLE IF IT MEANS I GET INFINITE BURGERS, HUH?
utilitarianism literally entails this

>>11357284
>It's a celebration of one of the most human things we can do, and often lies beyond the bound of reason
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
'Beyond the bound of reason' wow. Holy shit.

>it's essentially having faith in human beings to cultivate themselves so that when the time comes to make a moral judgment, they'll know the right answer.
Having faith in other human beings to go against their own self interest by living for others. Oh man, you sure showed me how Ayn Rand is wrong for thinking altruism is evil or that utilitarianism isn't just hedonism+altruism with elements of christianity. Faith, heh. What a joke.

If I said 'Nietzsche called Utilitarianism slave morality that only cares about the pleasures of others as if it's the only thing humans live for, you'd just accept it, wouldn't you?
If I just said 'Nozick mentioned the utility monster and how pleasure undefined that is relative to each individual and some can abuse that' you'd just accept it, wouldn't you?

Utilitarianism is literally autism that tries to calculate pleasure for the good of others and are fucking idiots because they know that it's undefined what people seek or need. That's why Ayn Rand argues that you should seek your own happiness and not pleasure as the standard. Caring for others based on faith is stupid.

>>11357315
>Could be nothing at all. Because first you must prove the validity of logic, without using logic.
Easy. Law of noncontradiction. The basis of logic it does not allow any contradiction. If I hold any contradiction, then someone will point it out and a synthesis will be reached to the absolute truth. As Aristotle argued, something cannot be true and not true at the same time. Or as Ayn Rand said, A is A.

You think that everything is a delusion and that reality isn't real, which is your choice. Maybe eating sand and pretending it's food works too. As Ayn Rand said: you can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Recognizing reality is first required before thinking.

>You know nothing.
Nope, I know that reality is real and that I am aware of reality. And I am aware of the law of noncontradiction which is the basis for being logical and consistent.
I have no reason or evidence to assume reality a delusion therefore it's real. Just like Descartes stupidly believed that maybe a non-God creature was made all reality but maybe not really. Anyways that's all I have to say to a life denying, reality denying fuck that believes reality is maybe not even real.

>>11347323
because her ideas embody the exact opposite of the average academic's life. writing papers, getting rejected by the opposite sex, drinking alone, putting oneself on a moral high ground.

her writing itself is really nothing to get butt-hurt about.

>>11357417
>writing papers, getting rejected by the opposite sex, drinking alone, putting oneself on a moral high ground.
Wasn't that pretty much Rand's later life?

>>11350881
hHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>11357460
Nope. She despised the use of any mind-altering substances.

>>11357654
Didn’t she used amphetamines? Either way, you could replace booze with nicotine and it be accurate.

>>11357710
I think Rand would support the use of drugs that further "ground" you to reality -- amphetamines and nicotine do just that, most other drugs do not.

>>11357379
I'm making an epistemological argument, not a metaphysical one. Normally I'd try to explain myself more clearly but you are rather unpleasant and possibly not so bright so... have fun with that.

>>11357723

>>11351486
>Atlas shrugged has a dumb premise, that the rich are being taxed more. It's set up as if this were a dystopian society when in actuality it would run just fine.
You fucking moron. You have not grasped the "premise" of Atlas at all. It's American is one on th very precipice of collapse, the rich not not merely "being taxed more" but are having their creative ability forcefully REDIRECTED under the command of new unorthodox laws.

>>11355127
>lot of things. There's the strength of their logic to stand up to scrutiny, the structure of their arguments, the quality of their arguments, their capability to find a rational basis for their most outlandish claims, their ability to account for various experiential quirks (phenomenology) in their philosophy, their ability to reckon with great thinkers of the past, and even their intuitive appeal.
That's "Philosophy: Who Needs It" 1:1. You cannot claim Rand is "not a rigorous philosopher" while having never read a word of her nonfiction.

>>11355535
For one reason and one reaeon only: defining Altruism as unadulterated evil is the most iconoclastic thing in history a person has ever done second only to telling people god doesn't exist. It is our last and greatest remaining vestige of the cave. People are terrified of abandoning it. And NOT for rational reasons.

Rand invented a completely new philosophy, at a time when the beatniks were promoting Communism. Her books weren't Koontz/Clancy page-turners, but were very prescient in how they described latter 20th century life/politics.

She was brave enough to go against the grain, and clever enough to put her ideas into adventure books, not dry textbooks.

>>11357872
I like that idea. Think of it:
1. Catniss Aberdeen is a bitch who uses her control of the masses to tax the hell out of anyone with more than 2 cents.
2. The rich rebel.
3. (bring back) profit.

>>11356796
If they don't like the way she writes, then she is a bad writer, to that individual.

more like A. Kike

>>11358082
W-whats that guy gonna do with the fish?

>>11358070
Going off the tediousness of the Fountainhead her books are about as dry as her ugly Jew cunt. 800 pages of one-dimensional trash. Her ideal Roark is a one-in-a-nillion autist and the reality is that people existing without family, friends or any roots will be the perfect consumers (hence big business love for libertines), she managed to write one of the most boring political screeds in history while appealing to just the right type of autist who can stand to read 800 page Dreck that doesn't contain any emotion except for a little 50 Shades of consensual rape. Her philosophy is shit, she is anti-conservative and her follwers are consumers, not the idealized artistes or individuals they perceive themselves as. Nonetheless, her greatest offense: BOREDOM!

