/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15310226]

>Yes, Ayn Rand was autistic
>Yes, she was gross
>Yes, her prose is awful
>Yes, she was a "hypocrite" (accepted welfare)
>Yes, /pol/, she was a Jew\
>Yes, her fans are obnoxious
Without retarded ad hom or disingenuous arguments, explain why Objectivism itself is bad. Keeping in mind that:
>Its values are Reason, Purpose, Self Esteem
>Its virtues are Pride, Integrity, Honesty, Justice, Productiveness, Rationality, Independence

[Anonymous No.15310233]

exploitation

[Anonymous No.15310249]

>>15310226
>"you have to be selfish but not too much because that's bad"
>"why?"
>"it's objective you wouldn't understand"
I don't agree with Stirner but at least he had the balls to push these ideas to their logical conclusion. If you want to value selfishness above all you can't just say it's somehow morally wrong to kill others and base it on nothing.

[Anonymous No.15310251]

>>15310226
It's just a dumbed down rehearsal of Nietzsche meant to justify the explanation of 99.9999% of the human race by the a couple few

[Anonymous No.15310261]

>>15310251
*Exploration

[Anonymous No.15310267]

>>15310233
Explain.
>>15310249
But it's not the logical conclusion to kill others. Perhaps you could say the moral element of Objectivism to do no harm to others except in self-defense is stupid. But killing others would be a net negative in the long run.

[Anonymous No.15310280]

>>15310226
The great works of our world are not the product of one man's musings, but the collective labor of thousands of people.

[Anonymous No.15310290]

>>15310280
But you can't have a collective thought.

[Anonymous No.15310296]

>>15310290
>But you can't have a collective thought.
What do you think humans are?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.15310300]

reason is garbage. a crutch for midwit bugpeople

[Anonymous No.15310307]

>>15310226
she doesn't go far enough in her egoism, her egoism stops the moment you want to extend your egoism over someone else's property. read Stirner

[Anonymous No.15310308]

>>15310226
>explain why Objectivism itself is bad
Because Ayn Rand was an awful, gross, autistic, hypocritical Jew whose fans are all obnoxious.

[Anonymous No.15310310]

>>15310267
Why would it inherently be a net negative to kill someone according to objectivism? In many cases it would be, but not inherently. The whole morality framework of objectivism is stupid and based on nothing. With the same set of assumptions, Nietzsche/Stirner develop a much more internally consistent philosophy. Rand was not a philosopher and it seems she was trying to reconcile objectivism with the accepted morality framework of the time (Christianity).

[Anonymous No.15310314]

>>15310267
>But it's not the logical conclusion to kill others
Yeah it is faggot, prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.15310319]

>>15310300
>midwit bugpeople
>t. literal bugperson

[Anonymous No.15310346]

>>15310280

What does this even mean? Da Vinci couldn't have painted the Mona Lisa if he hadn't had food to eat and a chamber pot to shit in? So we live in a society? Big think bro.

[Anonymous No.15310352]

>>15310296
lel what?
>>15310300
>mysticman calls others else bugpeople

[Anonymous No.15310357]

>>15310308
Kill urself my man

[Anonymous No.15310364]

>>15310307
>Its values are Reason, Purpose, Self Esteem
>Its virtues are Pride, Integrity, Honesty, Justice, Productiveness, Rationality, Independence
None of those things are either held to the same universal standards, or have in their goal to leading effectively towards good.

[Anonymous No.15310368]

>>15310346
>renaissance artist
>not the product of an entire society, even civilization collectively working to push art forward

your art history is showing anon

[Anonymous No.15310376]

>>15310261
third time lucky perhaps?

[Anonymous No.15310377]

>>15310261
are you trying to say exploitation?

[Anonymous No.15310378]

>>15310290
What? If a thought is not approved by the collective, then it disappears in history.

[Anonymous No.15310386]

>>15310378
approval =/= generation

[Anonymous No.15310399]

>>15310368

>Implying 'society' pushed Leo

His parents might have, his teachers might have. They are individuals, not some faceless collective.
As for the societal conditions that allowed him to succeed (see food and chamber pot, plus perhaps the existence of an economy in which people pay for art), that has literally jack shit to do with the art itself. Let me reiterate: it's true, but it doesn't influence the art other than allowing the person who makes it to survive.

[Anonymous No.15310424]

>>15310226
Read Nozick's thoughts on Rand. He has a similar worldview, but is not an irrational pseud like Ayn.

