/lit/ - Literature

She's a woman

>>5978882
Nah, no one gives a fuck about her except Americlaps. I couldn't care less about her work.

>>5978894
this. it's like: "explain why you hate big bang theory"

she's a hypocrite and she clearly formed her philosophy as an excuse for her own merchant degeneracy

regarded as a purely practical philosophy objectivism is not bad, although considering it as such just makes it a lame epicureanism

>>5978882
It's an ideology that is essentially based around a "succeed by any means necessary" mindset.

If you feel the need to kill, the only reason you shouldn't - if you're an objectivist- is if you may somehow be punished in such a way whose repercussions outweigh the thrill of the kill.

I don't hate her, I just don't agree with the philosophy much of her work is based on.

>>5978882
>A challenge

>>5978882
She's not only Russian but a Jew, not to mention a libertarian. Into the death camp it goes.
Seig Heil to that!

>>5978882
Because capitalism is scum.

>>5978882
who is this semon demon??

the way she describes a scene, what a character is thinking and natural human interactions is nothing short of brilliant...even breathtaking at times. however whenever the 'philosophy' is forcefully interjected it becomes downright cringe-worthy. the polarizing reactions to her by the literary public more or less mimic my emotions as i'm reading her work.

>>5978882

because even as a lolbertarian her view of the government is childish, and as a writer her work is far too preachy and over-extravagant for the stories she is trying to write

that being said, her books still have value because it's how many people in the 1930s viewed FDR's reforms before ww2 came along

The only reason anyone likes her books is because of her philosophy, and I don't think her philosophy's even that interesting - Oh, hey, I should strive for my own good, that's such a novel idea that no one in America has never brought up before!

>>5978882
Objectivism is a plagiarised philosophical system.
She pretty much took realism, rationalism, hedonism, capitalism, virtue ethics and roman aesthetics, threw them all together and proclaimed it her Philosophical system.

She didn't invent shit in this regard. Even Nozick and Rothbard laugh at her pretensions.

>>5978882
What pisses me off most about her views is that she believes the amount of money you have = worth as a person, contribution too society, intelligence etc.

Yet, it is the profit motive, let's use lit as an example, that drives authors too write beneath them or often drive the authors who write the greatest book too poverty.

If the top 100 authors/ people ever, was listed by financial success. Everyone might as well kill themselves.

>>5978934
>morality exists
kek

>>5979031
>that pic
>socrates_laughing_at_euthyphro.jpg

>>5979031
>Good is a word which is a linguistic construct therefore there is no morality.

>>5979060
words is a word which is a linguistic construct therefore there is no linguistic construct

>

>>5978886
This

>>5978886
>>5979073
She was a fairly rational woman. I got the impression that she was more comfortable around men due to that fact. Most of her followers were men.

Not enough rape scenes.

>>5979070
I think you missed the point of the greentext. Anyway we are not debating the existence of morality in this thread.

Her entire philosophy relies on reality being a perfect meritocracy.

>>5979094
>tfw it is

>>5979096
Go to bed Leibniz, you're dead.

>>5979096

your and idiot

I am having trouble coming up with an answer to this question. Not because I am unable to find fault in her works, but because there are so many faults I do not know where to begin.

So, I will at least give my impression as to what I think John Galt's life would be like if he existed in today's world.

First, most of his innovations would be stolen and produced cheaper by Chinese or other offshore companies who don't give a flying fuck about copyrights.

Next, existing private sector firms his innovations threaten to destroy would make it so that doing business in the domestic market would be nearly impossible for him through bullshit favoritism they would create in the capital markets.

(I reached this conclusion because some of his innovations are apparently "omg so revolutionary" that they would threaten the interests of many very powerful individuals in the private sector)

Lastly, I doubt either of these two things would happen because Galt would probably need to get his seed capital from somewhere to build his company and that somewhere would probably take ownership of the copyrights to his innovations (if they were smart) as a condition to giving him capital. Of course, if they were really smart they would only lend him enough to create a dependent subsidiary company to their parent company thus keeping him on a short lash financially.

tl;dr - If John Galt lived today or even in the time when the book was written, he would be fucked ass to mouth by the private sector long before the private sector owned government could get its sloppy seconds.

These are just my ideas and there is a great likelihood that are flawed, but my point is that the private sector is not the place Ayn Rand makes it to be. It is not a fun or inviting place for someone trying to disturb the existing order.