>>11347323
I like her philosophy but she is not a 'writer's writer.' Her sentences suck.

>>11348103
>Atlas Shrugged
>more influential than Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto
>in the 20th century

I SERIOUSLY HOPE

>>11355881
that's a pretty closeminded statement

>>11356017
>a deeper understand of 'humanity'
And what does this deeper understanding entail? Class consciousness, awareness to racial and sexual discrimination and other kinds of marginalization?

>>11358023
>defining Altruism as unadulterated evil is the most iconoclastic thing in history a person has ever done second only to telling people god doesn't exist.
Topkek.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=YyPfIDvvwU4

>>11358849
I dont even understand what that video is supposed to mean

>>11358793
How so?

>>11349790
shuddup fag

>>11359468
People who make wild exaggerated claims are generally bullshitting from a position of ignorance

>>11359680
Stupid point. Altruism is evil. It treats man as a self-sacrificial animal whose highest moral virtue is self-immolation.

>>11359729
Yes, as I mentioned, people who make wild exaggerated claims are generally bullshitting from a position of ignorance

>>11357654
I'm not sure about that. I remember Nathaniel talking about Ayn Rand on the topic on marijuana where he was unsure about its usage and Rand was completely against it, then she went 'well let's go try it' and they did. After that she was more open to recreational usage of drugs but argued that it shouldn't be used in a hedonistic way or as the only purpose in life. On that ground, since she was life-affirming, why not experience all the pleasures you can while alive so long as it doesn't impact your life?

>>11358070
I find it funny that she left Russia to live in Hollywood like she dreamed of only to find it was crawling with communists trying to portray it as not that bad. People think Toohey is ridiculous and too on the nose but he's just a self-aware caricature of what she saw in Hollywood praising communism for being communistic.

>>11360034
Source on that, buddy?

>>11359729
altruism is for most of the population, Randian don’t comprehend that a moral-social contract based on rules for the elites isn’t sustainable and that bad blood being given leverage with excess access to credit and capital perpetuates decay. oligarchs, who are just the end stage of magnate, are always degenerative and deleterious to the cultures they occupy

why is this thread still around

>>11360315
Combination of genuine Randroids being so stupid they're good entertainment, and master rusemen who know pretending to be a Randroid is good for (you)

>>11360315
We don't have a Rand general, yet.

>>11360458
this thread is rand general

>>11360315
Because Objectivism is literally the most meaty philosophic topic to discuss. Including because so many people are so rabid on insisting it not be considered a philosophy.
Reminder that marxfag redditors are fine with bringing up Hitler or anyone elses works but curiously enough prefer that everyone forget Ayn Rand ever existed. Capitalism's greatest philosopher is scary.

>>11347323
She's an ex-jew, she was a living example of the flaws of communism, out spoken about how shitty it was/is.
Doesn't believe in welfare nor reparations.

Zero clue why Zionist Marxist Progressives would hate her.

>>11360635
It's more accurate to say she's simply ethnically jewish. She was an atheist as a child. She was never relgious in the first place.

>>11355570
welcome to the American mind

>>11360147
Rand's whole point is that an ethical system needs to be objective and the very notion of "rules for the elites" shouldn't exist and only do because of the Mixed Economy.
Marxian means of assessing these phenomena are shit, historically btfo, and you should stop opperating off of them.

>Throughout my entire BA in Philosophy program I only heard her name mentioned in the most negative contexts.

she's not a philosopher... she's a polemicist

Because Randianism is not philosophy, it's quasi-religious dogma. It's all right there in the goddamn name - Objectivism, as if all other perspectives are somehow "subjective", and thus disconnected from the "objective" reality of Ayn Rand. "Her" work is a self-defined "closed system", perfect and in no need for alteration or augmentation. It's hard to even begin to describe how ignorant and arrogant and wrong this notion is.

There is a reason why nobody is willing to engage with Randians, which is that Randians are unwilling to engage with others. They are not motivated by the quest for knowledge or truth. They don't debate in good faith. They don't engage in the dialectic method. Rather, they try to somehow "win over" their "opponents". Believing they already know all there is to know, all they do is proselytize the "Objective" truth to others. There is nothing more antithetic to philosophy than that.

Add to that the facts that:
A.) Rand's writings are really kinda shit
B.) Rand herself was a very nasty person
C.) Her "philosophy" is laughably simplistic and lacks nuance
D.) Her "ethics" teach people it's okay to be a selfish cunt
and it becomes very easy to understand why she is the intellectual of choice for edgy 16-year-old middle-class white boys everywhere.

>>11347349
>>11347372
>>11347551
>>11347662
>>11348694
>>11348829
>>11349790
>>11350259
this is why we can't have nice things.

>>11352946
It's a reflection of one the bigger ironies in late-stage capitalism: The poor theoretically support class solidarity and wealth redistribution, but act competitively as atomized actors; the rich speak the language of individual agency and entrepreneurship, but consistently seek out their own class interests.

>>11360751
>They don't debate in good faith. They don't engage in the dialectic method.