[Anonymous No.15310441]

>>15310267
You kill people if and when it profits you and you can get away with it if you're taking selfishness to the extreme unless you have some attachment to more traditional forms of morality. If I could kill you for a quarter and not get caught I should if literally all I care about is my own self interest

[Anonymous No.15310446]

>>15310399
His parents and teachers are in turn influenced by others,l. These influences are of course individuals. Yet, if you try to understand the chain of causality behind any one thought or creation, the amount of individuals involved is so great to the point where it doesn't make sense to view them all individually.
Also, the art is thoroughly influenced by the conditions in which it is created, both material and intellectual. You're right in some sense- an artist has a very intimate relationship with their work. However, take the larger projects of civilization- these are all directly contributed to by thousands, indirectly by millions.

[Anonymous No.15310459]

>>15310441

Lmao that's the most farfetch'd strawman I've ever seen, congrats.

According to objectivism no one has a right to the things that belong to another, typically this is framed as 'hur dur that's selfish you need to share (read: gibs)'.
Obviously your life belongs to you, so it's not within my rights to take it. So does the quarter in your example. An objectivist 'depends on nothing', so he wouldn't need your quarter, let alone kill you for it.
Actually read authors before you criticize them online. I think some criticisms of Rand are perfectly legitimate but this is just autism tier.
2/10 made me respond.

[Anonymous No.15310462]

reason, applied dispassionately is the death of everything.

only emotion and instincts allow life to survive.

[Anonymous No.15310482]

>>15310226
>slavery is good bro lmao
Easy to say when you have a gigantic kickstart and you're in the winning side.

[Anonymous No.15310507]

>>15310482

[Anonymous No.15310544]

>>15310482

She literally grew up in Soviet Russia lmao what are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.15310545]

>>15310226
Reason was a popular edgy college rag for a while, reading Ayn Rand was a cool thin to do in the 60s-80s.
These things come and go, not unlike a certain other fringe barely supportable ideology nowadays.
Jeez almost like they're post-hoc rationalizations for life situations which you have no control over

[Anonymous No.15310547]

>>15310226
>her prose is awful
Shouldn't that be "her prose ARE awful"?

[Anonymous No.15310555]

>>15310226
How is individualism rationalist? This is enlightenment propaganda

[Anonymous No.15310563]

>>15310547

[Anonymous No.15310591]

>>15310544
I was talking about her philosophy, not about her, OP said not to argue with ad hominem. In her ideal world the already rich become even richer. She puts the rich in a pedestal, doesn't she?

[Anonymous No.15310711]

>She unironically said this

This statement alone proves she was a brainlet in gnoseology.

[Anonymous No.15310714]

>>15310591

>In her ideal world

Rand's work isn't prescriptive, it's descriptive. Her novels are more about what a good man is and isn't, not about how the world ought to be.
And her good characters are by and large not rich and powerful at all. Especially in for instance, Anthem, her main characters are basically slaves that try to escape a system that is largely ideological, but also partly economic.
Howard Roark in the Fountainhead is implied to be an orphan, and struggles financially because he refuses to compromise his work for a paycheck. The 'bad guys' are Peter Keating, a preppy rich kid who finds much more monetary success and prestige in Architecture than Roark, and Ellsworth M. Toohey who is a high society art collector and author, and highly influential.
So no, objectivism is not about rich = good, poor = bad, not at all.

[Anonymous No.15310719]

Reason is participatory. There is a heterogenesis of ends in a system that professes rationality on one hand, and atheism, individualism and self-making on the other. Eventually, and in fact, I think we can make the case empirically, the latter principles destroy the former.
Please note that “participatory” does not mean “inter subjective” or any such bullshit. In fact, inter-subjectivity is precisely what Rand’s system resolves to once the contradictions are exposed.

[Anonymous No.15310722]

>>15310711
OHNONONONONO THIS THE PLEBS' HERO??

[Anonymous No.15310730]

>>15310300
Fuck off tripfag

[Anonymous No.15310734]

>>15310719

>Implying atheism is irrational

Atheism is lots of things. It's shallow, it lacks substance, and it might even be untrue. It is however not irrational, not even a little.

[Anonymous No.15310753]

>>15310734
I disagree.
And now you have an insurmountable problem.

[Anonymous No.15310758]

>>15310719

Rational doesn't mean 'things I agree with' you raging pseud.

[Anonymous No.15310764]

>>15310758
It quite literally does. Reason is subjective.