>>5978882
The whole "might makes right" thing is such a blatant is/ought.

>>5978882


>ITT judeo-christian faggots

>>5979247

But Rand did not say or believe "might makes right" because she was against the use of physical violence.

>>5978882

Her philosophy fails to account for man's social being. I should probably read more than Anthem before saying anymore but... whatever. It's like half of a philosophical theory. I suppose I can understand why, though, since the more social facets of man's existence gave rise to Red Army which took all of her family's shit after the October Revolution. It certainly makes sense within the context of her own life.

I don't really hate her. I do, however, have a deep disdain for many of her modern day devotees.

>>5979294

She would probably hate many of her modern day devotees too.

>>5979286
I don't have a clear picture of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I read anthem in high school which gave me a vague idea.
So, first I'd like to state that intellectual might deeming what is just or good or "right as opposed to physical violence still falls into the category of philosophical thought that can be summed up as might makes right.
Secondly, tell me exactly what I should be arguing against.

>>5978882
Because it's been so thoroughly discredited for decades now?

>>5979016
You raise a good point but
>to
>too

>>5978882
But where's the challenge, OP?

>>5979087
Of course. She was a self hating Dyke therefore, no?

>>5979348
Nah. Her whole ideology was a result of being a closet submissive.

Because backstabbing leaves everyone with a hole in their back, leading to a weak society1.
1 Rome.

>>5979370
Oh fuck, citations don't work on 4chan. See Rome.

>>5978962
This, I agree with this. Her writing is, if nothing else, unique. Uniquely good, uniquely bad. She was so polarizing, and in the non-progressive way, that no one emulated her style after her.

>>5979370
Rome was backstabbing since day one, you could just as easily argue back stabbing makes a strong society.

>>5979392
Very true. I guess my problem with all this is that in my own thinking every human is born with gifts, and I think they should be grateful for their gifts and pay them forward.

>>5979311

How else is what is considered good, right, or correct made? How can what is considered the good, right, or correct be secured as such if the ones enforcing it cannot use all means necessary to enforce it.

Intellectual ability means nothing if it can be overcome by the physical force of another. The opposite is also true. Neither is might. Might the ability to manifest will.

>>5979326
>OP says not to use logical fallacies
>uses Appeal to Authority fallacy
>doesn't even list the authority he's appealing to
Wow.

>>5979031
Just figuring out that karma doesn't actually exist? How is 6th grade?

>>5979294
Makes sense. A woman's best friend is diamonds and a man's best friend is a dog. I refuse to read a woman author unless she is munching on carpet like a vacuum.

>>5979392
I thought the romanticized story of Rome I had was that they were the underdogs so they stuck together then the challenge didn't become being better than everyone else, it became being the ruler of the best.

>>5978882

If you didn't agree with her you're:
irrational
a mystic
a moocher
a looter

All her characters are either Mary Sues or whatever the opposite of a Mary Sue is where they're evil socialist pigs who want to rape our great nation of Steeltopia or whatever

>>5979787
Why would I ever believe in unscientific nonsense?

>>5980033
>a looter

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." --- Ayn Rand

>>5978882
I don't.
Did I win?

>>5980033
You know she mooched off the government right?

>>5980100
She also paid into it.

>>5979309
I think she hated her devotees back then too. Apparently she was a massive bitch who did too much speed.

>Explain why you hate her

Because she has a vagina.

Her economic views are Milton Friedman, and he philosophical views are Max Stirner, but while I can read both of them easily, it's only because they are men. I just cant stand any woman trying to be an intellectual. I can read works of Marx too, but if Marx had been Katarina Marx I would hate her with a passion.

>>5980110
I hear sex with dudes isn't so bad. Just try not to clench when Big Max slips it in.

>>5980113
He has a point in some areas you just can't take women seriously. Philosophy is one of them. If she had stuck to literature it might be better.

>>5980117
Never been interested in Rand, but...
>in some areas you just can't take women seriously. Philosophy is one of them.
seems like a ridiculous sentiment to me. Who cares what mind and mouth words come from? That's all philosophy is, bee tee dubs, words.

Mostly because her prose is Ian Fleming tier. and her philosophy is grounded in ressentiment toward the state.

her philosophy is literally ripped off from other philosophers and her books are garbage

>>5980124
ridiculous? on what grounds? You sound like woman. Women have great difficulty distinguishing feelings from rational thought, I suppose this is why they are not taken seriously in Philosophy.