>tfw your entire post is just that

>>11360751
>writing all this when you know everyone itt is either a) a genuine Randroid who will ignore you, or b) a ruseman
In any case you really need to read Rand's non-fiction, because you don't seem to understand her thought. You sound like a college moocher, upset that his idols have been smashed by the Objectivists

>>11361034
This is the most beautiful gif I have ever seen

>>11347323
She is in idealists, what turns off people that more worried about practical points of view
Her vision of an utopia is not perfect enough for most idealists (compared to communism for example)
So she is in some dead middle between practical and utopian thinking , it doesn't appeal to most people and can easily be criticized by both sides
As a writer, the biggest mistake she did was making art where:Instead of exploring ideas or thoughts, she preaches her ideas, when you do that you can't entertain the things that make a pice of art compelling and you end up with a kid's book for grown ups.

>>11347323
Modern day academics despise capitalism because their IQs are above average, yet the academy pays them lower that what they otherwise would make if they actively participated in the market

>>11360751
Ayn Rand discovered that the realtionship between philosophic systems is not a dichotomy, as was previously believed, but a trichotomy. Between the Intrinsic/Subjective/Objective schools of thought. She discovered that the subjectivists were in fact calling the dichotomy subjective/objective but were erroneously replacing and supplanting the objective concept with intrinsicism and railing against that. Positing Subjectivism answers it.
She discovered that the very concept of "objective" had not been defined properly before her and proceded to indentify original logical fallacies of her own that captured the essence of their (past philosophers) folly.
As hard as it is to wrap your head around a Capitalism-absolutist naming their new iconoclastic system of philosophy "Objectivism" and as strongly as you vagely FEEL this is the product of mean right wing arrogance; the name of her philosophy is completely warranted and perfectly caputures her contribution to philosophic history.
You have clearly never read a WORD of Rand's nonfiction and are instead regurgitating these same tired talking points you have heard summed up elsewhere and bleated ineffectually on r/philosophy.
>her philosophy "closed system", perfect and in no need for alteration or augmentation
But not of addition. Objectivism as such is foundational and fully calls for being *built upon* but damn right not "augmented". Objectivism as such is complete. Yet-to-be-formulated "Meta-objectivism" on the other hand...
>A.) Her writings are really king of shit
You say this because on some level you detect that she is methodically undercutting the obscurantist style of idealistic quasi-nihilism that has gripped the west since the 19th century. And take her style of straight language as uncouth and distastful to your german-idealist-influenced aesthetic sensibilities. I suspect these things don't exist explicitly in your mind and are instead have been integrated haphazardly. Rand aesthetics of Romantic Realism violently lash out to you you feel.
>B.) Rand was a very nasty person
Nice argument blowhard.
>C.) Her "philosophy" is laughably simplistic and lacks nuance
Wrong. You say "simplistic" but what her creed actually is *pay attention now*: structurally deliberate. Do not conflate a design of straight language with lack of nuance.
>D.) Her "ethics" teach people it's okay to be a selfish cunt and it becomes very easy to understand why she is the intellectual of choice for edgy 16-year-old middle-class white boys everywhere.
A. Nice regurgitated ad hom and B. Rand indentfied too that the word selfishness (in popular usage) was erroneously defined. Literally read the opening paragraphs of "The Virtue of Selfishness".
I'll post it.
https://archive.org/stream/AynRandTheVirtueOfSelfishness/Ayn_Rand-The_Virtue_of_Selfishness_djvu.txt

Honestly her biggest problem was the gap between her philosophy and capitalism; I could just as well argue it is in my rational self-interest to constantly use coercion and manipulation to get what I want.

The idea that her philosophy is somehow a defense or a philosophization of capitalism is ridiculous. The same arguments she uses for rational egoism can justify fascism.

>>11361312
>I could just as well argue it is in my rational self-interest to constantly use coercion and manipulation to get what I want.
Here the crux ofher critique comes into play; is or could it ever be in your LONG RANGE self interest?
>The idea that her philosophy is somehow a defense or a philosophization of capitalism is ridiculous. The same arguments she uses for rational egoism can justify fascism.
This is to forget that the objectivist theory of rights will come into play and interfere with that. You have blanked out a critical causal connection here.
In the same respect Marxism is meta-communism; Objectivism is meta-capitalism. And the biggest threat the former has ever encountered.

>>11348829
Can someone elaborate on this, how is objectivism and what it stands for shit? I never see any rebuttals for her or Molyneux's philosophy. I'm waiting.

>>11361325
>objectivist theory of rights will come into play and interfere with that.

The thing is, her conception of ethics built upon the notion of logical consistency. If I have a natural right to property, it means everyone else also has it.

But the problem is that I can just say that I want to use force, and I won't deny anyone else the opportunity to use force either, and it is equally as consistent.

Too red-pilled, not enough joie de vivre.

>>11361436
who the hell has joie de vivre, certainly not academics, ideologues, or most thinkers.

>>11361408
>If I have a natural right to property, it means everyone else also has it.
>But the problem is that I can just say that I want to use force, and I won't deny anyone else the opportunity to use force either, and it is equally as consistent.
And this is to supplant the tenets of Rothbardian anarchism and ignore or forget why Objectivism instead advocates minarchism. The interplay of facts and means assessing phenomena do not stop at observations of irrelevant parallels in the "consistency" of ideational models. Is almost like there is always more at play and to be considered.
And in any event; the implicit anarchistic sentiment you present is NOT consistent. Rand argues (and Peikoff later expands on) why anarchism is only a pseudo-opposite to statism and will in all actuality always reduce to and entail it. There is no "marketplace of force". The concepts of force and trade are irreconcilable and the attempt to reconcile them is an anarchist fallacy.