[Anonymous No.15310824]

>>15310758
But it does rely on the concept of the givenness an uncreated order to which the mind can submit.
You will find that deriving such an order within atheism, especially the kinds of atheism most prevalent on this board, though I don’t know what you believe.

[Anonymous No.15310845]

>>15310764

If we use that definition then your original statement
>There is a heterogenesis of ends in a system that professes rationality on one hand, and atheism, individualism and self-making on the other.
Is nonsensical because then rationality can just mean 'lul whatever' depending on who says it. So which is it?

[Anonymous No.15310846]

>“You’re a wizard, Harry,” Hagrid said. “And you’re coming to Hogwarts.” “What’s Hogwarts?” Harry asked. “It’s wizard school.” “It’s not a public school, is it?” “No, it’s privately run.” “Good. Then I accept. Children are not the property of the state; everyone who wishes to do so has the right to offer educational goods or services at a fair market rate. Let us leave at once.”
>“Malfoy bought the whole team brand-new Nimbus Cleansweeps!” Ron said, like a poor person. “That’s not fair!” “Everything that is possible is fair,” Harry reminded him gently. “If he is able to purchase better equipment, that is his right as an individual. How is Draco’s superior purchasing ability qualitatively different from my superior Snitch-catching ability?” “I guess it isn’t,” Ron said crossly. Harry laughed, cool and remote, like if a mountain were to laugh. “Someday you’ll understand, Ron.”
>Professor Snape stood at the front of the room, sort of Jewishly. “There will be no foolish wand-waving or silly incantations in this class. As such, I don’t expect many of you to appreciate the subtle science and exact art that is potion-making. However, for those select few who possess, the predisposition…I can teach you how to bewitch the mind and ensnare the senses. I can tell you how to bottle fame, brew glory, and even put a stopper in death.” Harry’s hand shot up. “What is it, Potter?” Snape asked, irritated. “What’s the value of these potions on the open market?” “What?” “Why are you teaching children how to make these valuable products for ourselves at a schoolteacher’s salary instead of creating products to meet modern demand?” “You impertinent boy–“ “Conversely, what’s to stop me from selling these potions myself after you teach us how to master them?” “I–“ “This is really more of a question for the Economics of Potion-Making, I guess. What time are econ lessons here?” “We have no economics lessons in this school, you ridiculous boy.” Harry Potter stood up bravely. “We do now. Come with me if you want to learn about market forces!” The students poured into the hallway after him. They had a leader at last.

[Anonymous No.15310851]

>>15310824
Phone ate a clause of that last sentence: you will find deriving such an order difficult without conjuring up something that maps to “creator God,” this violating the most basic criterion of atheism.

[Anonymous No.15310859]

>>15310846
>Harry and Ron stood before the Mirror of Erised. “My God,” Ron said. “Harry, it’s your dead parents.” Harry’s eyes flicked momentarily over to the mirror. “So it is. This information is neither useful nor productive. Let us leave at once, to assist Hagrid in his noble enterprise of raising as many dragon eggs as he sees fit, in spite of our country’s unjust dragon-trading restrictions.” “But it’s your parents, Harry,” Ron said. Ron never really got it. Harry sighed. “The fundamental standard for all relationships is the trader principle, Ron.” “I don’t understand,” Ron said. “Of course you don’t,” said Harry affectionately. “This principle holds that we should interact with people on the basis of the values we can trade with them – values of all sorts, including common interests in art, sports or music, similar philosophical outlooks, political beliefs, sense of life, and more. Dead people have no value according to the trader principle.” “But they gave birth to y–“ “I made myself, Ron,” Harry said firmly.
>“Give me your wand, boy,” Voldemort hissed. “I cannot do that. This wand represents my wealth, which is itself a tangible result of my achievements. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think,” Harry said bravely. Voldemort gasped. “There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist.” Voldemort began to melt. Harry lit a cigarette, because he was the master of fire. “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. The minimum wage is a tax on the successful. The market will naturally dictate the minimum wage without the government stepping in to determine arbitrary limits.” Voldemort howled. “I’m going to sell copies of my wand at an enormous markup,” Harry said, “and you can buy one like everyone else.” Voldemort had been defeated. “He hated us for our freedom,” Ron said. “No, Ron,” Harry said. “He hated us for our free markets.” Hermione ached with desire for the both of them to master her, but nobody paid her any attention. They had empires to build.

[Anonymous No.15310895]

>>15310711
Imagine Kant and Rand debating each other.

