Was Ayn Rand a genius or a moron?

File: 10 KB, 258x386, Ayn_Rand_1943.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed May 2 06:03:50 2018 No.11087448 [Reply] [Original]

Was Ayn Rand a genius or a moron?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 06:05:57 2018 No.11087453 >>11087448 She was mad about bolsheviks expropriating her family's company in Russia

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 06:13:51 2018 No.11087466 It's a matter of perspective. She almost can't be wrong. The thing you have to ask is how much you care about the poor dumb, naive, other-people.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 06:23:51 2018 No.11087485 Moron

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 11:52:23 2018 No.11088541 YOU NEVER SAY THANK YOU

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 11:54:35 2018 No.11088550 >>11087448 Moron

Anonymous Wed May 2 12:35:11 2018 No.11088692

>>11087448
She was neither, though her ideas are pretty similar to Nietzsche's, and people say that he's a genius, so she must be approaching genius territory by that standard. There are obviously differences between her and Nietzsche, don't misconstrue what I'm saying. Her ideas are more in line with his than most other philosophers. She probably counts more as a philosophical laborer than a philosopher [by Nietzsche's standards] though.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 12:36:21 2018 No.11088694 A dumb bitch.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 13:05:00 2018 No.11088805 >>11087448 A woman

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 13:06:53 2018 No.11088819 >Other than allowing parasites like me to thrive what has the state ever done? - Ayn Rand

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 13:07:42 2018 No.11088822 File: 34 KB, 500x436, ancient_aliens_both_by_theporkchopexpress-da316kc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11087448

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 16:11:04 2018 No.11089874 >woman writer Never read her. Also, I can't read.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 16:14:37 2018 No.11089891 >calls Kant the devil >makes a lot of kantian points in her works I'm going with moron on this one

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 16:15:56 2018 No.11089895 >>11087448 evil ingenious con artist

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:19:38 2018 No.11091321 >>11087448 100% moron no question from her personal life to her writing to her ideas

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:23:56 2018 No.11091337 >>11089891 Even her supporters readily admit that she probably never read Kant.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:25:25 2018 No.11091342 >>11088819 Yawnarooney www.aynrandmyths.com

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:25:42 2018 No.11091343 she yid

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:27:39 2018 No.11091347 >>11088822 I like this meme

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:28:13 2018 No.11091352 >>11089891 No she didn't. Kantians do on the onther hand costantly move the goalposts to what Kantianism constitutes in response to Objectivist criticism.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:28:17 2018 No.11091353 >>11087448 A moron for not achieving the wealth of L Ron Hubbard

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:30:28 2018 No.11091365 >>11091353 Try not to make it patheticly obvious where you get all your talking points from my dear Cracked/Daily Show subscriber

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:30:44 2018 No.11091367 >>11091352 Rand actually thought Kant was advocating "you can't know nuffin" skepticism.

Anonymous Wed May 2 21:37:21 2018 No.11091395

>>11087448
I consider Aristotle, John Locke, and Ayn Rand to be the 3 greatest individuals to ever walk the face of the Earth. 2 of them caused the greatest philosophical transformative periods mankind has ever seen (the Renaissance and the American Revolution). The last has yet to, Objectivist Renaissance when? Pity America probably has to collapse first before it happens but who knows.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:38:52 2018 No.11091396 >>11088805 best post

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:39:15 2018 No.11091397 >>11091337 Source: your ass

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:40:16 2018 No.11091401 >>11088805 Honorary man. She too despised the wiles of females.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:41:07 2018 No.11091404 >>11091367 What is with pseuds and animosity towards Kant

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:47:15 2018 No.11091420 >>11091395 Is this bait?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:54:29 2018 No.11091448 >>11091397 George H Smith has said as much. >>11091404 They don't understand him.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 21:57:09 2018 No.11091453 >>11091420 Both unironically serious and bait.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 22:01:40 2018 No.11091463 >>11087448 A genius. Her coining of "psycho-epistemology" and the number of logical fallacies she discovered alone are staggering. THE modern Aristotlean.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 2 22:30:38 2018 No.11091578 >>11091367 Nope. She just argued he peddled in the relativism that philosophically renders one ineffectual to fighting baseless, fallacy ridden big-S Skepticism. Important distinction.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 01:31:38 2018 No.11092200 >>11087453 Here anon engages in the common fallacy that experiencing righteous anger at the injustice done to you and your family and creating a supremely provactive and revolutionary peice of philosophy on a level head are somehow mutally exclusive.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 05:08:25 2018 No.11092864 >>11088822 Saved

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 05:11:27 2018 No.11092876 >>11088692 They may be both egoists and indivdualists but she considered him, implicitly, to be a mystic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6gV1MUSXMg

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 06:41:25 2018 No.11093131 >>11088541 Thats what the money is for

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 07:12:10 2018 No.11093206 She's a comedian because I always laugh at her work

Anonymous Thu May 3 08:34:13 2018 No.11093458

I only read Atlas from her, and while her critic of the people she disagree with are often interesting and even funny, her own proposals of how the economy should work are basically absurd. Maybe from some ethical point of view they would be right, but in pratical terms, absurd to implement. My impression was that she didn't understood anything about economics at all. If she had focused more on making fun the people she disagree with, and less on making actual suggestions about how the economy should work, the novel would have been way better.
Also, almost everything about John Galt and his other two friends was stupid and bad. It felt like reading a mixture of a girl's fanfic with someone desperate to prove a point he doesn't know how.

Anonymous Thu May 3 11:27:04 2018 No.11094141

>>11093458
>absurd to implement
The practibility of it only seems alien because on some level you are cognizant of the premises society at large is opperating from and that Objectivism proposal's are so radically different from it that fundamental unease and pushback is bound to occur.
People, however, are not naturally philosophically predisposed to the (implicit) tenets of mixed-economy-statism, Skepticism, and Pragmatism or something. They are -taught- them and simply automatize them through cultural osmosis. Rand argues that if people are taught psycho-epistemology (coined by her) and critical thinking in schools and it's general princple paid respect in law (which it is not); laissez faire will essentially, in a limited respect, goddamn self-implement. The free market is it's own surgeon and innovator ect ect.
It's not like failures would not happen in the process, of course they would, nothing is guaranteed in nature nor is man's effectiveness at living up to the principles he has set out for himself. But if a man has fundamental principles from which he can opperate off of, that makes his prospects far better. The dominant cultural feel right now is doom and gloom over western civilization's prospects, but this 'feel' is exactly what cultural marxists and subjectivists like to propogate. A leninist/alinskyite tactic. Seldom through conspiracy even; more often through momentum and osmosis.
But culturally America and pockets indivdualism elsewhere are still dominant and, yes you're reading this right, still relatively healthy. In America people are still indivdualistic and stubborn fuckers even though opperating off the *premises* of collectivism are in vogue. Contrast this with say, Canadians, who are culturally utter followers and are commonly just dead behind the eyes. They for all intents and purposes are europeans. America is still the cultural center of the world and is no where close to losing it. Recent happenings actually bode relatively well.
>Also, almost everything about John Galt and his other two friends was stupid and bad
How so? List the most blatant offending concepts. I challenge that the arguments present in John Galt's speech are pretty much hard-irrefutable. I never see people tackle the speech and it's argumentation specifically.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 11:32:59 2018 No.11094160 >>11094141 >I never see people tackle the speech and it's argumentation specifically. That's because is so badly written, badly argued and tedious nobody's ever actually read it all the way through. Any sane person skips to the end after a few pages.

Anonymous Thu May 3 11:33:14 2018 No.11094161

>>11093458
>I only read Atlas
Oh and (especially) in light of your doubts about her economic validity; I cannot recommend The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism The Unknown Ideal, and Philosophy: Who Needs It strongly enough. I think you will find her criticism and dissection of big-P Pragmatism particularly stimulating (in PWNI).

Anonymous Thu May 3 11:37:14 2018 No.11094176

>>11094160
John Galt's Speech is perfectly and masterfully written; what you probably mean is the circumstance in which it is presented is jarring. This was done on purpose.
I am saying that it should be treated microcosmically for the purposes of disecting her philosophy, not her prose. And it never is.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 11:42:39 2018 No.11094195 File: 99 KB, 1200x1448, Derrida.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11094176 >disecting her philosophy >implying A=A Anyone dumb enough to start with that is not worth reading

Anonymous Thu May 3 11:51:16 2018 No.11094221
File: 379 KB, 1111x597, 1525132063122.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11094195
I will not even *attempt* to start a dialog with someone who subscribes to Derrida's absurdism.
Even maymay tier spookfags are a least possible to debate in good faith.
Sorry champ I have no desire with playing language games with a fucking wall.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 11:54:25 2018 No.11094235 File: 89 KB, 1024x575, 9780253223722-10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11094221 What's the matter anon? Afraid you might get... deconstructed?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 11:59:57 2018 No.11094253 File: 75 KB, 397x345, 1498413303060.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11094235 Boot quakingly.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 12:04:02 2018 No.11094267 >>11092200 I...I don't think that's what he was getting at anon.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 12:08:12 2018 No.11094286 >>11094267 Are you him? Honestly? This is not the first time I have seen this argument and just assumed it's premises are the same as all the past instances I have encountered with this talking point. What pray tell was he getting at then?

Anonymous Thu May 3 12:14:09 2018 No.11094311

>>11094286
I think he was stating one of the reasons she decided to form her new philosophy to me.

>She was mad about bolsheviks expropriating her family's company in Russia

Looks like a statement and nothing more. Would it be reasonable to assume Ayn Rand is angry after injustice is done to her?

>Here anon engages in the common fallacy that experiencing righteous anger at the injustice done to you and your family and creating a supremely provactive and revolutionary peice of philosophy on a level head are somehow mutally exclusive.

This is the equivalency of saying
>Kafka was quite depressed

>This is a fallacy because emotional traumas and artistic inspiration are not mutually exclusive

See how throwing words into someone else's mouth and immediately going on the defense makes you look pathetic? It's no wonder why people dislike Rand and all her followers if this is how they act.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 12:17:34 2018 No.11094327 Haven't read her writing but she looks like a moron.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 12:23:37 2018 No.11094362 >>11088805 See Ayn Rand is a moron, but you’d be an idiot to believe that someone was stupid just because she’s a woman >>>/pol/

Anonymous Thu May 3 12:26:33 2018 No.11094380

>>11094311
>makes you look pathetic
Hardly, there is nothing wrong with preemptively setting up a defense as such. This merely opens me up to being corrected. Which your post does not really do. And I wasn't putting words in his mouth as much as I was hypothesizing on the premises that caused what he did say. Fully justified by the damn near 100% of the time I have previously witnessed a person immediately go on to assert the rest.
I cannot conceive of what else his comment was meant to imply. Please enlighten me if this is brainlet of me.
I have reason to suspect samefaggotry is afoot. Mind confirming otherwise?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 12:34:16 2018 No.11094416 >>11094380 jesus christ

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 12:36:23 2018 No.11094421 >>11091578 Kant's entire project was inspired by and a response to Hume's Skepticism and "dogmatic" skepticism in general. But I wouldn't expect Randians to know this

Anonymous Thu May 3 12:43:27 2018 No.11094451

>>11087448
Decent explainer, bad philosopher. Her success at producing gateway literature for young lolberts went to her head, so she tried to join the ranks of analytical philosophy with her works on "objectivism". What resulted was an edgy cult that pretends its dumb ideology is hyper-individualistic despite worshiping some cranky novelist.

She clearly was not dumb, but she didn't have the capacity to engage in any higher-level philosophy. I would estimate her IQ to be about 115.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 12:52:21 2018 No.11094493 >>11094421 Try again. She expounds on exactly this in Philosophy Who Needs It, but I don't expect you've read it.

Anonymous Thu May 3 12:59:07 2018 No.11094525

>>11094451
Rand explains explicitly why libertarianism is an invalid philosophy and is essentially incomplete Objectivism. "Libertarian" is only valid as a technical classifer and not as an ism.
Lolberts making floating detached references to her while in the same breath contradicting her is the fault of them, not her.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 13:00:46 2018 No.11094537 >>11094221 Topkek >iz hard irrefutable guis >as long as you ignore the arguments against it lol If Rand is so good you shouldn't be afraid of a little postmodernism anon

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 13:00:52 2018 No.11094538 >>11094416 Ok whatever then

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 13:17:52 2018 No.11094634 >>11087448 Only fellow Americans like her, so probably a moron.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 13:19:07 2018 No.11094638 >>11092200 You must be over 17 to post here, dear anon.