>>11361682
The state literally is the marketplace of force. What do you think international politics is? It's literally a state of anarchy.

Besides, the only reason the state exists in the first place is to put a price on violence.

Goddamn it where the fuck did I pick up this habit of misspelling identified as "indentified" and never noticing it? Fuck

>>11361718
A marketplace is the structural embodiment of the concept of "trade". To say the arena the state's actions occur in ae a "marketplace" is an approximattion of the word and an equivocation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKG7WXtrhfs

>>11355881
>academia professors
>smart

>>11361745
Well it is. International violence by the U.S government has a price tag of around 700 billion dollars, and that's not counting the property damage that all their bombs and ammunition cause.

Violence is indeed a business my friend.

>>11361801
>price tag of around 700 billion dollars
Now is that a concrete price tag or is that obviously a euphemism like you damn well know it is?

>>11361847
It's actually gone down a bit, it's 610 billion for fiscal year 2018.

>>11361852
The euphemism you're using has gone down? K. Still a euphemism.

>>11361866
It's not a euphemism for anything. It's literally the price tag of the military, and what is the military's job? To use violence.

In the U.S' case, the military's job is to protect U.S borders with force, and also keep several imperial outposts on every single continent on the planet, with the occasional bombing of a country whose dictator isn't towing the line.

>>11361283
t. edgy fedora middle class white boi

>>11361900
Please be the person I replied to

>>11361847
>euphemism

You meant to say "hyperbole", you blithering idiot.

>>11361906
Sorry bud, I'm someone else. You didn't deny what I said, tho.

>>11361882
/literally/ huh?

>>11361920
Yes.

>>11361907
No I meant fucking euphemism. He is attempting to encapsulate the notion of the marketplace of force by implying the military expenditure on violence can be abstractly defined as a form of "bussiness". Catchphrase defintion of bussiness vs the actual defintion of bussiness.
Hyperbole means exaggeration. He is attempting to capture the essence of a phenomenon by explaining it with another for the express purpose of downplaying the crass and incompatibilty-with-trade nature of force and conflating it with "market" and "bussiness".
I know what I meant fag.

>>11361938
No, in fact

>>11361975
It's not even abstract you moron.

Military and police expenditure is the price tag of state coercion. Now you can quibble with this conceptualization when it comes to use of coercion and force between individuals who aren't agents of the state, but the fact that the state exists means that violence has a price, and that price is the combined money spent on ensuring the state is capable of using violence effectively.

This requires a market to produce and supply the state with weapons. So, in effect, the private marketplace is responding to a market demand. And the demand is "Produce weapons for us to coerce people and we'll pay you 610 billion dollars".

>>11362062

>>11361916
Because you don't bother addressing the bleating of those without a leg to stand on.

>>11347323
Politics is the art of an pealing to everyone while talking out of your fucking ass. That’s the technical definition. Basically, you have white supremicist cunts all around the country, including csnadian bitches, who are worried sbout the “”white race” and they joke about spics and niggers like they dont give a fuck. Snd only uncle toms dont give a fuck either because theyre half white and they dont give a shit about beaners or niggers starving in thr streets. These motherfuckers ste getting paid by the koch brothers and rothchilds to protect the sinister jew state whilenthey rape the lower class. And faggot cucks like cnn and cnbc and fox news faggots who get paid between 100k-500k, these rapist motherfuckers ehonesnt tonpretend theyre good people, rip off snd blind millions of prople in our nation sontheu csn run of with the miney they stole from our treasury. These fucking kikes snd these fucking money grubbing fucks, who murdered people to get this country, eho cheat snd lie and gloat over their power and these old wrinkly fucks who are robbing this nation blind, who cheer on trump ehile every wrinkly boomer fuck robs our fucking treasury, rhese itrespinsible fucking crooks, these fucking loonstics partying on our dime, knowing full well we’re not going to suffer the consequences until theyre dead,these charlatans who made up the name “bernie madoff” and who are robbing us blind are getting awaybwith it while every retarded alt-right faggot kid shakes his ass and takes a dildo for the vine.

>>11362462
what

>>11347498
>John Galt says "I think therefore I am" is wrong, because it is the other way round: "I am, therefore I think".
Nice try anon but your bullshit aint getting past me. The quote is not "I am, therefore I think" the quote is "I am, therefore I'LL think." Titanic difference. This completely ruptures your point.
Rand's point there, numbnuts, was to identify that Descartes was not cognizant of the volitional nature of man's conceptual faculty and was defining it on intrinsicist lines.
This either flew over your head or you are the far more sinister alternative to that.
>>11351028
Readers of this page, please observe this samefaggotry and appreiciate even further the argumentative demolishing of the above.