>>5980110
>philosophical views are Max Stirner
Nope, closer to nietzche.

>>5980136
There is nothing rational in disregarding quality thoughts and/or ideas based merely on gender. It's ridiculous because your sentiment has no grounds. That being said, women do not appear to be largely invested in philosophy, but that does not mean women can't be philosophers.

And no, I'm not a woman, just trying to be reasonable.

>>5980136
>You sound like woman.

ugg ugg me hate woman

>>5978949
>Because capitalism is scum

The economic model that has alleviated more poverty than any other in history...

>>5980110
>I just cant stand any woman trying to be an intellectual. I can read works of Marx too, but if Marx had been Katarina Marx I would hate her with a passion.
Jesus Christ, that's petty. The one reason I have (at least an ounce) of respect for Rand is that at least she goes beyond the typical female philosopher in primarily being somehow associated to feminist ideology. Same with Hannah Ardent. That being said, there seems to be more female philosopher in the analytic field now who tend to be apprehensive about the creed.

I don't see her as a woman philsopher. I see her as a cunt I don't paticarly like, same with Maggie Thatcher. For that, I respect here. Since, she's not bound as a women in my mind, Just an ass. If we want to have female philosophers who are remebered and culturally significant, they need to expand out of the feminist ideology.

>>5980163
>The economic model that has alleviated more poverty than any other in history
Are we going be percentage of the genral population? We have a bigger population, so sure we might get 2 million out of poverty, but this will only be a small percentage of the total world population.

>>5980136
Philosophy is written by outliers, therefore none of your observations about women in general are relevant.

>>5980181
as soon as a woman shows competence she ceases to be considered a woman, it is true.

>>5980110
Oh wow, that's some exit-level intellectual retardation. The ad hominem against the author having a vagina beats all apprechiation of argument. You can't read a single sentence without commiting a fallacy.

>>5980249
>The ad hominem against the author having a vagina

Having personal prejudices is not ad hominem. Using them to attack specific arguments is. If he quotes rand on a certain economic issue and says she is unable to talk about that properly because she is a woman, that's an ad hominem attack, but saying he doesn't like her because she is a woman isn't.

>>5980163
because of the marxist parties who have been pushing for that for two centuries relentlessly through democratic means

>>5980264
He literally said that he'd be unable to apprechiate the arguments of Marx if he had been a chick. So, in other words, every sentence of Marx gets read in a more positive light because he keeps thinking of old Karl's circumcized wang, and every sentence of Rand gets devalued because he keeps getting angry at her vagina.

>mfw people don't understand that Atlas was about the importance of adhering to a personal philosophy in everything you did in life. With a set of codes and morality to live by, choices in life become easier, and your personal happiness is increased. She just wants you to be happy.

>>5980181
>Hannah Ardent
was that intentional?

>>5980303
>unable to apprechiate the arguments of Marx if he had been a chick.
I feel the same. If Marx had a pussy, I'd get enraged trying to read her. I also doubt that Marxism would have been taken that seriously at all, and he'd be as ridiculed as Rand is now. On the opposite side, I'd be far more accepting of Rand if she had been a guy. I could tolerate an Ian Rand having strong political opinions, especially of Russian origin -- maybe Ivan Rand? Fountainhead by Ivan Rand? yeah, I could read that and not dismiss it straight away.

If taxation is theft why are you using a computer and the internet that R&D was paid for by DARPA? An/Crap Economic theory is moronic and doesn't believe in natural monopolies, economics of scaleand think pefect competition is how markets work. Also for the story line like everyone else company CEO's and everone can be replaced. Most of them don't get their jobs from ability but from daddys connections look at Bush, Trump and Romney. Most of them are no talent hacks who would be working as car salesmen without their family connections

>>5978882

Her ideology of "screw you, I got mine" is so rampant now that there's a legitamte chance my child will be born into an insanely competitive world with a trashed environment, an energy crisis, a water crisis, and advertisements built into her skull-o-transmitter.

Because she is anti intellectual while still proposing to be an individualist. Her belief that capitalism is the only just system or the one most free from corruption I'd entirely flawed and ignores major traits of the capitalist structure in American history
>east Atlantic slave trade
>manifest destiny

>>5978882
No one loses by sharing... But they aren't taking it from us... They have trained is to give it to them. Until the population understand that, you're just ranting... Albeit with gusto!