Anonymous Thu May 3 13:21:53 2018 No.11094650

>>11094537
>an Objectivist
>afraid of Postmoderism
Hardly. I just disdain Derrida particularily. Postmoderism can be and is addressed at length in objectivst arguments and literature. Even defering to Peterson for instance is somewhat valid (despite his slight Jungian premises) here.
I have no patience in tackling a postmoderist AND absurdist combo is all.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 13:26:19 2018 No.11094666 File: 57 KB, 600x600, 1508729826113.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11094650 >Even defering to Peterson for instance is somewhat valid (despite his slight Jungian premises) here. And I think we're done here. Thanks for playing Randfriend

Anonymous Thu May 3 13:36:43 2018 No.11094714
File: 83 KB, 750x545, 15dd3ccaf79ac7ff5ec4170476c87c0b6aef80d2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11094650
Listen here little Randroid. You're gonna get a lot of hurtful and degrading comments, but that ain't what I'm about. Let me just say, you are perfect the way you are. You hear me anon who rates objectivism as a philosophy? PERFECT. Don't ever change. You deserve anything and everything you want. Stay safe for me, person who thinks Peterson provides a valid criticism of postmodernism .
>mfw thinking of you hurting

Anonymous Thu May 3 13:40:37 2018 No.11094727
File: 13 KB, 236x349, 1499270244976.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11094634
Wrong, many Objectivists come from outside America. Predominantly because non Americans have something to contrast/juxtapose Americanism against and have concluded which they prefer. There is a decent Objectivist scene among the pajeets for instance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlnF3V7pX4E
https://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/6100-rand-rising-in-india-entrepreneurial-philosophy-attracts-new-interest-in-ancient-civilization
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrwoDSyWHPE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMckx4JN7GU

Anonymous Thu May 3 13:40:57 2018 No.11094729

she was intelligent in that she could twist herself into knots intellectually, which is a type of intelligence.

i don't think her philosophy is terribly effective, mostly because like communism it's made for some sort of universal man which doesn't exist and never will.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 13:43:32 2018 No.11094740 >>11094666 I as an objectivist have plenty to say against Peterson. He's popular and in vogue so I mentioned him. His critique on postmoderism is competent enough.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 13:47:49 2018 No.11094762 File: 411 KB, 1363x2027, CtBfU_zUsAA8c7x.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] genius. she wrote the great american futurist novel. it doesn't mean you have to agree with her politics. but as an artist? she nailed the zeitgeist exactly.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 13:54:27 2018 No.11094798 File: 98 KB, 1280x1066, Donkey_Kong.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11094762 Thank you. This is the way I had always meant to phrase this argument anon. Nice

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 13:57:31 2018 No.11094813 File: 91 KB, 450x750, CtBc8XAUkAAS7_7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11094798 cheers m8

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 14:09:35 2018 No.11094863 >>11094714 >being this passive aggressive Wew lad

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 14:13:33 2018 No.11094878 Is OP spamming Ayn Rand? YES.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 14:14:42 2018 No.11094882 >>11087448 Neither. She was just a middle brow writer with some weird ideas about morality.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 14:18:44 2018 No.11094897 >>11094882 "wierd" as in iconoclastic, yes

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 14:19:26 2018 No.11094902 >>11094813 futurism art could not be shittier

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 14:28:03 2018 No.11094951 >>11094897 No, weird as in she said nothing new and borrowed from others while thinking that she was revolutionary.

Anonymous Thu May 3 14:47:02 2018 No.11095061

>>11094951
>coining "psycho-epistemology"
>positing the term "anticoncept" be used as a criterion by which to assess the flaws of other philosophic systems
>formulating distinct and unique logical fallacies or novel takes/forks on existing fallacies
>positing that egoism is, in fact, justified and causally derived from the ethics branch of philosophy
>not revolutionary

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 14:49:37 2018 No.11095074 >>11095061 >formulating Wrong word. I should have posted "indentifying".

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 14:51:19 2018 No.11095081 File: 91 KB, 970x650, 1934-BMW-R7-970x650.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11094902 disagree. deco is cool

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 14:55:35 2018 No.11095102 >>11095074 >indentifying Goddamnit I always do that *identifying

Anonymous Thu May 3 14:56:33 2018 No.11095109
File: 27 KB, 385x385, 1509651611247.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11095061
>Coining shit means she said anything new that hadn't already been said better by Aristotle, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant.
>conflating normativity and perspectivity
>thinks logical fallacies actually proves anything about the universe or humanity and isn't a closed system
>implies that Reason™ is the ultimate expression of humanity; doesn't even know what the Münchhausen trilemma is

Rand is a mediocre thinker and a mediocre fiction writer. Deal with it Randroid.

Anonymous Thu May 3 15:10:48 2018 No.11095156

>>11095109
>Coining shit means she said anything new that hadn't already been said better by Aristotle, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant.
Just that.
>thinks logical fallacies actually proves anything about the universe or humanity and isn't a closed system
Did say that. Auxiliary topic. It proves proves her analytical accumen. No thing cocerning man's cognition proves anything "about the universe". To argue it does is to argue the absurdity that is the primacy of conciousness.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 15:16:34 2018 No.11095175 >>11095156 >No thing cocerning man's cognition proves anything "about the universe". For her it proves that egoism is moral.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 15:24:27 2018 No.11095205 >>11095175 Wrong. Ethics can only be derived from metaphysics and epistemology and this is the foundation of a morality one may posit.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 15:27:28 2018 No.11095220 File: 22 KB, 170x211, michel-foucault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11095205 >Ethics can only be derived from metaphysics and epistemology and this is the foundation of a morality one may posit. Oh boy

Anonymous Thu May 3 15:32:48 2018 No.11095239
File: 11 KB, 245x251, intredasting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11092876
Yeah, that's why I didn't equate them. I saw that video a while ago, it was pretty intredasting
>>11094740
>Peterson's critique of postmodernism is competent enough
He is demonstrably and just about completely ignorant on the topic of postmodernism and it's intersection with Marxism. They're fundamentally opposing ideologies and he bumbles about as if they're synonymous. His reading of philosophy (and apparently yours) is absolutely laughable.

Anonymous Thu May 3 15:32:52 2018 No.11095240

>>11095109
Furthermore to assert that her term "psycho-epistemology" was and is already subsumed under those 3 means that you can explain how. Likewise you should be able to deconstruct her identified fallacies to the same end. I'll post them for you.

>Stolen Concept Fallacy
Attempting to undermine the concept itself by attacking the hierarchial root(s) upon which it logically depends, or using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots.
>Package-Deal Fallacy
The fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value. A subset of the Composition/Division fallacies.
>Floating Abstraction Fallacy
When concepts are detached from existents, concepts that a person takes over from other men without knowing what specific units the concepts denote.
>Frozen Abstraction Fallacy (Context Dropping Fallacy)
Substituting some one particular concrete for the wider abstract class to which it belongs. To tear an idea from its context and treat it as though it were a self-sufficient, independent item.
>Reification of Zero Fallacy
Regarding "nothing" as a thing, as a special, different kind of existent. Previously debated in mathematics but insufficiently argued and indentified in epistemology before Rand.
>Rewriting Reality Fallacy
Attempting to alter the metaphysically given. Axiomatic and rejectable by those who do not concur with her metaphysics.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 15:38:54 2018 No.11095262 can a randroid explain Objectivism to me? it looks like the kind of meme garbage that a 16 y/o in his i'm-smarter-than-everybody-else phase would think and immediatly btfo by science and history

Anonymous Thu May 3 15:39:13 2018 No.11095265

>>11095240
None of these are actual logical fallacies. They are just master suppression techniques designed to make it seem like anyone who disagrees with her philosophy or ideology are either irrational or downright mad.

E.g, it's a very sophisticated form of gaslighting. It wouldn't surprise me if Rand was an actual sociopath.

Anonymous Thu May 3 15:48:05 2018 No.11095307

>>11095239
>They're fundamentally opposing ideologies
But that's wrong. He is wrong to assert them as hard- or even soft-synonyms but they, however, ARE causally related.
The following is not original to me (and not from Peterson):
Proponents of postmodernism, the most active intellectual movement of the late 20th century, have replaced reality with subjective and noncommensurable social-linguistic constructs that vary across conflicting groups based on dimensions such as sex, ethnicity, race, religion, and wealth. The language and logic of each group is seen to be a function of its own conventional internal system. Given the postmodernist view that there is no connection of language to a non-linguistic reality, words are to be used as rhetorical weapons in a battle of competing wills involving the coercive assertion of each group’s interests. All words, concepts, and claims to truth can be deconstructed in a never-ending process in which each narrow subdivision of the human species vies to attain social power. Deconstruction has the effect of destroying (and thereby equalizing) the meaning and value of all truth claims. Because postmodernists view reason as subjective and as unable to know reality, they are not concerned about truth, consistency, and the existence of logical contradictions.
According to postmodernism, reality is socially constructed and pluralism is a fact of life. Postmodernists exhibit disbelief in metanarratives in a myriad of areas such as literary criticism, political theory, music, architecture, etc. They display disdain for the modern ideas of rationality, linear progress, and one right way to do things. Postmodernists find fault with systems of thought that try to explain the world, its social and natural laws, its true morality, the path of history, and the nature of the human person, in universal terms that apply equally to all people in all times and places.
Postmodernism tends to revolve around the following themes: (1) the attainment of universal truth is impossible; (2) no ideas or truths are transcendent; (3) all ideas are culturally or socially constructed; (4) historical facts are unimportant and irrelevant; and (5) ideas are true only if they benefit the oppressed. Postmodernists generally use Marxist rationale and concepts (e.g., oppression, inequality, revolution, and imperialism) to attack and discredit American culture.

I can only assume Peterson's rare inaccuracies on this matter are in some way related to his Jungian eastern mystic sensibilities. He's right *enough* and I only mentioned him because hes popular and any given person is all but guaranteed to be in some respect familiar with him.
Tldr: here's Peterson: Baby's First Antipostmodernism.

Anonymous Thu May 3 15:49:04 2018 No.11095310

You guys are a bunch of asshats. I read Ayn Rand when I was 12 and made about 300k in Cryptocurrencies. The only thing Rand did wrong, is that she didnt believe in the christian or judaic values.

Kant is a cunt and Nietzsche his retarded narcicisst Nemesis.

Stop larping and make some money

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 15:56:02 2018 No.11095345 >>11095262 http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivism.html

Anonymous Thu May 3 15:57:21 2018 No.11095355

>>11094141
It isn't a matter of "seem alien", it's just not a good idea. For instance, it's one things to argue that taxes should be "minimal", other is to argue that there shouldn't be taxes at all.

>How so?

I didn't mean that what these characters said was always stupid and bad (even if sometimes it were - like the example of the taxes), but that creating those characters for the story itself was stupid and bad.
They just seem in the context of the story in general too "perfect", and they do absurd things to help "their side" look good, like how Galt created that motor that violated the laws of thermodinamic.

Anonymous Thu May 3 15:58:24 2018 No.11095361
File: 37 KB, 392x500, Whoa Nigga!™.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11095307
Postmodernism = Grand narratives are not a credible way to explain the world.
Marxism = All of history is a grand narrative of class struggle, namely the lower classes versus the upper class.

The type of rationale that Peterson ascribes to "postmodern neo-Marxists" is nearly EXACTLY the same rationale that Nietzche classifies as Jewish [Christian], or "slave morality". Peterson conveniently ignores Nietzche's criticism of his beloved Judeo-Christian values and goes on to straight up lie about how western people, in that they accept "western" principles, are philosophically Christian.