>>11362495
agreed

>>11347323
If that stupid worthless hypocriticsl bitch can get s job in this country than snyone can. It’s a fucking disgrsce this lazy leeching cunt was allowed to live her. Bitch should hsve been deported snd forced to work at a grocery store for all the effort she put in. A fucking beaner working the fields actually earns his wages. All greenspan did, that wrinkly worthless old fucking charlatan, that fcking criminal and that fucking crook, all that piece of shit did was rob the lower classes blind. Snd that wrinkly motherfucker, that worthless fucking crook going s wat with it, thta fucking piece of shit belongs in prison. But what did iba do? That fucking charlatsn jailed blagohavich, that lying fucking sack of shit, that fucking rapist was nothing more than a fucking lackey foe anyone that could give him money. Theyre all piecews of shit. All of them. Blatojavich shoudl eb freed and obama who fucking insulted us who laughed at us, who made a joke out of our support for him, that fcking liar and thay fucking theif who insulted us eith “hope” and “yes we can” knowing full wrll he eas making fun of his supports—fuck him, fuck him and every fucking lying fucking crook, inckuding bernie sanders and colbert and noah and every fucking faggot eho lies snd kaughs about it behind everyones’s bsck—you’re nothing but money grubbing pussies.

>>11347323
Ayn Rand is a fucking revolutionary of the mind. She was the biggest leap for understanding the concept of induction (the least understood area of knowledge) in centuries.
Objectivism is to every other philosophy what Gentoo is to every other operating system. Let that stick in your memory leftists.

why do so many people shit themselves for this dumb yid roastie

>>11362551
i think she is quite attractive to be honest

Imagine someone saying this today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vANA3AGs4Dg

>>11347406
Rocky road
>extra nuts

>>11362542
>She was the biggest leap for understanding the concept of induction
Big if true. How does she solve Hume's problem of induction?

>>11362839
she doesn't

>>11362878
And is-ought?

>>11362635
Don't even have to like Rand to see this is objectively based

>>11362539
Please excise the wad of jizz and cheeto dust you have encrusted between your a and s keys anon

>>11362495
>The quote is not "I am, therefore I think" the quote is "I am, therefore I'LL think." Titanic difference.
Btfo tbqh

I had heard both good and bad things about her, so when I picked up Atlas Shrugged I wasn't really expecting it, but I think it's enjoyable and well written

>>11347323
Her philosophical stuff doesn’t adhere to the standards of rigor for academic analytic philosophy.

Compare her work to Robert Nozick, who lays out this arguments with literal symbolic logic. Not to mention that Nozick demonstrates competence in branches other than political philosophy with his book Philosophical Explanations.


Her treatment of Kant is just embarrassing.


>>11347438
You can been a conservative communitarian, or a libertarian in academic philosophy.

>>11363981
But you can't be a "hyper-individualist" "ultra-capitalist"
Or so these circles like to call laissez faire sentiments.

>>11351251
>Her philosophy only appealed to young entrepeneurs from Silicon Valley, making a shitton of money and seeing themselves as Randian heroes.
I was homeless 6 years ago and I did and still do adore Rand. That's because I don't and didn't shake my fist at the CEOs I imagined sitting atop the skyscrapers around me. Her whole philosophy is that you can be a Randian hero in any respect on any level of ability. But if you dare wish to stagnate you deserve what results from that. As I used to. Objectivism is literally the kindest philosophy but it also doesn't shirk from telling you to "suck it up faggot".
>No intelligent person believes capitalism is some heroic adventure where individual heroes create new stuff for the benefit of all. Most CEO's didn't create shit, but use exceptional convincing skills, charisma and 'borrowing' from inventors to establish their companies (look at Elon Musk and Tesla).
Except industrious people who make fortunes more than you beleive just that.
What makes you think the actions of those CEOs are not the ebodiment of the meta-creative issues involved with productive endeavors? They exist for a reason and it is only dumbshit Marxfags like Zizek that cannot grasp why.
Here's another Objectivist position that will no doubt fill you with ire: Bankers are heroes of abstract thought. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2FhqUKc-gk
This triggers equally the muh-patriachy commies on the left and the echoesposting trads on the right.

>>11347402
>>11351074
I in turn would like to offer forth an answer to the SEP.
http://www.checkyourpremises.org/2016/01/24/updates-to-stanford-encyclopedia-of-philosophy-entry-on-ayn-rand/
It's respectful enough but it still omits keys aspects of her argumentation.

>>11361034
you just replied to him, nullifying the point you tried to make :^) isn't 4chan great

>>11361335
"the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."

thinking face emoji

>>11364692
That makes no sense

because one of her books is literally titled "The Virtue of Selfishness"

isn't this whole response just falling into his point that Randians are just argumentative proselytizer-fanatics who seek self-justification rather than new knowledge and modes of thought? Seems to me like you're just too sensitive to anyone doubting your figure-head and would rather follow than think for yourself/seek and develop yourself/

>>11347349
You say that like it's a bad thing.

If Marx argues that value comes from time put in your labor, doesn't that mean that Atlas Shrugged is objectively good because it took Ayn Rand +12 years to create it? If not, then doesn't that disprove Marx?

>>11365232
Because it is

>>11362495
>This either flew over your head or you are the far more sinister alternative to that.
A technicality doesn't prove me wrong.

>>11365232
>the people claiming to argue this also argue for importing millions of brown people and deplatforming the white people
Totally not just useful subversive idiots.