>>5980140
Her view of altruistic action as 'moral' as long it is what one was truly inclined to do is extremely Stirner. I think she just comes across as Nietzchean because she was usually pushing her edgy 'TRY AND STOP ME' bullshit.

>>5978922
>she's a hypocrite
This meme should die.
Ofc she took govt's money, it was handed to her after all. She also paid taxes for it.

>>5978882
>Dat epistemology

>>5979031
Morality exists just as much as your dreams, wishes, hopes, fears and what you are thinking right now.

In a way it is physical, hardwired, acquired and slowly set into the neuronal structure.

Sure it's man-made, in a way, but it's natural, too. Animals have some sort of primitive morality.

The brain and the mind, truly a topic that would fill volumes of books even if written by a single author with a singular outlook on that matter.

Now saying morality is (somewhat) relative - there I might agree.

She's a privileged white lady who blames poor people for being poor.

Who is john galt?

>>5986199
>privileged
>white
>blames people

please don't be stupid

>>5980100
How much more do you think she paid the government in the first place? I can promise you it was a lot more

>>5979031
This picture is raping Aristotle.

>>5978882
It's possible to spot mistakes without being inspired with hatred.

I wonder if she was nice.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/ayn-rand-reviews-childrens-movies

>>5978882
I have some objections. She believed that capitalist social hierarchy was justified for example. If someone was poor, or destitute, it was their own fault for not applying their value rationally, which is ridiculous.

Also, there is no axiomatic logical step from reason to capitalism and individual liberty.

One could as easily argue that it would be reasonable to use force if it gave you something that satisfied your ethical egoist worldview.

>>5986357
Nice reptilian eyes

>>5986380
>axiomatic logical step

what the fuck

>>5986441
What's the problem?

I'm guessing you don't have any argument since you have to criticize semantics.

>>5978882
In her essay The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand suggests that an individual completing for a job with a more qualified individual should give up and let the more qualified individual have the job for the good of the market. Her main points about autonomy and independence through self interest are simply the dogmatism of a system which requires the individual to give up his/her sense of morality and freedom in worship of the free market.

>tl;dr she's doesn't even understand that she's preaching and glorifying self sacrifice for the good of the market.

>>5986593
competing*

>>5980163
Exactly the contrary.

>>5978882

Here's the end-all reason no one has ever seriously considered her philosophy:

Rand maintains that everyone should act in accordance with what will give them the most personal benefit.

This is good because if everyone does this, everyone will stand to gain.

What Rand cannot explain is this: If people were ever inclined to follow this morality, why then would they ever create groups and communities? Her answer is that people would do this only when it served each member's self interest.

And this is where she fails: People are not like that. People are not like that at all.

In fact, people enjoy an endless amount of extremely irrational groupings:

>Family
>Scarring or emotionally draining relationships
>Friends they don't particularly like
>Political work with others that they know will make little to no difference

What is common for all these groups is that they are viewed by the individual as obligations. Few obligations bring as much hardship and toil on people as family and lovers, yet most people pursue those relationships anyway. Because they must, and because their lives would make less sense (however defined) without them.

Basically, to explain why this is so, Rand has to do one of the following:

1) Explain all of these relationships as in fact being aimed at personal happiness.

2) Accept that human beings will simply strive for goals which really make no rational sense, if rational is defined as maximizing personal gain.

(1) falls prey to the objection that can be made against "scientific" Marxism: The reason it can interpret everything in Marxist terms is that, simply, it is too broad. Everything will fit into the scope of a coming revolution if you believe it enough: Things got worse for the proletariat? Explain it away by saying that capitalism simply has to get so bad, the workers will want to revolt. In this way, you can make everything fit, even things that are absurdly contradictory to your theory. (This is pretty much Popper's objection against scientific Marxism and what he calls Freudianism).

(2) basically means that Rand will accept the central fault in her theory: That it does not take the real human beings into account. Telling a social human being that he should simply stop being social for personal gain, and that if he did this, everything would be better, is akin to saying that a bicycle would be better if it were a car. It makes no sense.

So basically, it comes down to this: Ayn Rand's thoughts are an embarrassment because her view of human nature is too simple. What she wants people to do is easily and obviously contradictory to what actual human beings are like.

>>5979087
I don't think she was Rational. It's pretty clear her philosophy was an over-reaction to communism.

That said, she wouldn't get nearly as much flack if she was a man.

Her philosophy is an edgy version of Stirner's ethical egoism.