Like I said, Peterson's (and your) reading of philosophy is laughable. I say this as someone who has never cracked a book on postmodernism in my life. It doesn't take a genius to know the basic definitions of the ideologies.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 15:58:36 2018 No.11095364 >>11095265 >vaguely waves away the post as a whole instead of deconstructimg each and explain in what respect each is "a form of gaslighting" K

Anonymous Thu May 3 16:24:45 2018 No.11095486

>>11095345
just like i thought: garbage.
sure reality is objective but our perception of it sure as hell isn't. even worst we can never know everything about reality.
first every man has it's own biases since his life experience it's different from another one.
second a single man can never know enought to find the "true" reality. demonstrated times and times again by scientific progress. what we believe as true now is not what the greeks believed was true. also there are some things that we literally can't know. see knowing an electron's speed and position at the same time

quite ironically this it's proved by your link when it define capitalism as free and volountary exchange which is painfully incorrect.
also the preferred form of capitalism is laissez faire which deny the possibility of market failures, aka pure wishful thinking

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 16:27:35 2018 No.11095504 >>11087448 a combination of both in that she could write well but was a complete and utter dumbass

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 16:29:56 2018 No.11095514 >>11087448 Ayn Rand is a woman

Anonymous Thu May 3 16:30:03 2018 No.11095515

>>11095355
Shouldn't be *coercive taxes.
Going along with the direction of my previous post; I bet you view the notion of optional, modular, context-sensitive taxation as alien and utterly unimplementable.

Let me backtrack to your previous post.
>>11093458
>My impression was that she didn't understood anything about economics at all.
You may find her actual view on this refreshing. She understood perfectly the logical foundations and opperants on which economics is based. She however did not assert that the opperants of any specific applied science is automatically subsumed under any philosophy, even hers. Other philosophies treat the matter of relationship of their tenets to the effectiveness of applied sciences practice in their name and/or upon their tenets as automatic or eventually guaranteed. Rand posited that any specific science such as economics must be treated damn near microcosmically. The way other creeds feel the need to treat everything with macrocosmic interconnectedness is an article of faith by them and an utter fallacy. Note that this is NOT an argument against causal relationship among philosophy, culture, and applied science. This an argument that you cannot substitute concretes for wider abstract classes upon which they rest upon (the Frozen Abstraction fallacy mentioned in >>11095240 )

The simple fact of the matter is that laissez faire economics (let's call this Metaobjectivism) remain pretty much unformulated and incomplete. Great strides have been made but government can say "no" in too many areas for it to take off. And so LfCap remains in the realm of theoretics for now.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 16:34:54 2018 No.11095531 >>11095515 I'm not convinced you, or Rand, know or understand anything about 'other philosophies'.

Anonymous Thu May 3 16:47:21 2018 No.11095593

>>11095486
>Conflates the capacity and possibility for error with the perceptually subjective.
Rand predicted this attempt at intellectual escape from her conclusion.
>Man is neither infallible nor omniscient; if he were, a discipline such as epistemology—the theory of knowledge—would not be necessary nor possible: his knowledge would be automatic, unquestionable and total. But such is not man’s nature. Man is a being of volitional consciousness: beyond the level of percepts—a level inadequate to the cognitive requirements of his survival—man has to acquire knowledge by his own effort, which he may exercise or not, and by a process of reason, which he may apply correctly or not. Nature gives him no automatic guarantee of his mental efficacy; he is capable of error, of evasion, of psychological distortion. He needs a method of cognition, which he himself has to discover: he must discover how to use his rational faculty, how to validate his conclusions, how to distinguish truth from falsehood, how to set the criteria of what he may accept as knowledge. Two questions are involved in his every conclusion, conviction, decision, choice or claim: What do I know?—and: How do I know it?
>It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the “How?”—which then enables the special sciences to provide the answers to the “What?”
>In the history of philosophy—with some very rare exceptions—epistemological theories have consisted of attempts to escape one or the other of the two fundamental questions which cannot be escaped. Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism). These two positions appear to be antagonists, but are, in fact, two variants on the same theme, two sides of the same fraudulent coin: the attempt to escape the responsibility of rational cognition and the absolutism of reality—the attempt to assert the primacy of consciousness over existence.
>what we believe as true now is not what the greeks believed was true.
This is a difference of degree not of kind. The greeks were incomplete in their theories, conclusions, and musings. Subsequent philosophers and scientists then contributed or contradicted certian given greek philosophers' work. To say that then and now are utterly detached phenomena completely alien to one another is a patent absurdity.
> a single man can never know enought to find the "true" reality demonstrated times and times again by scientific progress
>demonstrated by scientific progress
An example? Then summation?

Anonymous Thu May 3 16:57:34 2018 No.11095632

>>11095593
>>It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the “How?”—which then enables the special sciences to provide the answers to the “What?”
still doesn't explain the how can you reach true objectivity if you don't know the true reality. again this is like the 16 y/o thinking he's a fully rational being simply because he's too dumb to recognize his gaps in knowledge

>The greeks were incomplete in their theories, conclusions, and musings
please don't tell me you think our theories are complete

>An example? Then summation?
again, greeks thought planets spinned in strange patterns in the sky and exploration over the Pillars of Hercules was impossible.
and yet today we know how planets revolve around stars and send satellites in geostationary orbit and the USA exists

Anonymous Thu May 3 16:58:20 2018 No.11095638

>>11095531
Read. Rand's. Nonfiction.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/prior_certainty_of_consciousness.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pragmatism.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/nietzsche,_friedrich.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/platonic_realism.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/nominalism.html

Anonymous Thu May 3 17:01:51 2018 No.11095653

>>11095593
>Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism). These two positions appear to be antagonists, but are, in fact, two variants on the same theme, two sides of the same fraudulent coin: the attempt to escape the responsibility of rational cognition and the absolutism of reality—the attempt to assert the primacy of consciousness over existence.
She really was a moron. I'm convinced she never read an actual philosopher. Why else would she come out with this shit?

Anonymous Thu May 3 17:06:14 2018 No.11095672
File: 20 KB, 288x450, 49658111-288-k333043.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11087448
If you're catergorising whether she was a genius or moron based on her IQ, she was most certainly a genius. If you're referring to the quality of her work or arguments, she certainly had some valuable ideas and her refutations of collectivist ideologies are fantastic. However, her novels turned a lot of people off her because they are notoriously dry and filled with protagonists who seem to act as automatons rather real human beings.

Stuff like "Person A felt X emotion, but he dismissed it because it was irrational." People don't just have on and off buttons regarding emotions and hence it's frustrating to read things like that.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 17:06:45 2018 No.11095673 talentless yid, only remembered due to being propped up by (((think tanks)))

Anonymous Thu May 3 17:07:26 2018 No.11095675
File: 25 KB, 448x336, BwbqZFMCMAAKozS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Actually, let-let-let me rephrase that. Can I... No, in fact I'll just repeat the statement.
I'm not convinced you, or Rand, know or understand anything about 'other philosophies'.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 17:15:31 2018 No.11095704 >>11095638 Yes, she knows nothing, we all knew that.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 17:17:34 2018 No.11095709 >>11095653 And it's shit because... You apparently object to her summation of the essence and impetuses of past philosophies but you never explain why you do, just that you do. If I'm listening.

Anonymous Thu May 3 17:26:29 2018 No.11095739

>>11095672
Fair post. She was destroyed when, after loving America and dreamimg of it all her life, she finally got here...
>Great I'll start the long process of learning and integration an-GREAT DEPRESSION.
It was hardest on her because she could identify the fucking faggots that were causing it and THEIR philosophic premises. I have no doubt in my mind she fell asleep every night with thoughts of her hands around Wilson's & FDR's necks.
She wanted to ideologically punch people in the face so she reflected that in her work. She was the rare sort of talent that could do it without waxing fallacious in the doing.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 17:27:53 2018 No.11095747 >>11095709 What she's saying isn't true, and anyone with a smattering of philosophy knows it. I'm pretty sure she's only taken seriously by people who find actually philosophy too hard to read.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 17:28:57 2018 No.11095750 >>11095709 If I'm listening *I'm listening

Anonymous Thu May 3 17:36:18 2018 No.11095774

>>11095632
>again, greeks thought planets spinned in strange patterns in the sky and exploration over the Pillars of Hercules was impossible.
and yet today we know how planets revolve around stars and send satellites in geostationary orbit and the USA exists
Yes numbnuts, through further and refined *degree* of knowledge. Not of a different form of it.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 17:36:35 2018 No.11095775 >>11095653 >Why would she come out with the literal truth

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 17:40:05 2018 No.11095788 >>11095675 >>11095747 >Let me just double down and pretend the opposimg case did not occur and not address it. This is the point at which I stop talking to a wall.

Anonymous Thu May 3 17:46:57 2018 No.11095820

>>11095774
>Yes numbnuts, through further and refined *degree* of knowledge. Not of a different form of it.
yes, but there is no final knowledge. we still know jack shit about the rules governing reality and despite that you claim possible an "objective" knowledge of it. you retard

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 17:49:14 2018 No.11095832 >>11095820 Objective doesn't mean final or complete. It means it's the same for all. Like how gravity doesn't work differently depending on whether you are a Jew or a Catholic.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 17:54:50 2018 No.11095847 >>11095832 new discoveries influence how we think about society and values. do you think an ancient greek teleported into the modern world would not modify his beliefs?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 17:56:27 2018 No.11095851 >>11095847 Probably he would. Like an Objectivist thinker would when presented with convincing, objective proof.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 17:57:22 2018 No.11095854 >>11095832 The problem tends to be that when people hear 'objective' they think it means dogmatism and that you cannot criticize it. And anything that is commonly accepted can stop being objective if you rationally show a contradiction.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 17:58:56 2018 No.11095864 >>11095851 >>11095854 so objectivism is literally just common sense?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 18:01:19 2018 No.11095872 >>11095864 If only it were common.

Anonymous Thu May 3 18:03:15 2018 No.11095877

>>11095864
Ayn Rand described her philosophy as common sense to live life on earth. It's 'common sense' but you'll see idiots argue that there's no such thing as fact, everything is subjective, your life is worthless, self sacrifice is the only purpose you should have, it's impossible to know anything, your senses may see illusions therefore it's impossible to trust anything, etc.
In my view, I ascribe Ayn Rand as being a person that advocated pure Apollonian philosophy that saw the decrepit insanity of all philosophers and views and some just don't like that she was radical to an insane point.

Anonymous Thu May 3 18:05:38 2018 No.11095885

>>11095872
It's common in the sense that everyone knows it innately but doesn't articulate it. But then you have people memetically parroting influential philosophers as a way to appear smart of knowledgeable and it tricks people into being irrational, altruistic and collectivist.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 18:07:15 2018 No.11095892 >>11095872 >>11095877 okay, so rand used common sense to justify her beliefs? so she literally said "lmao it's self evident" and called it a day? and anyone that doesn't behave like a sociopath is irrational? did she had autism?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 18:07:35 2018 No.11095894 >>11094421 How does being inspired by Hume change the criticism leveled at Kant?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 18:08:31 2018 No.11095895 >>11087448 she was a herald, a healer, and a guide. she was magnificent. she cannot be appreciated, or loved enough. and she was a good lookin piece of ass when she was in early 20s, so there's that too

Anonymous Thu May 3 18:11:00 2018 No.11095904

>>11095892
No it's that she considered common sense a simple application of Aristotelian logic. Her philosophy represents the complex application.

Common sense can be sound for every day purposes but it has its limits when it comes to more complex and abstract problems.

Anonymous Thu May 3 18:12:16 2018 No.11095913

>>11095892
That's not what she argued nor is her philosophy 'common sense'. It's essentially that reality is real, your main means of understanding reality is through your senses which are objective, you form values based on your life which is an objective value by which all values are formed in a hierarchy, you are selfish because your life is your main duty to be happy and enjoy life. And anything that says either of these are wrong is done by being life-denying or advocating collectivist.

It's common sense in the way that it's obvious but a lot of philosophy goes against it, so it's not just 'oh it's common sense, call it a day' in one sentence.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 18:12:50 2018 No.11095915 >>11094141 well put.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 18:14:27 2018 No.11095919 >>11094221 you dumb nigga

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 18:16:53 2018 No.11095926 >>11095892 only if 'literacy' is considered autism these days

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 18:22:11 2018 No.11095952 >>11095310 Weirdly enough, a lot of people in the cryptoworld like Ayn Rand. I've made my fortune there and if it does grow over the next decade, she'll be proven right.