[Anonymous No.15311004]

>>15310563
I'll interpret that as a "yes".

[Anonymous No.15311018]

>>15310846
>>15310859

kek'd heartily

[Anonymous No.15311036]

Atlas Shrugged is the only book I've read that I wish I hadn't.

[Anonymous No.15311043]

>>15311036
What kept you from simply stopping before finishing?

[Anonymous No.15311044]

>>15310226
>>Yes, she was a "hypocrite" (accepted welfare)
How is this hypocrisy? If the system provides "free money" it is in your self-interest to take it.

[Anonymous No.15311045]

>>15310851
>you will find deriving such an order difficult without conjuring up something that maps to “creator God,”

I don't have to derive the order to act rationally at all, in fact I don't even have to think about the order itself, they are separate subjects.
Whether the order exists due to a creator God, is a part of God itself (as in Spinoza) or whether the order (or rather the way the mind interprets it) is the product of biological evolution is irrelevant to the individual, who remains the one who acts within, or without reason.

[Anonymous No.15311053]

>>15311043
I was really hoping that it might get better and then there were only 200 pages left so I just pushed on.

[Anonymous No.15311058]

>>15311044
She would call these type of people "parasites", though.

[Anonymous No.15311069]

>>15310226
>Without retarded ad hom or disingenuous arguments, explain why Objectivism itself is bad.
It's not 'bad,' it's just not compelling to most people. No idea if taken to the logical conclusion is 'bad' in itself. A bad idea is one that isn't developed fully. Basically this. >>15310249

[Anonymous No.15311093]

>>15311058
Admittedly I don't know much about her but she was once asked whether she supported her partner financially and she responded that even if she did, it wouldn't go against her views, because things like charity, welfare, etc., are permissible in her eyes if the person giving/taking is doing it voluntarily.

Basically I find the general principle one of honesty. We all do shit for our own self-interest, including donating and supporting others, but we very easily delude ourselves into thinking we're righteous.

[Anonymous No.15311104]

>>15311045
If you don’t have to know much about the order then how do you know you are confirmed to it? How do you know there aren’t a plurality of orders? In fact if we take the atheistic view of the world that Darwin revealed, it seems that our minds are oriented towards survival, not reason, nor the truth.

[Anonymous No.15311175]

>>15310226
It only values certain definitions of pride, integrity, justice, productiveness, rationality, and independence. Definitions that, when writ large, are enormously harmful to the species and the planet.

[Anonymous No.15311317]

>>15310226
>assuming autism is real
Anon....

[Anonymous No.15311333]

>>15310267
>But killing others would be a net negative in the long run
Massive, massive baseless assertion. Prove it.

[Anonymous No.15312092]

>>15310226
Ahem

[Anonymous No.15313034]

>>15310310
It isn't inherently negative to kill someone according to objectivism. An objectivist would say that it's not a reasonable way to go about life. You'll probably get caught, feel immense remorse, or be killed/injured by the person you are trying to kill.
This criticism is like saying if Epicurus is so gay for maximizing pleasure then why don't hedonists advocate doing heroine all day?

[Anonymous No.15313051]

>>15310462
Reason and passion are not mutually exclusive. Her novels are steeped in romanticism but you don't know that because you're a psued talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.15313060]

>>15310734
It is completely irrational. The rational position for someone who does not believe in god would be agnosticism.

[Anonymous No.15313692]

>>15310846
>Snape stood at the front of the room, sort of Jewishly
It's hilarious. But also stupid, given that Rand was a Jew herself.

[Anonymous No.15313704]

>>15310859
>Hermione ached with desire for the both of them to master her, but nobody paid her any attention. They had empires to build.
Total Chads
>>15311175
Total Faggot

[Anonymous No.15313707]

>>15313060

No, that's wrong. You are confusing "positive" atheism with the dictionary definition, its negative sense.

[Anonymous No.15313788]

>>15310226
> Shitty metaphysics
Laughable Aristotelean sophistry "you can't say existence doesn't exist, because by doing so you accept the principle of existence"
> Shitty ethics
Selfishness is good, but by selfishness I mean rational selfishness. You can't just cheat and steal from other people, that's not selfishness because it's irrational.
> Shitty politics
"Capitalism" converges towards monopolies and ultimately slavery.

[Anonymous No.15313810]

>>15310233
>Building a foundation of independence, self-esteem, and self control
>Inorder to make the individual more exploitable
What did anon mean by this? Lol