They both say you should do what benefits you, but Stirner says that making friends and being a nice person is beneficial to the Ego, and goes on to talk about a union of egoists. Rand on the other hand calls altruism evil and can only think of personal benefit in terms of profits.

Also as other's have said, she's a woman so we are inclined to read everything she says in a shriller voice.

Anthom read like an undergrads take on The Repleblic.
>She forgot about killing off all the old people.

>>5987127
>Rand on the other hand calls altruism evil

It is evil. Oh, you're a 'good' altruistic person. You buy organic fair trade coffee and donate a tenner to a woman in the street with a high-viz jacket and a stern look, but your altruism makes it worse. The more the general public feels satisfied that their loose pocket change has countered the global disadvantage their government mandated system creates, the longer the situation continues. And yes, little Depak might get a used Manchester United T-shirt with his malaria shot, but the longer giving a used T-shirt is seen as a viable solution by the braying do-good fuckwits who indirectly send him down a mine for the cassiterite in their iPads, the longer Depak's living in squalor and earning a dollar a month. Your so-called altruism is just stroking your own ego by pretending to buy your redemption from consumerism.

Why don't you engage with everything honestly, from the position of your true wants and desires, instead of wearing an 'oh what a lovely altruistic person I am' mask? Not only is that mask not really you, not really anyone - especially the vegan hipster types who volunteer on two week stints in a Ugandan orphanage for the altruistic facebook pic -- not only is that mask fake, it actually makes everything a lot worse in the long run.

>>5987275
Stirner's ethical egoism is still a much more reasonable answer than Rand's FUCK BITCHES GET MONEY GREED IS GUD! philosophy.

>>5986820
>Popper

>>5987275
as I read this post my jaw dropped and I spilled fair trade organic vegan coffee all over my tiny hipster dick and pledged to dedicate my life to Huge Ass Steel Beams and Long Self-Important Speeches instead of Keynesian Communism

>>5987287

"(1) What are values?
(2) Who should be the beneficiary of values?

Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil.

Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?

The answer you evade, the monstrous answer is: No, the takers are not evil, provided they did not earn the value you gave them. It is not immoral for them to accept it, provided they are unable to produce it, unable to deserve it, unable to give you any value in return.

Such is the secret core of your creed, the other half of your double standard: it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others—it is immoral to consume your own product, but moral to consume the products of others—it is immoral to earn, but moral to mooch—it is the parasites who are the moral justification for the existence of the producers, but the existence of the parasites is an end in itself—it is evil to profit by achievement, but good to profit by sacrifice—it is evil to create your own happiness, but good to enjoy it at the price of the blood of others."

-- Rand

>>5987275
so according to you altruism isn't wrong after all, it's just not authentically attempted

Stirner:
>Altruism can be explained by egotistical means, it does not require any sort of spooky greater good. If helping other people makes you feel good, you should do it.

Rand:
>GRRR, WHY WOULD YOU HELP OTHER PEOPLE! YOU SHOULD ALWAYS TAKE NEVER GIVE! EVERYTHING IS ZERO SUM! IT'S YOU OR EVERYONE ELSE!

>>5987330
>so according to you altruism isn't wrong after all, it's just not authentically attempted.

The argument was that it makes things worse. Both the left and right seem to agree on this. Even Zizek made the argument (in 'first as farce, then as tragedy' - based on a letter of Marx's) that altruistic acts blind people; that these little acts of charity and feeling better for it assuage the need to address the underlying problems causing the need for giving in the first place.

Each person hands over pocket change for a school in Cambodia and pats themselves on the back, while the global economic system keeping Cambodia in a perpetual third world state, probably for the low wage garment sector, remains firmly in place. Each person says, "my hands are clean," and feels like they did their part through their tiny altruistic act, and on a mass scale, these acts of altruism collectively prevent the change needed. Altruism is ineffective. It's the shitty paint job over the crumbling bricks. As long as everyone keeps adding drops of altruistic paint, the bricks carry on crumbling.

>>5987386
But that's not what altruism is. That's a specific kind of charity encouraged by global capitalism. Altruism is a much broader concept which encompass any kind of being nice to others.

>>5987386
ou're just saying people who "hand over pocket change for schools" and do those small acts of charity are wrong. ultimately you are still altruistic though, because you don't decry those acts because they are altruistic but because they are not effective.