Anonymous Thu May 3 18:27:05 2018 No.11095973

>>11095913
>you form values based on your life which is an objective value by which all values are formed in a hierarchy
personal experience is by definition subjective. also why shouldn't i vote for redistributive policies if i have the chance, since i can and should be selfish?

>your life is your main duty to be happy and enjoy life
this is such a waste of human potential

>a lot of philosophy goes against it
of course it does. if being happy and enjoying life is all i can hope for, why shouldn't i curse my fate for not being born as my dog?

>>11095904
>No it's that she considered common sense a simple application of Aristotelian logic
btw common sense is subjective and vary depending on society, culture, etc. rand simply used her pov as universal truth

Anonymous Thu May 3 18:30:32 2018 No.11095986

>>11095973
It seems she was specifically talking about American common sense. I had to check the Lexicon because I seemed to remember she hated the very notion of 'common sense' - it appears I remembered wrong.

>Americans are the most reality-oriented people on earth. Their outstanding characteristic is the childhood form of reasoning: common sense. It is their only protection. But common sense is not enough where theoretical knowledge is required: it can make simple, concrete-bound connections—it cannot integrate complex issues, or deal with wide abstractions, or forecast the future.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 18:35:36 2018 No.11096011 >>11096008 >all these typos fuck me I need to slow down

Anonymous Thu May 3 18:36:41 2018 No.11096014

>>11095864
>>11095892
Ayn Rand argued that her philosophy was essentially implicitly in the Constitution and she succeeded in making it explicit.
Not the "Common Sense Philosophy." "Meta Sense Philosophy".
No Kant's Cthulhu-tier *inventions* ala the categorical imperative are not the meta sense philosophy.
>>11095885
This

Anonymous Thu May 3 18:37:25 2018 No.11096018

>>11095973
>personal experience is by definition subjective.
And there's nothing wrong with that.

>this is such a waste of human potential
How so? You only have one life, enjoy it to the fullest, make art, find your own purpose, etc

>why shouldn't i curse my fate for not being born as my dog?
Why curse at something you will never be?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 18:47:33 2018 No.11096054 >>11095109 Stupid frogposter

Anonymous Thu May 3 18:52:50 2018 No.11096077

>>11095515
Yes, I view the idea of an economy with lack of coercive taxes utterly unimplmentable in general. Maybe it could work under very restricted conditions, but then, so does communism.

No philosophy book could convince me otherwise. Economy is a science, os tries to be at least. Without empirical evidence suggesting that this could work, no amount of racionalization will help.

In addition, I have never seen a serious economist defend such idea. The only kind that I saw to suggest something near it also was the kind that said that math only causes problems to economics.

Anonymous Thu May 3 18:53:50 2018 No.11096082

>>11096018
>And there's nothing wrong with that.
how can i find objective values from subjective experiences?

>How so? You only have one life, enjoy it to the fullest, make art, find your own purpose, etc
because it would be much easier to just legalize heroin and being on it 24/7 until i die. also what if my pourpose in life is to achieve real communism (tm) or similar?

>Why curse at something you will never be?
because it's self evident that a domestic dog is the happiest form of life since it's literally genetically enginered to enjoy it

>>11095986
>It seems she was specifically talking about American common sense.
american exceptionalism is something i'll never agree with

Anonymous Thu May 3 18:54:12 2018 No.11096084

>>11094493
No, I haven't read it, because I wouldn't waste any more time than I already have reading this silly woman. Atlas Shrugged was bad enough. Why don't you try to make an independent point, instead of hiding behind references? The truth remains that Kant's philosophy is anything but relativistic in the epistemological sense. There are definite truths that are enunciated as having authority prior to experience. There is no problem of objectivity in Kantian philosophy, Kant lays out very simply (in what is probably the most straightforward point he makes in CPR) the means by which a person can attain objective empirical knowledge through induction, namely, subordination of the phenomenon in question to the causal law.

Certainly, Ayn Rand herself did not think she needed philosophy, otherwise she would have bothered to read Kant.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 18:55:22 2018 No.11096087 >>11096077 Ludwig von Mises. Have you read him?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 19:04:15 2018 No.11096117 >>11096087 He and most of the austrian school are the kind of "economists" that sometimes argue that economics shouldn't be empirical, or that shouldn't use (or avoid to use) mathematics.

Anonymous Thu May 3 19:04:46 2018 No.11096121

>>11096082
A dog does not and cannot experience profound happiness. Understand that it's negative percepts are felt just as strongly to it as ilthe positively ones. Loud sudden noises that cause it to bark apprehensively is a momentarily inconsolable horror for it. Animals are not capable of concepts. A dog cannot love it's owner for instance. It does experience a beastial sense of pleasure and security in the presence of it's doting owner but it does not love him. Love is a conceptual faculty of which all animals including up to the most well trained of dolphins and monkies are incapable. Owners thinking their pet loves them is them anthropomorphizing human traits onto the animal which THEY love.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 19:10:16 2018 No.11096135 >>11096121 >Breaking news! >Anon Y. Mous of Random County, CA was found brutally stabbed to death by Stacy P. Normie, a noted pet lover, in a fit of hysteria after he redpilled her way too fucking hard on the nature of her beloved animals

Anonymous Thu May 3 19:11:09 2018 No.11096139

>>11096121
and yet it doesn't matter since a dog is limited by his own understanding of reality. just like the african children doesn't feel sad because he never tried tried ice cream so a dog doesn't feel sad for not feeling human's feel.
i reaffirm my point. under rand "philosophy" i would rather be a well treated domestic animal

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 19:14:18 2018 No.11096148 >>11096139 That's actually pitiful anon. Offense meant.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 19:15:21 2018 No.11096153 >>11096139 Go inject Heroine into your balls then faggot.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 19:15:50 2018 No.11096156 >>11096148 >>11096153 agreed. luckily i don't believe in rand meme philosophy

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 19:17:08 2018 No.11096160 >>11096139 lol offer to be a jewish/WASP oligarch’s sex slave, just wander into a gated community dressed like a rentboy and tell them you’ll work for free if you can live in their basement and eat out of their fridge, use wifi

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 19:17:09 2018 No.11096161 File: 71 KB, 455x702, 1499675499230.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11096135 Holy shit

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 19:20:25 2018 No.11096168 >>11096084 > Why don't you try to make an independent point I've been doing that all goddamn thread anon, 10% of the time posting lexicon links alongside

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 19:20:53 2018 No.11096170 >>11096160 i mean that "just be happy lmao" isn't a good and fulfilling way to be a human, especially while adopting a borderline sociopath behaviour

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 19:35:34 2018 No.11096266 >>11091395 OH nononoNONONON HAhahahhHh

Anonymous Thu May 3 19:41:59 2018 No.11096300

>>11096121
who are you to define 'love'? if an animal dies in direct defense of another thing police & military k9s come to mind- are they not showing love for the thing that provides water, food, & shelter for the beast? I think you are simply giving 'love' too profound a notion. Love is simple. Love is kind. ;)

Anonymous Thu May 3 19:44:12 2018 No.11096317

>>11096168
From your precious lexicon:
>The “phenomenal” world, said Kant, is not real: reality, as perceived by man’s mind, is a distortion.
This is a patent falsehood and a gross misreading of Kant, exactly the misreading (or lack of a reading) of which I have said Rand is guilty from the beginning.

Anonymous Thu May 3 20:02:27 2018 No.11096400

>>11096082
>how can i find objective values from subjective experiences?
By seeing whether they match reality and if they hold no contradictions. Just because you start from a subjective view does not mean it is forever confined from being subjective. The fact that gravity exists, and that I can confirm it, doesn't mean it's not objective. Similarly, Ayn Rand argues that the primary desire of life is to preserve itself, thereby making life an objective value. Do you not desire to live? Is it not valuable to be alive? Other than nihilist, everyone will agree on this, thus it becomes an objective value. From there, you can establish what matters to you selfish in a hierarchy.

>because it would be much easier to just legalize heroin and being on it 24/7 until i die.
Ayn Rand argued 'rational' self interest. Meaning taking heroin and living hedonistically by getting fucked up is not rational nor does it give you happiness. She argues that happiness should be the driving factor ethically but not the standard. Living a fulfilling life is at odds with getting fucked on drugs. Live by creating and doing.

>also what if my pourpose in life is to achieve real communism (tm) or similar?
Then you're living for an abstract rather than yourself.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 20:04:28 2018 No.11096413 >>11096300 To love is to value, to desire. Ayn Rand was not against the notion of self sacrifice love if you value someone more than your own life.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 20:12:42 2018 No.11096448 >>11096300 The same person I am to define every other concept in the language I'm speaking. Do not ascribe to love this mystical etherial character. It has a concrete meaning just like every other word.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 20:16:34 2018 No.11096463 File: 25 KB, 467x413, f77.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11094727 >There is a decent Objectivist scene among the pajeets for instance >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrwoDSyWHPE Neat.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 21:01:47 2018 No.11096679 >>11096448 you're too bull-headed to understand simple sentences. no wonder you are here arguing rather than out being productive, creative, and happy

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 21:02:50 2018 No.11096684 >>11096413 that's part of my point. are you ham-fistedly agreeing with me?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 21:07:00 2018 No.11096700 Moron

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 21:15:05 2018 No.11096739 >>11096684 An animal cannot value.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 21:18:25 2018 No.11096757 >>11096679 What simple sentence(s) has brainlet me misunderstood then skipper?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 21:21:43 2018 No.11096779 >>11096739 animals 'value' every thing lol. if they are hungry but more so thirsty, they will go to the water dish first. if aminals not value, why would they fight for their lives? this exactly what Rand talk about. self-value and motive-power

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 21:25:11 2018 No.11096799 >>11096779 That's not value, that's a reactionary response. They do not desire anything beyond basic instinct like food.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 21:25:35 2018 No.11096803 >>11096757 >Do not ascribe to love this mystical etherial character. literally what im telling you yourself to don't do. 'love is simple'. that is exactly the quote i left. you are a pile of contradictions fellow anon

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 21:43:06 2018 No.11096904 >>11096803 Saying >who are you to define x Then saying >x is simple, x is kind Is the contradiction anon. I don't have a smug enough animu grill for this.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 21:48:31 2018 No.11096924 >>11096803 Who are you to define love as simple :^)

>>	Anonymous Thu May 3 22:05:52 2018 No.11096985 >>11096799 >they value nothing beyond instinct you are proving my point correct with your own 'evidence against'. you are still agreeing that they have values.

Anonymous Thu May 3 22:11:04 2018 No.11097006

>>11096924
well the other guy and myself agree it is simple. he says it has a concrete definition just like any other word and i point out that it is as simple as 'desire' or 'value' (one creates the other and they cannot be separated). rather than fighting, why not you offer up why you think 'love' is not simple.

Anonymous Thu May 3 22:18:37 2018 No.11097037

>>11096904
why would you be 'smug'? you agree that love is a simple feeling controlled by simple things. i may have instigated our conversation with a cliche, but that doesn't somehow negate a clear point being put forth. you don't win a philosophical debate with a 'checklist' lol

Anonymous Thu May 3 23:24:53 2018 No.11097367

I actually liked The Fountainhead as a novel, but goddamn was she up her own ass. It's like she had some good ideas, but went way too far in the direction that they came from and ended up in retardville. The way that her idealized humans act is never how we are going to act, and her philosophical/economic ideas would only work in a system predominated by her idealized people.

On that note, her idealized people are cunts. So are her antagonists. The Fountainhead was just a whole book full of cunts.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 01:19:09 2018 No.11097752 You think she gave good head?

Anonymous Fri May 4 01:52:42 2018 No.11097857

>>11095952
I do not think that cc will create Libertopia, but it will limit the power of the state just enough for capitalism to flourish and will limit the neoliberal paternalistic state agenda, by giving the monetary force back to the citizens. Either way, Ill be watching it from my condo

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 02:19:07 2018 No.11097928 >>11097752 She's too selfish to give head.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 03:00:51 2018 No.11098013 File: 86 KB, 800x901, baudrillard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11095913 >It's essentially that reality is real, your main means of understanding reality is through your senses which are objective Oh my sweet summer child

Anonymous Fri May 4 03:08:03 2018 No.11098024

I dont know, but i like it:

“Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors”.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 03:15:20 2018 No.11098036 >>11087448 a meme, like Land and Zizek. But for some reason the american right takes their memes too seriously

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 05:42:02 2018 No.11098378 What were her views on God and Cosmology?