>>11365232
Academia is the leading force behind cultural decadence with its deconstruction of all that made the western world beautiful

>>11365366
Mistaking I for I'll isn't "a technicality" it completely changes the character of the thing you were assessimg. The logical progression of what you were saying has literally been severed. There is nothing you can now do but concede, possibly try to formulate a new line of argument.

>>11362495
Based

>>11347323
mistress to someone or something.

>>11365109
Funny how few people can handle that title.

>>11365232
Marxism was proven so hard-irrefutably to be an economic embarrassment that it needed to be repackaged into neo-marxism (aka Cultural Marxism) by the Frankfurt School.
Marxism is wrong. Even incomplete limpdick Libertarianism and Conservatism were sufficient to demolish it. Objectivism eviscerates it.
Read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and watch it demolish every anti-capitalist fallacy one by one. Or read Mises. Doesn't matter which.

Hopefully reading opposing viewpoint is something you are still capable of. Surely I do not need to post /the/ video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6c_dinY3fM

>>11365484
Are you actually arguing that there is no I in I'll?
I am therefore I will think. Again, still a technicality, just change that one word and nothing really changes to the rest of my argument.

>>11365614
Retard you asserted that Galt was performing a 1:1 reversal of Descartes and then proceded to attack that, claiming Rand through Galt was misunderstanding him. The addition of "I'll" into this sentence means it ISN'T a reversal in the same respect you though it was and means Rand was arguing something fundamentally different.
"Therefore I think" means a declarative inference on the relationship between the simple fact man is and that he thinks but "therefore I'll think" means a focus on assessing man's volition involved in the relationship between metaphysics and epistemology and isolating the fact there is a choice to be made.
Like I said: titanic difference. Quit grasping and attemping to salvage that line of argument. Make a new one, sure, but this one is over.

>>11347508
"...don't act like females" -misogyny

>>11362542
>Objectivism is to every other philosophy what Gentoo is to every other operating system. Let that stick in your memory leftists
That unironically really makes me think.

>>11365968
Kek

>>11349790
No one cares to pay attention to the communist pedants.

>>11365581
this is the most satanic image ive ever seen

>>11366092
>>11365581
it took an inhuman amount of lsd to do this you are welcome

>>11366092
Bill Whittle is literally the best boomer, you shut your whore mouth

>>11347323
Irrationalism's irongrip on academia

>>11350609
Incredible meme.

>>11347323
She wrote a 1000 page novel about a love triangle, typical woman writer nothing special plot wise

>>11367437
Only thing I rolled my eyes at was at how much of a goddamn mary sue Francisco D'Anconia was as a child. Though that's simply her Romantic -realist style coming through so at least it was tolerable.
More like a love square btw.

>>11368197
>Though that's simply her Romantic -realist style coming through
>it's bad on purpose!

>>11362495
>>11365484
>>11365732
First of all, I don't know who you're responding to, but it's certainly not me, and considering your conversational tone, I wouldn't be surprised, if all of those responses had a (you) written behind them if you're looking at them.
>>11365614
>>11365366
That's not me.

That said, you're right in stressing the fact, Galt says "I'LL think".

>the choice is still open to be a human being [...] and, reversing a costly historical error, to declare: 'I am, therefore I'll think'
>Accept the irrevocable fact that your life depends upon your mind. Admit that the whole of your struggle, your doubts, your fakes, your evasions, was a desperate quest for escape from the responsibility of a volitional consciousness
Atlas Shrugged 969

and further:
>Thinking is a man's only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness, the refusal to think
Atlas Shrugged 931

Nevertheless, she's misinterpreting Cartesius when she says, he was wrong ("costly historical error").
Descartes just said existance is the condition of possibility of thinking (doubting). He didn't say thinking rationally (when Rand says "think" she means "think rationally") or even thinking itself was a necessary product of existing.
If you say "having legs" is the condition of possibility of walking, it doesn't mean you always walk just because you have legs.

Rand's misinterpretations of various philosophers btw. did her a lot of harm. Academically, she would have been received a lot better, if she was able to ground her ethics ontologically. For example, with some adequate changes, Kant and Heidegger work astonishingly well as a foundation of Rand's ethics and would have given her philosophy a lot more depth.

>>11368311
>That's not me
Noted but the fault lies with him for interjected without making it clear he was a different person.
And no I'm not samefagging to such a ridiculous extent. the last has no (You) because that's me on my desktop
>Nevertheless, she's misinterpreting Cartesius when she says, he was wrong ("costly historical error").
>existance is the condition of possibility of thinking
And that's precisely whats wrong.
>with some adequate changes, Kant and Heidegger work astonishingly well as a foundation of Rand's ethics and would have given her philosophy a lot more depth.
No. Kant's and Heidegger's flaws would wreck the whole of her structure and their mistakes warranted a complete restructuring not a slight alteration. The universe is a plenum in objectivist metaphysics, and completely knowable, perceivable, and measurable one at that. Kant's Noumenal world and the absurdity that is the kantian "categories" is completely incompatable with Objectivism. Kant is a Platonist, not an Aristotlean. Similarly, Heidegger's existentialism does not stand up to Rand's identification of the Reification of Zero Fallacy (philosophically).
Tell me something anon; have you read "Philosophy: Who Needs It"? I need to know.