>>5979094
This is actually the flaw of many great thinkers. Adam Smith I believe had a quixotic outlook on the behavior of people in a free market society. However, with Adam Smith, he did not center his entire philosophy around perfect behavior on the free market, with Ayn Rand she seems to have taken the leap from law to economics to morality all in one stride without even fully explaining how or why. Thus, when people use the vapid nature of the characters as a criticism of the novel Atlas Shrugged it is valid for this reason alone. Also, while Adam Smith only has one notable contradiction/logical fallacy due to this, Rand has her book littered with logical fallacies all over the place, and sometimes I truly wonder if she does it on purpose, some kind of meta trolling

>>5987295
I agree that Popper was a dweeb, but the essay on Marxism and Freud has some valid points.

They are not "science" (not that they have to be) because they are literally capable of explaining anything. Which can easily be applied to Rand.

>>5987322
>Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil.

Um, no it doesn't. How can you take this woman seriously, she was clearly an idiot.

>>5987463
>Ayn Rand she seems to have taken the leap from law to economics to morality all in one stride without even fully explaining how or why
She explains everything. Don't read her attempt at a novel, read both "The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism", and "For the New Intellectual."

>>5987477
>>Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil.
>Um, no it doesn't.
Um, yes it does. In altruism, the 'beneficiary' of an action is the only criterion of moral value, and that beneficiary cannot be oneself.

>>5987493
>In altruism, the 'beneficiary' of an action is the only criterion of moral value

What the fuck are you talking about.

Even if that were true, that does mean that the great "Altruism" is claiming some sort of moral monopoly. If "Altruism" is claiming anything (which "it" certainly is not), it's that you can give some money to some poor people if you'd like. It doesn't say that you keeping your pay is somehow immoral.

You really can't make this stuff up, Rand couldn't think worth shit.

She's the Hubbard of philosophy.

>>5986820
>Telling a social human being that he should simply stop being social for personal gain, and that if he did this, everything would be better, is akin to saying that a bicycle would be better if it were a car.

pretty much sums it up

>>5987506
>Even if that were true
It is. in the application of the construct against two subjects, it's possible for A to be more altruistic than B. This creates a dilemma whereby the negative concepts, the 'bad' and 'evil' and other negatives shift towards B as the positives, the 'good' and 'right' shift towards A.

>>5987528
It doesn't mean that at all. And what are these spooky negative energies that shift all of a sudden, what is this bullshit?

If you're trying to say someone donating less to charity than another is automatically viewed as a lesser and worse person, then that is just false.

As I said before, "Altruism" makes no claim to moral monopoly. There are plenty of people who don't give shit to charity or to anything and keep their pay without being considered assholes for it.

I honestly don't know what else to say to you, this is turning into nonsense really.

>>5987546
I don't think it's possible to defend your stance. You will have to resort to saying that someone can't be more altruistic than someone else, and one either 'is' or 'is not' altruistic. I'm sure you see why that's flawed.

>>5987595
You haven't understood my stance.

I'm saying someone giving more to charity than others does not make them a more "moral" person to anyone. That simply isn't true.

Hence, altruism has no more moral monopoly. There are plenty of people who don't give to charity, and are still considered "good" people.

I don't understand your or Rand's obsession with altruism. "Altruism" makes no claim at all, it certainly doesn't claim that people aren't allowed to keep their money if they wish.

>>5987615
>remove "more"

>>5987615
>You haven't understood my stance.
Unfortunately, it is you who don't understand the implications of your stance.

>There are plenty of people who don't give to charity...I don't understand your or Rand's obsession with altruism.
Charity, obsession. Rand addresses this:

"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is NOT the issue. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and your moral purpose. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences. The basic, underlying principle of altruism is that man's highest moral duty, virtue and value, is the service of others." -- Ayn Rand

>>5987670
>The basic, underlying principle of altruism is that man's highest moral duty, virtue and value, is the service of others.

I've said it enough times now: What I'm trying to tell you is that this is simply not true. The basic principle of altruism is not that it is the highest moral duty. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

As for the implications of my stance, these >>5987595 are certainly not any of them.

I'm gonna leave the thread now. I don't see much point in discussing this with you, you're clearly set on following Rand into idiocy. Have fun being wrong all your life, I guess.

>>5979016
> the amount of money you have = worth as a person
Not actually true. I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (unfortunately) and a lot of her villains are rich.

The point she tries to make is that wealth *should* be an indicator of contribution to society and that society is flawed because that's not the case.