Anonymous Fri May 4 05:53:32 2018 No.11098413

>>11098024
I really like that essay. You'll find a lot of collectivist go 'look at my race, this guy from my race made this, we're great, you wouldn't exist if it weren't for my collective', rather than praise the individual for its achievement. You can always turn it back around by asking them what they've achieved by themselves.

Anonymous Fri May 4 06:32:56 2018 No.11098505

>>11098378
>They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it “another dimension,” which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it “the future,” which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say—and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge—God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.

>Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.

For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.

Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing.

Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . .

“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.”

In an unofficial way, Ayn Rand hated God because it forced everyone to become slaves to a higher being rather than rely on their own strength. In her heroic belief, she viewed man as the highest being, so having an omnipotent God reduces men as worthless.
I simply view it as someone advocating master morality hating the fact of a slave saying that there's a master stronger than them, but using mystical reasoning.

Anonymous Fri May 4 07:01:31 2018 No.11098605

>>11098505
Did rand ever get into the flaws of Aristotles logic regarding his metaphysics?

>For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.
So does that mean there is a number of which no number can be higher?

>Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing.
Doesnt that idea arbitrarily rule out God's existence apriori? Particularly when you consider the implications for causation.

>Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures.
Why cannot omnipotence be in God's nature.

>“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle
It would have been interesting to see her work contrasted with the works of people like Aquinas and Averros who grounded their principles in very tight logic. When she talks of a supernatural world is this in the sense that shes a materialists in the sense that reality is nothing but atoms in motion?

>In an unofficial way, Ayn Rand hated God because it forced everyone to become slaves to a higher being rather than rely on their own strength.
Interesting its like the atheist equivalent of the theists who hate atheism because of the nihilism atheism brings.

>In her heroic belief, she viewed man as the highest being, so having an omnipotent God reduces men as worthless.
What an interesting take most of the major religions seen to be the opposite in the sense of giving humanity a supremely high and important relationship compared to the more atheistic one which simply relegates humans to being more developed animals.

Anonymous Fri May 4 07:20:20 2018 No.11098660

>>11098605
>Doesnt that idea arbitrarily rule out God's existence apriori?
God was never an a priori. Kant might have advocated for it but there is no reason to accept it. God is simple to explain as an abstraction by simply relating it to causality and nature. In a spinozian manner, God is all of nature but this fails to explain the abstract of God. When a cause and effect materializes, you assume that there must be a prior cause before it, possibly by a will, attaching your own will to the cause. From polytheism to monotheism, causality itself is attributed to divinity but when you cannot identity a will that manipulates causality (like a god opening his bag to make the wind), then the will that controls causality vanishes. This is essentially why God has to be placed outside of where it can be observed. God is simply a shorthand for causality.

>Why cannot omnipotence be in God's nature.
Because it defines nature itself. For example, a miracle is breaking the laws of causality and nature to make something impossible. However, we can only act in accordance to the laws of this reality, so it is worthless to imagine a being that can do this unless there is evidence to suggest something like that.

>When she talks of a supernatural world is this in the sense that shes a materialists in the sense that reality is nothing but atoms in motion?
No, she argues that your sense of self is beyond that of atoms being in motion because to believe that would be to accept a pure determinism in which no volition exists. In a sense, Ayn Rand's metaphysics are simply: there is no metaphysics, there is only reality. She just denies everything mystical.

>Interesting its like the atheist equivalent of the theists who hate atheism because of the nihilism atheism brings.
You see it often whenever you ask theist what they would do if the morality of their religion was wrong or that God didn't exist. They will flat out tell you that they would kill everyone or become nihilistic. Ayn Rand uses Jesus to show that he is the ultimate justification of slave morality since he is a great being forced to sacrifice himself for the ills of the collective (humanity) rather than live for himself.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 07:20:43 2018 No.11098661 >>11098024 Rand was one of the early voices against racism, in a time when racism was the norm. She had a lot more balls than any of the modern day SJW's... and she was better at arguing for her points too.

Anonymous Fri May 4 07:21:38 2018 No.11098665

>>11098605
>>11098660
>What an interesting take most of the major religions seen to be the opposite in the sense of giving humanity a supremely high and important relationship compared to the more atheistic one which simply relegates humans to being more developed animals.
Yeah, she viewed man higher than an animal, whereas most atheist just ascribe humanity as nothing more than their base instinct because they are left with nothing but determinism. With religion, they have an explanation for why humanity has a sense of self awareness of reality: God did it. Ayn Rand argued, like Aristotle, that men have the capability of forming abstraction and this is what makes us higher than animals. If we're stuck on an island, we'll use nature as a tool to build civilization and make our lives better. If you believe God will help you, you'll starve. If you think we're nothing but an animal, you'll starve. Ayn Rand argued that since we are no longer specialized to survive, we have to use our rationality to understand the world and make out lives better. So on an island, you'd have to make judgements to survive by examining reality. If your senses were unable to judge reality, you would never be able to survive.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 07:24:22 2018 No.11098669 >>11096082 >american exceptionalism is something i'll never agree with First you say common sense varies depending on society, then you cannot agree with the idea that a certain society has its own variation of common sense? Try to decide

Anonymous Fri May 4 07:30:40 2018 No.11098694

>>11096077
A completely taxless form of government would be the ideal, but I think Objectivists in general are open to the idea that taxation just might be a necessary evil, even for supporting a low-cost minarchist government. Thing is, "taxation is necessary" is a meme that statists keep repeating to themselves while propping up and defending monstrously bloated socialist governments with extremely high taxes. It's clear these people aren't even interested in minimizing the evil.

Anonymous Fri May 4 07:35:06 2018 No.11098710

>>11098694
I personally believe that the level in taxes is proportional to the size of the government. And that while taxiation is bad since you cannot trust the government to properly use the money appropriately, you need proper government to enforce property right, and I do not think that having a limited government is stable enough to ensure that.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 07:36:48 2018 No.11098716 File: 370 KB, 1600x1212, clowns-b32f08acf0414ded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11098665 >If your senses were unable to judge reality, you would never be able to survive. And yet Randroids somehow manage to get by! Amirite! Honk!

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 07:38:33 2018 No.11098726 File: 346 KB, 451x451, Ayn-Rand-.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11098716 >Humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 07:44:05 2018 No.11098746 >>11098726 Well I am denying that Rand has any importance of any kind, so you can put metaphysics in there if you like

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 07:47:12 2018 No.11098758 >>11098746 That's not what you were laughing about and you know it.

Anonymous Fri May 4 07:59:48 2018 No.11098791

>>11098605
>t would have been interesting to see her work contrasted with the works of people like Aquinas and Averros who grounded their principles in very tight logic. When she talks of a supernatural world is this in the sense that shes a materialists in the sense that reality is nothing but atoms in motion?

I'll admit I haven't actually read Aquinas and everything I know about him comes from second hand sources, but regardless of how logical his thoughts as a whole may have been, isn't his entire philosophy dependent on whether you accept the prime mover argument?

He argued, that at the beginning of time, there must have been something that put everything else into motion. And that this something must have been the Judeo-Christian God! Because it certainly couldn't have been anything else, such as a non-Christian God or the modern scientific concept of Big Bang.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 08:03:36 2018 No.11098803 >>11098791 He just used Aristotle's argument and instead of doing anything with it just said his God was the prime mover. Aristotle just said it didn't matter.

Anonymous Fri May 4 08:10:59 2018 No.11098822

>>11098660
>God was never an a priori
But it seems to be rejected as an axiom in the something cannot come from nothing argument as God can well be that first something.

>When a cause and effect materializes, you assume that there must be a prior cause before it.
Is it logical not to use that reasoning?

>possibly by a will, attaching your own will to the cause.
Im just discussing a deist type God at this stage.

>This is essentially why God has to be placed outside of where it can be observed
I see it more as it being a the logical and rational conclusion of our observations. Similar to how in the older periodic tables Mendeleev and other scientists were able to accurately predict the gaps where new elements would be found or just things like Pythagoras's theorem.

>Because it defines nature itself.
Did you mean defies?

>breaking the laws of causality
How does it break the law of causality?

>We can only act in accordance to the laws of this reality, so it is worthless to imagine a being that can do this unless there is evidence to suggest something like that.
What of logical deduction? Likewise why is it worthless to consider a being with greater capacity than humans might exist?

>No, she argues that your sense of self is beyond that of atoms being in motion
Can you expand on this non material sense of self?

>In a sense, Ayn Rand's metaphysics are simply: there is no metaphysics, there is only reality. She just denies everything mystical.
To say ones metaphysics are that there is no metaphysics seems to be akin to thinking that I cannot think. To have a notion of reality and mystical means having quite a few metaphysical understandings even if its materialism and metaphysical naturalism.

> Ayn Rand uses Jesus to show that he is the ultimate justification of slave morality since he is a great being forced to sacrifice himself for the ills of the collective (humanity) rather than live for himself.
Wasnt the main point of that sacrifice that it was a choice made voluntarily out of love for humanity?

>Yeah, she viewed man higher than an animal,
More developed or something special/higher?

>If you believe God will help you, you'll starve.
That seems a bit facetious believing in a creator doesnt mandate inaction. It would be kind of like a religious person saying that on that desert island the atheist would simply kill themselves when things got difficult.

>. Ayn Rand argued that since we are no longer specialized to survive, we have to use our rationality to understand the world and make out lives better.
It would be interesting to see what here views would have been like if she managed to see some of the fruits of our current times.

> If your senses were unable to judge reality, you would never be able to survive.
Assuming she applies this to religious thinkers not only were they able to survive but indeed have thrived.

Anonymous Fri May 4 08:23:52 2018 No.11098856
File: 2.15 MB, 2700x6826, aqinas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11098791
>I know about him comes from second hand sources,
It depends on the sources for instance Edward Feser is an extreemly good starting point.

If you can handle unberably smug quips read "the last superstition" which outlines the contradictions of modern materialist (not consumerist thought) and some of Aquina's views as well as how he reached them. If that stuff is too grating try his beginners guide to Aquinas.

>isn't his entire philosophy dependent on whether you accept the prime mover argument?
No, that and his other "proofs" are a product not an axiom or assumption. His philosophy is dependent deductive logic applied to Aristotle's discoveries/theories on change and causation.

>...And that this something must have been the Judeo-Christian God! Because it certainly couldn't have been anything else, such as a non-Christian God or the modern scientific concept of Big Bang.
This would be kind of like me saying that Rand is silly because she argues that because a=a capitalism is the only viable political system. It misses out the volumes of work and ideas in the middle.

+The Big Bang is actually really helpful for Aquina's arguments.

Pic related is an argument regarding Aquinas from /lit/ that might interest you.

Anonymous Fri May 4 08:35:56 2018 No.11098903

>>11098822
>But it seems to be rejected as an axiom in the something cannot come from nothing argument as God can well be that first something.
Nope, as demonstrated, God can be perfectly imagined from examining causality and seeing the abstract from causality having a prior cause and will. Causality precedes God and consciousness. There is no need for God to be an a priori.

>Im just discussing a deist type God at this stage.
I'm discussing all possible Gods. A deistic type God also applies.

>Did you mean defies?
Yes, sorry, autocorrect.

>Similar to how in the older periodic tables Mendeleev and other scientists were able to accurately predict the gaps where new elements would be found or just things like Pythagoras's theorem.
It's mostly that scientist are examining cause and effect and when there is no third element manipulating causality, then there is no God. For example, a sick kid is dying. Scientist say he will die based on their understanding of causality, but the sick somehow survives. To religious people, it means that a third agent, a will outside of causality, manipulated causality to make the kid live. By all accounts of causality, this should not have happened and it thereby a miracle. But does it mean that a will that is beyond causality made it happen or an unaccounted fact of causality? The chain is still causality itself.

>How does it break the law of causality?
Causality is fixed. Take the parting of the water, it's impossible and a third event of causality must be placed for water to defy the laws of nature such as gravity. Our reality is a rigid system, not a flux of changing parts where a tree becomes a fish.