>>11368592
Forgot pic

>>11368592
>The universe is a plenum in objectivist metaphysics, and completely knowable
Big if true. How do we know the universe is knowable?

>>11368610
Sense perception. Validated by existence being an irreducible axiom opon which to no proof is possible nor necessary.
You are hard-forced to validate the axiomatic nature of existence in any attempt to deny it.

>>11368620
None of that shows the universe is knowable, only that sense perception happens. I didn't ask whether existence existed, I asked whether it was knowable.

>>11368628
It is. You know it. You're knowing it now. You can cook up some cthulu tier invention to circuitously try to arrive at some other explanation as Kant did but it doesn't change that it IS. You (conciousness) are. And the what it is and what you are are what they are and not this other thing.
Literally 100% of our scientific discoveries mesh and cross-confirm. And it is apparent the things that we do not know are simply flaws in our methodology. Not some inherent unpredictability or obscurity in the universe.

>>11368667
>And the what it is and what you are are what they are and not this other thing.
10/10

>>11368667
>>11368667
Again, I didn't ask about the existence of existence, but whether it was knowable.
You believe the universe to be 'completely knowable', (even though we can't prove basic stuff like cause and effect), it's an astonishing claim to make. How have you even come to the conclusion that it's 'completely knowable' when you can't possibly have enough information to confirm that?

>>11368695
Because you don't confirm it, you validate it.

>>11368695
>(even though we can't prove basic stuff like cause and effect)
Since when can we not prove cause and effect?

It's because she has an extremely simplified and literal interpretation of / argument for capitalism, which is the basis for all of her writing. She is very absolutist in her thinking and is practically incapable of dissecting the gray areas of what her thought implies, with her everything is either great and logical or stupid and bad.

>>11368938
Problem of induction anon
>>11368751
So you think the statement 'the universe is completely knowable' can be validated but not confirmed?

>>11368960
My point is that while confirmation requires all the antecedent facts, validation can occur in microcosm. Aquisition of all the necessary or presumably necessary antecedent facts is not always possible. Moreover, the concept of proof is not even applicable to irreducible primaries such as the axioms of existence, conciousness, and identity in the first.
To quote Leonard Peikoff then Rand:
"Validation” in the broad sense includes any process of relating mental contents to the facts of reality. Direct perception, the method of validating axioms, is one such process. “Proof” designates another type of validation. Proof is the process of deriving a conclusion logically from antecedent knowledge."
Rand:
An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.
The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.)

>>11368952
>extremely simplified and literal interpretation
That is not necessarily bad or even argumentatively inferior depending on the context. You have expand on what you mean and unpack a specific case.
>She is very absolutist in her thinking and is practically incapable of dissecting the gray areas of what her thought implies
Ok, why don't you present this incapability in explicit terms and show some of these implications?

>>11369078
>in the first
*in the first place

>>11351251
>love is selfless

>>11368960
>Problem of induction anon
How is it a problem? We see objects and we compare them with others with their differences becoming classifications and form abstractions in the process. By understanding the nature of objects, we form general abstractions then deduct them for our usage.

If I take a knife and stab you, I doubt you'd argue that cause and effect doesn't exist. Would you risk your life to prove that I can't kill you? Reality is stable and does not change outside of one's nature due to the law of identity. Causality exists independently of our perception of it, and when we see actions interacting, we simply have to understand what makes them unique compared to other material and understand their identity. Actions are actions of entities, having their own identity, only act in accordance with their nature.

>>11369173
Idiots think that because you care about other people you have no self to desire something, when it's the opposite.

>>11355570
>corpses stack up to the heavens everytime
>"ITS JUST A SYSTEM u DUM BURGER!!"

>>11352776
>25%
>Sociologists
Wooooooooooow. It's fucking nothing

>>11369078
So you can neither confirm nor validate the statement: 'the universe is completely knowable'?
Or is your position that the statement is axiomatic and outside the realms of proof?
>>11369176
>Reality is stable and does not change outside of one's nature due to the law of identity. Causality exists independently of our perception of it
Wew lad. How can you prove any of that?
If I was an unkind person I'd suggest you don't really understand Hume

>>11369209
>Wew lad. How can you prove any of that?
Can you disprove it?

>>11369176
>Reality is stable and does not change outside of one's nature due to the law of identity. Causality exists independently of our perception of it, and when we see actions interacting, we simply have to understand what makes them unique compared to other material and understand their identity. Actions are actions of entities, having their own identity, only act in accordance with their nature.
Post that on
>>>/sci/
and see what happens...

>>11369227
Not him and you mean that place where half of the tards believe in the Pythagorean primacy of mathematics? K.

>>11369227
>ask scientist about philosophy questions
lol sure, I guess fire also doesn't really burn when you touch it doesn't act according to its nature. I bet fire doesn't turn your hand into ice. Nothing I said was wrong.

>>11369241
Yeah, well, you're right...

I meant, post it on a forum frequented with quantum mechanics and see what happens.

>>11369209
>Wew lad. How can you prove any of that?
>"You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved. When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence—when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness—he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both—he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero."

>>11369252
Ah, I see. You think quantum mechanics contradict the law of identity instead of simply being meta-features of the plenum that is the universe.