>Likewise why is it worthless to consider a being with greater capacity than humans might exist?
There is no evidence for it therefore it is worthless to care or consider. And by ascribing a higher being to dictate your life, you're allowing yourself to be a slave to the whims of someone else, even if it were a higher being. Would you allow me to tell you how to live? It's slave morality and denies agency and strength.

>Is it logical not to use that reasoning?
It's illogical because there is evidence for it. What's to say that all of causality isn't some wind god opening his bag to move anything as the cause for all effects?

Anonymous Fri May 4 08:37:19 2018 No.11098910

>>11098903
>>11098822
>Can you expand on this non material sense of self?
According to Ayn Rand:
>A man’s self is his mind—the faculty that perceives reality, forms judgments, chooses values.
But essentially, the mind is designed in a way to make volitional choices based on the options available to it. This is commonly seen as 'free will' but people do not like the 'free' aspect of it and say that it does not exist. I personally just sidestep the issue and call it volition; the power to use your will from which binds you like your genes, birthplace, etc. To Ayn Rand, the ego is the holistic representation of you and your value that you accept and the actions you do. Like Nietzsche, having a will does not mean you can blame others but to accept responsibility for your actions. Nietzsche drives it further by using Eternal Recurrence but the process Ayn Rand argues is the same: act in a way in which you are satisfied with all your actions.

>To say ones metaphysics are that there is no metaphysics seems to be akin to thinking that I cannot think
Yeah, it is a bit tautological, but it's the only metaphysics she would accept because anything else is needless. However, if you outright deny metaphysics, you cannot base your awareness of reality that you exist and that reality is real. You need metaphysics to confirm this for you. But other than that it is not needed.

>Wasnt the main point of that sacrifice that it was a choice made voluntarily out of love for humanity?
It was a sacrifice nonetheless over his own well being and life. It was his choice but it was still altruistic, selfless, collectivist. As though his life never mattered beyond sacrificing himself.

>More developed or something special/higher?
Semantics, but it's that we're better, more developed etc. As Aristotle argues, why we can create abstractions is irrelevant, we just do And it is what differentiates us from animals

>It would be interesting to see what here views would have been like if she managed to see some of the fruits of our current times
She would have laughed or fallen into despair. You can see identarians be openly collectivist in a manner that is almost exactly like her books. I saw a video of a black guy destroying a small independent store. The owner called him racial names and told him to leave. The black guy brought a group of his friends and demanded that the guy apologize for being racist or they would 'do something bad'. When the owner refused, the leader of the gang started to beg by his race, saying 'look man, you're from palestine, you're oppressed, so are we so excuse yourself and it will all be fine'. And obviously, the owner apologized and nothing came of it. That was the most collectivist slave morality shit I've ever seen in my life and it made me an believe Ayn Rand views on the spot. A lot of things in her novels about postmodernist just seeking to deny abstractions or definitives are more and more present. It's insane how right she ended up being.

Anonymous Fri May 4 08:38:35 2018 No.11098921

>>11098910
>>11098903
>>11098822
>Assuming she applies this to religious thinkers not only were they able to survive but indeed have thrived.
They thrive but at the cost of the people worshiping them or giving them money. If you put religious thinkers on an island where people cannot help them, they wouldn't thrive unless they relied on themselves first. This is why Ayn Rand called Christianity the religion of parasites. She basically hated all religion equally, for the same reason Nietzsche hated them.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 08:41:32 2018 No.11098936 >>11095265 She worshipped a serial killer

Anonymous Fri May 4 08:44:58 2018 No.11098949

>>11098758
>implying you have sense of humor enough to know what someone was laughing at
The joke was that Randroids are deluded. They are playing with a Fisher Price activity centre, thinking they're engaging with philosophy. She dodges all the hard questions and provides easy answers for brainlets who aren't smart enough for the real thing.

Anonymous Fri May 4 08:49:17 2018 No.11098962

>>11098936
Eh, she mostly worshipped his psychopathy which is a different thing altogether that is kinda eehhh but understandable when you think about it. While some people point out that she advocate psychopathy, and it can be seen as such, she wanted people to act like psychopaths but without breaking the law. One of the aspects of psychopaths is that they do not care for emotions or feelings for others, or what others think of them. They just do. Ayn Rand admired that, and it's no small observation that a good number of people at the head of companies are psychopaths. The fault comes mostly from a philosophy that advocates doing whatever you want but emphasizes to not infringe on personal rights and property rights that it's just a footnote. It can't really stop a psychopath from superseding her words and infringing on them. This is why you see a lot of crooked people use Ayn Rand as a motivator but also break the law whenever it suits them. I mostly see it as a central flaw of her philosophy in which there is specific elements of human nature that desires power over others because it gives a sense of gratification and no amount of philosophy can stop these people.

>>11098949
Yeah yeah, no one cares. You can't even addressed what you were laughing at in >>11098716 and just have to backpedal and say 'oh I wasn't laughing at the fact that Objectivist can't perceive reality, no I'm just laughing at something else entirely like Ayn Rand being worthless lololol'. If all you can do is laugh, why care? If you can't prove a contradiction, you have nothing to criticize.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 08:50:17 2018 No.11098966 >>11098660 in truth, wouldn't anything greater than ourselves or with the power to create us be a 'god'? the whole room is starting to sound like a bunch of filthy gypsies

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 08:53:47 2018 No.11098972 >>11098966 >in truth, wouldn't anything greater than ourselves or with the power to create us be a 'god'? Yes. As I argue, God is simply a being that is able to manipulate causality and break it.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 08:57:18 2018 No.11098986 Why are Randroids so autistic? Why do they write paragraphs what could be said in much less?

Anonymous Fri May 4 08:58:57 2018 No.11098991
File: 69 KB, 750x1084, amd-cruisemadmoney-jpg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11098962
>this Randroid rage that someone has mocked their ideology
Is she taken seriously by the philosophy department of any reputable university yet?
Also, you've really proved my point about being humorless haven't you?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 08:59:10 2018 No.11098992 She was half right.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 08:59:43 2018 No.11098997 >>11098991 I'm not humorless, I'm just annoyed that you haven't said anything but laugh.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 09:00:45 2018 No.11099000 >>11096117 Math is awful

Anonymous Fri May 4 09:02:02 2018 No.11099005

>>11098997
I've said lots. I've said Randroids are deluded. I've said they aren't capable of reading or understanding proper philosophy so they retreat to childish easy answers. I've said Rand is not taken seriously by any reputable university's philosophy department.

Anonymous Fri May 4 09:05:43 2018 No.11099017

>>11099005
>I've said lots. I've said Randroids are deluded.
Yet you haven't shown a contradiction.

>I've said they aren't capable of reading or understanding proper philosophy so they retreat to childish easy answers.
You've yet to point out proper philosophy or a hard question.

>I've said Rand is not taken seriously by any reputable university's philosophy department.
Repeating yourself isn't saying anything new.

Anonymous Fri May 4 09:10:16 2018 No.11099035

>>11099005
Yes you've said all the easy things I have seen people regurgitate over and over during the 15+ years after I discovered Rand.

But have you:
-Attack the argument instead of the person
-Not rely on strawmen
-Refer to specific quotations
-Actually use the arguments and reasoning of philosophers like Kant, Aquinas etc. to win the argument instead of just namedropping them
-Demonstrate your own superior understanding of philosophy instead of just saying you do, uh huh
-Show the absurdity of Objectivism instead of just saying it's ridiculous and not to be taken seriously

Anonymous Fri May 4 09:16:15 2018 No.11099070

>>11098962
It's worthy to note that Rand's morality is morality that even a psychopath could understand and use to act morally as a productive, useful member of society.

Contrast this to the popular conception of morality as "Do what you FEEL is right! Care about the FEELINGS of others! Your EMPATHY makes you act morally!" which psychopaths would just lol at while going around stabbing people.

Anonymous Fri May 4 09:21:54 2018 No.11099099

>>11098903
>. Causality ..
Do you mean in the sense of how we discovered/reached it?

>Scientist say..... Our reality is a rigid system,
The point I was trying to make there is the predictive power of deduction and reason over observation. Part of the issue with miracles is that they provide an argument for there are causal factors and elements that arent what we associate with what happens naturally/repetitivly.

>There is no evidence for it therefore it is worthless to care or consider.
Well there is the deductive evidince from figures like Aquinas, Aristotle, Averros, Plotinus and Leibniz. Then there is also the argument and evidence for miraculous accounts and stories of divine intervention.

>by ascribing a higher being to dictate your life, you're allowing yourself to be a slave to the whims of someone else, even if it were a higher being.
Not really (all the moreso when that being implants humans with free will) its no different than the say dictates of nature regarding smoking being bad for my lungs or that lifting progressively heavier things will make me stronger.

>Would you allow me to tell you how to live? It's slave morality and denies agency and strength.
You can tell me all you like its still ultimately my choice on how I act whether I choose to follow you or not is on me. Likewise if you possessed an extraordinary insight and intelligence would it not be irrational for me to simply ignore you off hand?

>It's illogical because there is evidence for it.
There is evidence for it even if you do not find it convincing.
>What's to say that all of causality isn't some wind god opening his bag to move anything as the cause for all effects?
Because causation tends to lead back to a single God rather than a being like a wind god.

>A man’s self is his mind—the faculty that perceives reality, forms judgments, chooses values.
If its not made of atoms and the like what is it actually composed of? It seems rather mystical for Rand.

>but it's the only metaphysics she would accept because anything else is needless
I can understand why she did this with normal people but this is probably one of the reasons other philosophers got iffy with this kind of modifying of terms.

>But other than that it is not needed.
Like I said earlier inorder to have a coherent notion of reality and non reality one needs to have a bunch of metaphysical views and these views have a lot of consequences. I will say though it is a word that has been abused by people.

>Semantics,
Which actually is something that gets very important when you want to go into real hardcore logic. But Im not clever enough to burrow into that.

>And it is what differentiates us from animals
This might actually shaken as we learn more about apes and some the parrots who seem to have basic abstractions such as size and shape.

>She would have laughed or fallen into despair.
Any idea on why this kind of mentality is actually greater in the post religious and communist era?

Anonymous Fri May 4 09:24:24 2018 No.11099109

>>11099070
That's an interesting way to see it. Culturally and historically, psychopaths were always negatively seen because they would destroy societal rules and annoy the collective. I still recall from somewhere a story about inuits that would randomly kill people that acted like psychopaths because they would endlessly fuck with everyone. Whenever people are found to be psychopaths, you immediately assume that they'll be serial killers and unable to have empathy, so they must be shunned. But so long as they do not infringe on personal and property right, they could be a productive useful person of society, and live a normal life. Ultimately, it's the actions that determine who you are, not whether you're born a certain way.

I think most people scoff too much at the 'rational' part of rational self interest.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 09:26:01 2018 No.11099120 >>11098605 *nihilism atheism brings Only the "leftist" (to borrow that worthless word) atheism is nihilistic. Relativism, atheism, and mysticism together is what breeds it

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 09:28:30 2018 No.11099131 At the end of the day all god is humanity anthropomorphizimg existence

Anonymous Fri May 4 09:30:26 2018 No.11099140

>By seeing whether they match reality and if they hold no contradictions. Just because you start from a subjective view does not mean it is forever confined from being subjective. The fact that gravity exists, and that I can confirm it, doesn't mean it's not objective. Similarly, Ayn Rand argues that the primary desire of life is to preserve itself, thereby making life an objective value. Do you not desire to live? Is it not valuable to be alive? Other than nihilist, everyone will agree on this, thus it becomes an objective value. From there, you can establish what matters to you selfish in a hierarchy.
interpersonal relations and society are not a scientific experiment. also no life is not inherently valuable. this is proved by pretty much every single children getting droned for geopolitical issues.

>Meaning taking heroin and living hedonistically by getting fucked up is not rational nor does it give you happiness.
what if it gives you real happiness? why would happiness be a productive member of society? since i should behave selfishly why i should give a fuck about creating and doing? how can you even define happiness in an objective way?

>Then you're living for an abstract rather than yourself.
i'm under the poverty line so real communism would impact myself in very tangible ways

>>11098669
i'm not the one trying to meme an unrealistic objective interpretation of reality. i don't like american exceptionalism in the same way i don't like islamic exceptionalism

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 09:37:58 2018 No.11099170 >>11096400 >>11099140

Anonymous Fri May 4 09:49:06 2018 No.11099213

>>11098856
I'll admit, again, I didn't autistically read all of that, just skimmed over most of it, but I think I already found the fundamental fallacy in it, which is basically the same one I already criticized.

>the first member of the chain must be purely actual, because otherwise it would depend on something else to actualize it
There's nothing to say the first member can't simply be something that has eternally unrealizeable potentials. Which is not even a radical proposition to make, as basically everything you can think of has eternally unrealizeable potentials. That's just what we call the impossible.

An imperfect God if you will.

We just come back to my original objection - he assumes there must be a perfect all-knowing God behind everything, even though the prime mover could basically be anything. (We don't know, really, but the Big Bang theory at least gives us a pointer. Time, space and energy all supposedly got their origins there - and those three are the "prime movers" for everything else that happens in the universe)

Everything else in this memepic, as always, is Aquinas going full retard exploring the implications of his founding argument. Then a lengthy critique of some anon making a weak, rambling, poorly worded argument against it.

The reasoning of Thomas of Aquinas seems very logical on the surface, but I think you need to be someone who really wants to believe in God, to not see the fundamental flaws in it.

Anonymous Fri May 4 09:54:59 2018 No.11099230

>>11099140
>i'm not the one trying to meme an unrealistic objective interpretation of reality. i don't like american exceptionalism in the same way i don't like islamic exceptionalism

"I don't like it" is a very weak argument if your aim is to prove something as not true.

Anonymous Fri May 4 09:56:08 2018 No.11099241

>>11099035
>Show the absurdity of Objectivism
You are doing this for me.
A hard question could be 'why does no reputable university philosophy department take Rand seriously?'
According to you she's solved all kinds of philosophical conundrums, how come she's a meme?

Anonymous Fri May 4 10:01:05 2018 No.11099274

>>11098505
>For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.

Shouldn't it be "“larger than any specific FINITE quantity.” instead?

Did she ever wrote anything about foundations of mathematics, like set theory?
What would be her opinion about the set of all natural numbers for instance? It does have an identity, it is well defined in first order logic, yet it is bigger (in the sense that it contains more elements) than any set theoric representation of a natural number.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 10:02:23 2018 No.11099283 >>11099230 i don't like it because i believe it's downright delusional to believe that a society got everything right and usually it just happens to be the society you're born in

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 10:02:29 2018 No.11099284 >>11099241 >A hard question could be 'why does no reputable university philosophy department take Rand seriously?' Stop being coy and ask a real hard question you moron.

Anonymous Fri May 4 10:12:27 2018 No.11099338

>>11099241
>You are doing this for me.
Or so you say.
>A hard question could be 'why does no reputable university philosophy department take Rand seriously?'
The answer is probably liberals.

I mean - obviously philosophy is a very ideological topic, and deals with topics that are very important to politically minded people. Objectivism is an especially political philosophy. Universities have the tendency to collect left-leaning ideologues. You only need to look at the huge clique of modern SJW's pivoted around universities today. You could see them as the culmination of the intellectual rot that Rand already saw in her day. Okay, that statement wasn't entirely honest. *I* see them as intellectual rot.

Why would such people have antipathies against Rand, I wonder, and how would this affect the adoption of her material into academic curriculum.

I say it would be naive to think there isn't any kind of ideological gatekeeping going on in that system, especially when it comes to "soft" sciences like philosophy.

Anonymous Fri May 4 10:15:09 2018 No.11099350

>>11099283
Rand didn't argue they got everything right. In fact she spent quite a lot of time arguing about everything that was wrong in America.

She chose to live in America because she saw the American system as being the *closest* that exists, to her ideal society.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 10:16:11 2018 No.11099354 >>11099350 Not to mention it wasn't even the society she was born in - she was from Russia.

Anonymous Fri May 4 10:32:02 2018 No.11099427

seriously, if you want to learn about ayn rand, read her books, watch her interviews.
there's no point here asking people here.
As said by rand herself, the only philosopher she would connect her ideas with is Aristotle.
Honestly, i would recommend reading the cave and the light, which argues that there are two ideas that guides the West, Platonic and Aristotelian. the philosopher kings of plato would means that humans need a higher authority to guide their lives, while Aristotelian thought would be that human reason individually.
You see so many retards attacking rand's character instead of her ideas, oh she took welfare when she's older, and some other bs.
No doubt you won't agree 100% with rand, but that't to be expected. eg, rand is for abortion, while i would have some reservations on the issue. But the fundamental ideas of rand are sound.
>metaphysics, objective reality exists regardless of consciousness
>epistemology, reason
>ethics, rational self interest
>politics, individualism, capitalism, 100% against collectivism

Anonymous Fri May 4 10:32:29 2018 No.11099430

>>11099350
why on earth should i derive my idea on american exceptionalism from what rand believed?
it was just an aswer to
>First you say common sense varies depending on society, then you cannot agree with the idea that a certain society has its own variation of common sense?
and
>"I don't like it" is a very weak argument if your aim is to prove something as not true.
to show that my logic was consistent

Anonymous Fri May 4 10:41:14 2018 No.11099462

>>11099241
why would you get your philosophy from some university department? are there any philosophers that were part of the academia? publishing papers read by no one but their students to get marks. academia is a shithole, it's so far from capitalism and you think they would like rand's ideas? Academia of today exists because of government subsidy.
and again your argument is pretty much arguing from authority.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 10:49:04 2018 No.11099497 >>11099462 B-but authority is how we know things are real!

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 10:57:55 2018 No.11099529 >>11097928 what if you told her she'd get in with higher ups in a fortune 500?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 11:35:24 2018 No.11099707 >>11098986 maybe we just enjoy our language and 'not being illiterate socialist scum'?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 11:37:54 2018 No.11099723 >>11098413 Aren't a lot of us here collectivists by nature, though?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 11:39:44 2018 No.11099741 >>11099241 maybe she is just a meme to bottom-feeding university parasites like yourself? what have you accomplished that fairly compares with her?

Anonymous Fri May 4 11:45:11 2018 No.11099770

>>11099723
Only if you care more about the group than individuals. If you love an author, do you like their work or the fact that he is a good author from X location. If anything, it should be taken as a trivial information more than a representative of the author or the collective he represents at birth.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 11:54:44 2018 No.11099820 Her ability to turn everyone who reads Atlas Shrugged into an asshole for about 6 months is fairly genius.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 13:04:25 2018 No.11100189 >>11099338 >liberals I'll admit I was expecting 'jews'

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 13:05:13 2018 No.11100192 >small government! >also die for israel stupid goyim

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 13:59:46 2018 No.11100462 >>11099707 Brevity is the soul of wit, writing long paragraphs what could be said in a few concise sentences for an online argument is just being a needlessly pedantic asshat.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 14:03:13 2018 No.11100485 >>11099338 The average pseud mind >if no one agrees with my philosophical mommy it's because there's a cabal of bad people who ostracize her :(

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 14:17:31 2018 No.11100548 >>11099035 Presumptive destroys of Rand never acheive a single point on you list and avoid it at all costs. Case in point >>11099241

Anonymous Fri May 4 14:22:15 2018 No.11100564

>>11099241
A hard question could be 'why does no reputable university philosophy department take Rand seriously?'
You asked for it faggot, I have an answer and you are not going to like it.

See the entrenched government-assisted academic's motivation is one of stagnation. Rand represented a philosophic paradigm shift of a magnitude only twice before witnessed in the persons of Aristotle and John Locke. This carried very grave implications for a particular breed of academic (this is also the perogative of /lit/'s small to medium r/philosophy neetfag contingent). Ayn Rand's Objectivism posited conceptual integration on a level no other philosopher had before. She also coined many original logical fallacies, the term "psycho-epistemology", and was the first to identify the true nature of Altruism's evil. Including it among their (academics) other disparate half formed, half actualized "philosophies", they find it eats everything it comes into contact with. This disrupts their vested interest in keeping a fanciful salad-esque collection of philosophies to catalog away and do nothing objectively meritous with it on their own terms. Despite what these sorts of people would have to say it isn't Ayn Rand but academia as it stands that is "the joke".

I have named this phenomenon "Collectathon Philosophizing".

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 14:26:04 2018 No.11100583 File: 60 KB, 350x510, 1484502193128.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11099820 And then there's assholes like me who turn it permanent after reading her nonfiction.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 14:28:44 2018 No.11100598 >>11097928 >women >not selfishly relishing the texture and excitement of swallowing a dick

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 17:29:55 2018 No.11101532 >>11100485 >philosophical mommy >implying I don't see Ayn Rand as a father figure

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 17:39:03 2018 No.11101580 >>11087448 She was probably high IQ, she just had a very dogmatic attitude.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 17:41:17 2018 No.11101594 File: 13 KB, 196x178, 1522271557958.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11100583 are you proud of that for some reason?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 17:44:08 2018 No.11101620 >>11101594 Assholes has invisible triple quotations around it

Anonymous Fri May 4 17:49:02 2018 No.11101656

>>11101580
What you call dogma she called ironclad principles.
Treating the words "dogma" and " ideologue" as automatic negatives is the biggest brainlet meme in the culture today.
The two are hardly similar but Zizek and Peterson both do it. That pseud fallacy.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 18:26:11 2018 No.11101829 >>11100564 Okay anon. I'll keep a note of that. And to think they waste their time with Wittgenstein or Foucault when they could be doing so much better

Anonymous Fri May 4 19:00:33 2018 No.11102020

>>11101829
Even inconsistent philosophers provide valid and novel insight. Seldom a philosopher is 100% incontrovertibly worthless on all topics. People found and find them stimulating for a reason and the dilemma they attempted to tackle deserve consideration if only for the reason that the attempt was novel and activated almonds.
Even Derrida is not a waste of time... not completely.

Anonymous Fri May 4 19:39:04 2018 No.11102202

>>11102020
Rand was correct about everything but 'god' though. She put to paper the very best abilities of mankind standing on his own. You belittle her her with under-praise, as if her ideas were toss-offs from a ship. She has shaped intelligent American thought nearly as much as the KJ Bible. Give her her due.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 19:48:26 2018 No.11102257 >>11102202 I'm the Randian that penned >>11100564 >>11095240 just fyi I was referring to philosophers other than her

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 20:11:16 2018 No.11102340 >>11087448 She was kinda qt.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 20:13:36 2018 No.11102350 >>11102020 >Even inconsistent philosophers provide valid and novel insight. yeah but rand wasn't a philosopher

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 20:17:55 2018 No.11102367 >>11102350 (You)

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 20:27:32 2018 No.11102406 >>11102257 Ok. My apologies. I take Mrs. Rand very seriously.

Anonymous Fri May 4 20:29:10 2018 No.11102411
File: 1.31 MB, 1704x2272, ayn-hickman-copy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11098936
>>11098962
Hardly, she found it fascinating and was actually most interested with society's hypocritical reaction to him and she desired to write something capturing the essence of the phenomenon.
Pic related.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 20:30:17 2018 No.11102416 >>11102406 I wasn't wholly clear. My fault. Should have phrased it better.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 20:35:38 2018 No.11102434 File: 38 KB, 426x341, 1519103112436.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11100598

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 20:35:50 2018 No.11102437 >>11102411 wgaf if she did like the fella? some niggas in power right now openly like Hitler, Farrakhan, Khomeini, and far worse. fuck you thought police, you don't know what will inspire what

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 20:38:12 2018 No.11102447 >>11102416 Non-sense, I should have gathered that from the context of your conversation versus the plebian. I simply overreacted to a perceived but non-existent slight. Again, my apologies.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 20:41:08 2018 No.11102461 >>11102447 No fag MY apologies.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 20:42:13 2018 No.11102467 >>11102461 nigga fuck you, i said i mutha fuckin apologize and i fucking meant it.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 20:43:29 2018 No.11102474 File: 43 KB, 597x469, 1523947234301.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11102467 No u

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 20:46:30 2018 No.11102486 >>11102474 fine nigga, damn. buggin an shit muhfucka, ain no thang but a chicken wang. love, peace, and hair-grease.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 20:53:16 2018 No.11102512 >>11102486 lel good round of bantsydoos we had their m80

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 21:01:33 2018 No.11102547 >>11102512 indeed. >tut

Anonymous Fri May 4 21:01:38 2018 No.11102549

>>11087448
She was very smart. She understood that a ton of peoole were idologically cucked and the most important things are:
1. Water, food, shelter
2. Dick, pussy
3. Money

Not really in that order and the needs overlap, I know. Philosohers like Evola and even tryants like Caligula understood this but the sheer length of her books is what made her famous because of their re-programming potential. Y’all think she could have gotten famous with a pamphlet or too? Not immersive enough.