>>11369268
OK, dude, I don't think we will get any further this way, let's try it otherwise:

Due to >>11368620 I think, we can reach an agreement on the sentence: "we perceive the world through our senses". Let's call the world we perceive the world-as-appearance. Do we know the world-as-appearance is the same as the world-in-itself (the "real" world, what's really and objectively out there)? We can believe it, but we don't know it. But let's call the world-as-appearance our primary reality.
On the other hand, sometimes our perceptions are erroneous (like fata morganas). We realize that by experience - we realize the world doesn't work in the way it should if our perceptions were right. Therefore, the world-as-appearance isn't the same as the world-in-itself. But that doesn't mean we can't know the world-in-itself. We might take our wrong perception and examine it's causes. If we found out what fooled us, we know something. Our knowledge modifies reality, it's not just the world-as-appearance anymore, it's the world-as-appearance +- our knowledge. It's our new reality, a sophisticated one. But by knowledge, we realize even more how limited our perception is: we find out, there are animals who can sense electricity - we can't do that; we find out, there is something like relativity - we can't perceive that; we find out, there's a whole underlying world of elemental particals which obey really strange laws we can neither perceive nor fully understand. The tunnel effect, long-distance effect. that stuff's just really strange when we compare it to our first reality.
But is it the world-in-itself? How shall I know. What I know is, it's a constant process (it's called science) and it's a hermeneutical one. We always rub our reality (our perception and knowledge of the world) against the world-in-itself and look if what we're trying to do is working: if it works, fine, if it doesn't work, we have to gain the knowledge why it doesn't work. And it's our existence itself - the will to survive, our rationality which fuels that process.
So the basic relationship between our reality and the world-in-itself is a functional one (acting based upon our reality and if it works or doesn't work).

And now tell me, will I ever be able to honestly say: "this is the world-in-itself" instead of "this is reality of how I perceive it based upon the knowledge I have"? "This is not only my reality that's working fine - it actually is the real world." Or is a claim like that nothing but a credo.

There might very well be 10 more dimensions which I can't perceive and which don't interact with my reality at all (aren't effective in the reality - world-in-itself dialectic). But they might still be there and be part of the world-in-itself but I will never know about them.

Do I have an objective understanding of the world, do I know the world-in-itself or do I simply have an understanding about the functionality (or non-functionality) of my reality.

>>11369635
Bump limit has been reached so if you'd make a new thread about this point specifically, while I'm writing tmy reply, I'd appreciate it

>>11369794
I'm just making another Ayn Rand thread, if you don't mind, but I won't be participating anymore today (it's late were I'm living).

New thread: >>11369934

>>11369944
>a continuation a Rand thread.
Kek r/philsophy won't be happy about that

>>11365581
>Cultural Marxism
>Objectivism
>demolish every anti-capitalist fallacy
>That redpilled dude on the video
You're to deep into the abyss of the propaganda. There's nothing but darkness left for you.

>>11369635
Let me open this by saying I've never had a debate with a Kantian that didn't end with them trying to move the goalposts to what Kantianism constitutes. Please keep this in mind because no offense; I'm waiting for it from you.

>On the other hand, sometimes our perceptions are erroneous
The mistake you and Kant are making is failing to differentiate perception and conception, this the total crux of Rand's critique of Kant. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that intervenes in the process of light entering the physical structure of our eyes or in the process involved with the other senses. Nor of these sense organs on to our perceptual faculty barring atypical disease. Sense data as such is infallible, the potential fallibilty of our conceptualization of this sense data is not an indictment to reason. Conception is where fallibilty occurs, no perception.
All Kant is bemoaning is that the use of reason to aquire fact and knowledge isn't omniscient. That instead fact would be more pure and true if it were DIRECTLY aquired somehow. This is the foundational cause of the absurdity that is Kant's fomulation of the noumenal vs the phenomenal and the a prioi vs a posteriori and the mistake at the base of Kantianism that Rand was the first to identify.
>10 dimensions
Some of the conclusions that arise out of the Objectivist conception of the universe as a plenum should interest and potentially disturb your ideas. Time does not exist according to objectivist metaphysics. Now this conclusion is shared by plenty of non-objectivist scientists but a related conclusion we hold is sometimes not. The "4th dimension" (whether that means time or dimension W) or any on higher doesn't exist either. The 4th dimension doesn't exist (specifically, is not an existent) because, yes you're reading this right, the 1rst, 2nd, and 3rd dimensions don't exist. Again meaning, as existents. "Dimensions" are simply conceptions we have formulated to explain and interrelate facts of the universe. A 4th dimension it it's literal meaning may be validly conceived in a data set but not as a metaphysical "thing". 3 is where it stops.
It's not that they (higher dimensions) are a part of some undergirding noumenal dimension (hyperspace, metaspace, spacetime, heaven, ect) that meta influences "phenomenal space". The fact is is that these were invalid conceptions from the get go.
It all IS the universe as a part of the plenum. There is presumably a meta-meta-meta component to the universe that we simply can never build a tool to perceive it with. But this does not consitute the noumena. It simply just that: too small and/or meta for us ever to build a tool to assess it with. Though alternatively maybe there are simply no limits. Who knows.
There is not a time machine for us to build to travel through the time that does not exist nor is there a Tardis to hop over to that alternate reality where I ate bacon instead of ham yesterday. Cool to imagine; not real.