Anonymous Fri May 4 21:11:11 2018 No.11102578

>>11102549
it was completely immersive. she gave you everything from a char's desires, and reasons for them, straight through there thought processes, self-analysis, and personal awareness. Hank Reardon was autistic as fuck, but he was a pimp cuz he made super-metal. The man literally stepped on every landmine and into the trap from the very beginning by never getting to know Wesley Mouch. seriously, wtf more do you need from her to get to know a thing?

Anonymous Fri May 4 21:15:28 2018 No.11102596
File: 39 KB, 261x381, 7f9e3523cf5c1c50282be671c51ea063--ayn-rand-bernstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11096985
>>11096779
>>11098665
I had made a good reply to you guys but my browser ate it. Just worked up the will to make it again.

The clearest manner in which to understand what she is talking about on the differences betseen the faculties of man and animals is this part from TVOS. This is my favorite peice of her writing of all time and is actually the best way to understand her epistemology from the ground up. Pastebin coming shortly.
Rand identified that their are fundamentally 4 classes of living entity and they are subsumed under these 4 words:
Function (plants and similar organisms)
Sensation (the lower animals)
Perception (the higher animals)
Conception (man)
The 4th class of living entity possesses all 4 of these faculties… the 3rd it's unique faculty + the lower 2, and so on.
https://pastebin.com/XaLszVpM

Anonymous Fri May 4 21:39:51 2018 No.11102688

>>11102596
i'm happy to see you are being creative and all, but we have no clue as to the limits of any form of life. We could be here simply to spread fertilizer and soil for plants. we splash around the cosmos blindly applying good Occam's razor with no idea what might lie beyond, behind, or within things. I have no problem with operating based on perceived reality- but don't dare tell me you or anyone knows the 'order' of life. you don't even know the end.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 21:58:16 2018 No.11102773 >>11102688 The fact that we decay and that happens is simply metaphysically given. Their is no purpose involved as you are implying. You do not attempt to apply the concept of "purpose" to Metaphysics. Not even god-positing metaphysics.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 22:08:21 2018 No.11102819 >>11102773 Wtf does 'decay' have to do with it? if you had a 'soul', would you know it? if you were created for a purpose, would you know the purpose? do you even understand the purpose of my mentioning Occam and the context?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 22:16:54 2018 No.11102847 >>11094650 Peterson's only exposure to postmodernism is Stephen Hick's horrible book. Peterson has literally never read a primary source in his life. I doubt he's even read Jung.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 22:21:12 2018 No.11102859 She was a grifter, just like every other right wing "intellectual."

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 22:26:26 2018 No.11102870 >>11087448 she was a sperglord ie. she would have been a 4channer

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 22:32:21 2018 No.11102887 >>11102819 You said >We could be here simply to spread fertilizer and soil for plants To which I referenced decay as a directly related prior concomitant. The fuck are you on about?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 22:36:02 2018 No.11102898 >>11102859 It's only because you place capitialism and individualism in popularly cited pacakage deal fallacy known as the "right" that you can even place her in it. She's no-compromise pro-abortion anon. How right wing of her.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 22:43:25 2018 No.11102926 >>11102887 i meant by shitting out the remains of fruit we eat. you produce a lot manure through shitting than dying you tard. also, if you are dead, how would you 'spread' it? think before you speak nerd

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 22:45:52 2018 No.11102934 >>11102898 but she was pro-choice for the right reasons. terrible people shouldn't reproduce- i.e. minorities and socialist whites

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 22:48:01 2018 No.11102940 Why do cranks hate Kant so much?

Anonymous Fri May 4 22:48:13 2018 No.11102941

>>11102847
Peterson may or may not get his sources second-hand only but that is irrelevant. I have assessed directly that his argument is (very) generally correct with only slight inacuracies.
He's the type to be original as he can muster first and do all the rest second. People can thrive on this approach to various degrees OR render their argument ineffectual. It depends. I have simply identified his view to be -sufficently-
valid concerning PM.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 22:50:00 2018 No.11102946 File: 378 KB, 682x461, 1467247322809.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11102926 I am clearly talking to a teenager.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 4 22:55:14 2018 No.11102965 >>11102934 *socialist minorities

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 00:42:10 2018 No.11103342 >>11102965 minorities are only socialist because they were/are raised to be that way be degenerate whites. the white socialists are the ultimate enemy. i give some leniency to Communists, but only because of their strong military and history between US

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 00:43:58 2018 No.11103346 >>11102946 do fish cry tears made of air?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 00:45:10 2018 No.11103348 >>11103346 does the pope shit in the woods?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 00:58:29 2018 No.11103394 >>11102946 I mistyped a bit there obviously, but still, I think my meaning is clear- you have no more certainty of things than anyone else, and you certainly haven't offered any evidence against that.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 03:45:16 2018 No.11103933 >>11102941 >I have simply identified his view to be -sufficently valid concerning PM But he doesn't know what PM is, and by this post neither do you.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 03:46:20 2018 No.11103935 >>11102898 Abortion is right wing. Personal freedom more important than a new life etc

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 08:21:52 2018 No.11104535 >>11102941 >I have assessed directly lol, "no worries guys I totally verified it!"

Anonymous Sat May 5 08:25:12 2018 No.11104540

>>11102411
>a Hickman with a purpose
Come on now, how is that literally not 'psychopathy but not breaking personal or private property'? The whole 'she was interested in how other people saw the serial killer' might be seen in how Roark blew up a building but it's likely more about the indifference found in psychopathy that she admired but disliked his actions. To which I will still say that she was right as many head of companies are psychopaths, and so long as you follow the law it shouldn't matter whether you are one.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 08:26:25 2018 No.11104541 >>11102596 Interesting. I wonder if there's a level beyond conception. Though, of course, Ayn Rand hated those that advocated for 'evolution', so it's a moot question.

Anonymous Sat May 5 08:43:59 2018 No.11104582

>>11104535
Meaning I read him and found what was being said reasonable and only marginally inaccurate. No I did not cross reference it with post modernist thought and literature. Mostly because I had already done that when verifying the veracity of far superior objectivist critique on PM.

Anonymous Sat May 5 08:54:52 2018 No.11104604

>>11104541
Well science fiction and religion have already cooked up ones in some kind of psychic hivemind eusociality (think Mass Effect Reapers) and God's omniscience respectively.
These are both in the realm of the fantastical however so they are worthless to contemplate.

Anonymous Sat May 5 09:25:04 2018 No.11104681

She's a redpill.

Here are the redpills:

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, PhD - 12 Rules for Life
Stefan Molyneux, M.A. - Universally Preferable Behavior
Milo Yiannopoulos - Dangerous
Charles Murray - The Bell Curve
Mike Cernovich - Maga Mindset
Jonah Goldberg - Liberal Fascism
Ann Coulter - In Trump We Trust
Scott Lamb - The Faith of Donald Trump
President Donald J. Trump, B.S. - The Art of the Deal
Patrick J. Buchanan - The Death of the West
William Luther Pierce - The Turner Diaries
Jean Respail - The Camp of the Saints
Roosh V - Bang
Michelle Malkin - In Defense of Internment
Bill O'Reilly - Those Who Trespass
Ludwig von Mises - Socialism
Murray Rothbard - the Case Against the Fed
Aleister Crowley - The Book of Lies
Robert Greene - The 48 Laws of Power
Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion
David Icke - Children of the Matrix
Debi Pearl and Michael Pearl - To Train Up a Child
Ashida Kim - Ninja Death Touch
Rhonda Byrne - The Secret
Steven Seagal - The Way of the Shadow Wolves
Sayyid Qutb - Milestones
Bethany Baird and Kristen Clark - Girl Defined
Pat Robertson - The New World Order
Jesse Lee Peterson - Scam
Kim Jong Il - On the Art of the Cinema
Julius Evola - Ride the Tiger
Giovanni Gentile - The Doctrine of Fascism
Sadhguru - Inner Engineering
Osho - Tarot Zen
Savitri Devi - Forever & Ever
David Horowitz - Big Agenda
Vijay Jojo Chokal-Ingam - Almost Black
Oral Roberts - The Miracle of Seed-Faith
Jasmuheen - Living on Light
Jerry Falwell - The New American Family
Frank Dux - The Secret Man
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Adolf Hitler - My New Order
Varg Vikernes - Vargsmal
Ayn Rand - The Virtue of Selfishness
Martin Luther - On the Jews and Their Lies

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 09:26:03 2018 No.11104683 >>11104681 You forgot On Women

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 11:29:22 2018 No.11105105 >>11104582 >veracity of far superior objectivist critique on PM. Please anon, I'm begging you. Please don't leave us hanging. For the love of god please link us to an objectivist critique of PM. Have you got one for Foucault?

Anonymous Sat May 5 11:41:01 2018 No.11105170
File: 101 KB, 600x910, c85b37103a91c0ec88cf9b1ebca32da0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11099241
>this innocuous post has the most replies in this thread
>To feel so desperately that you're right, yet to fail, all the same. Dread it. Run from it. Destiny still arrives.

Anonymous Sat May 5 12:53:46 2018 No.11105527

>>11102688
If we were created to not know our purpose, it's because whoever created us does not deem it necessary for us to know our purpose, and we would fulfill our purpose regardless just by acting like there is no knowable purpose.

It would still be rational to act like a self-determined egotist.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 13:02:53 2018 No.11105560 >>11105527 The rational thing to do is to sell everything you own, give the money to the poor, and follow Jesus

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 13:09:37 2018 No.11105595 >>11100189 That would be uncomfortable considering Alisa Rosenbaum's ancestry

Anonymous Sat May 5 13:33:34 2018 No.11105726

>>11102202
>Rand was correct about everything but 'god' though
I guess this 'god' is not the Christian God.

Most of everything in Rand's philosophy, as well as in the American lifestyle in general, goes directly against the teachings of Christ, which were about self-sacrifice, self-denial, throwing yourself to the mercy of God and willingly living in poverty.

>>11105560
Like this fucker here.

Anonymous Sat May 5 14:12:18 2018 No.11105918

>>11105105
You asked for it.
http://www.solohq.org/Articles/Younkins/The_Plague_of_Postmodernism.shtml
http://www.academia.edu/30003365/Objectivism_The_Proper_Alternative_to_Postmodernism
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Long/Two_Cheers_for_Modernity.shtml
https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/deeper-dive-blog/4396-defining-postmodernism

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 14:51:24 2018 No.11106116 >>11087448 anyone who says the objetive in life is to work and get mad rich and hella famous through massive enterprises has my blessing

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 14:55:49 2018 No.11106134 File: 3.12 MB, 3264x2448, Keks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11105918 Good stuff anon. We'll show those fancy professors who the real intellectuals are

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 16:14:09 2018 No.11106539 >>11106134 You asked for sources and once given them you didn't even try to make a point and instead just vomited out an ad hom & authority fallacy. You're a cretin.

Anonymous Sat May 5 16:43:44 2018 No.11106684

>>11105527
you are just vomiting up word-salad at this point- it really shows the quality of your intake. you do not and could never fully understand a 'creator' or it's capabilities. how could you? it will always have some 'magic' to overtake you- how could it be otherwise? this non-sense you are spewing is just the hubris and hysterics of a young mind. go headbutt another young buck a few times, maybe it will do you some good.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 16:46:54 2018 No.11106700 >>11105726 'god' may not be 'Christian', but the will of a Judeo god, whether Christ be His Son or not, is His own and not tied to Christ. We are not Catholic scum.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 17:09:58 2018 No.11106825 File: 68 KB, 773x1000, flat,1000x1000,075,f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11106539 >implying I wanted you to post links because I was curious intellectually

>>	Anonymous Sat May 5 19:19:31 2018 No.11107450 >>11106825 So all bark no bite then? As typical of Rand mockery. Lol to you too my good friend.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature