[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 11 KB, 220x329, 220px-Ayn_Rand_by_Talbot_1943.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15330504 No.15330504 [Reply] [Original]

Objectivism is a morally sound philosphy. Anyone who hates on her either hasn't read enough of her work, or they have never read it.

>> No.15330515

I dislike her followers and therefore conclude she was either an idiot or incredibly bad at making her position clear.

>> No.15330516

>>15330504
tell that to 98% of academic philosophers, you'll get laughed at

>> No.15330535

>>15330504
you don't know what 'moral', 'sound', and 'philosophy' means. please kill yourself out of embarrassment, you will never amount to anything if you feel no shame for your pathetic existence.

>> No.15330673

>>15330516

Oh no, academic philosophers find a position laughable, how terrible.

>> No.15330682

Why do you brainlets always post about her "philosophy" when the best thing about Rand is her aesthetic, Objectivism is literally more retarded than Dianetics but MUH UNIRONIC STEEL AND INDUSTRY autism is funny and cool.

>> No.15330689

>>15330515
Couldnt you say that for a lot of people? Neitzche edgelords, Faggot nu-marxists and slef help Aurelius heads?

>> No.15330701

>>15330504
>>15330689
bro I hate to do this but since you are a dumb guy read her rationalwiki page to understand why rand is stupid, it actually explains it pretty well

>> No.15330711

>>15330701
>rationalwiki
>ever
Yikes batman, reddit is that way.

>> No.15330718

>>15330701
I dont even disagree necissarily, but referring someone to rationalwiki makes me dislike you more than i dislike rand.

>> No.15330722

>>15330711
I already fulfilled my reddit quotient today so I'm on 4chan now. Also you really should read it if you like her since the facts there are a better argument against Rand than I could make in a 4chan post. I like Rand too, just not for her window licker tier ideology.

>> No.15330736

>>15330722
Nah, im good. I can look up an actual critique on jstor or something instead of going to a fucking wiki page.

>> No.15330744

Atlas Shrugged correctly points out that power is more important than good ideas, but concludes from this that the powerful will fall prey to their machinations and the intelligent will survive. The point she misses, of course, is that if the powerful fall prey to their machinations, the only thing that matters is how many bullets you have stockpiled.

>> No.15330768

>>15330736
well, I know the kneejerk against rationalwiki is kicking in but t.b.h. the site has kinda become more of a softcore ED in recent years but many on 4chan still have some idea about it being a gay neolib socjus site which it isn't so much now. I happened to read the Rand article somebody posted on /lit/ a little while ago and since then went down the wiki rabbit hole and it's not all as bad as it used to be. I really think that article will describe just why Rand is so fucking retarded to the average clueless /lit/ fan which is why I'm shilling it now, I'm having flashbacks to ~2010 /lit/ when there was Rand spam everywhere ironically. if only that article existed then.

>> No.15330770

>>15330504
It's not even internally consistent. If selfishness is the ultimate moral standard, what prevents the individual from raping, murdering and stealing if it benefits him?

>> No.15330774
File: 12 KB, 480x640, 1585501272565.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15330774

>>15330504
>objectivism

>> No.15330780

>>15330768
*spam everywhere unironically, sorry I'm abusing substances at the moment like Rand did constantly

>> No.15330801

Lmao my point is proven ITT. If you actually wanted to understand randian ethics then you would've done your own research. Instead everyone is an NPC brainlet who hisses at the mere sight of Rand's name.

>> No.15330831

>>15330768

I might look at it. I remember going on there to see if it was bad as I remembered like 5 months ago and i almost cringed to death from the amount of bad faith arguments and pure concentrated pretentiousness masquerading (poorly) as objectivity.

Even the name of the place sounds fucking pretentious.

>> No.15330850
File: 30 KB, 474x420, max ishyddt stirner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15330850

>current year
>still falling for objectivism

>> No.15330864

>>15330801
Explain Randian ethics

>> No.15330902

>>15330535

The philosopher's standard trick, in the bad, devious sense of the word: the words don't mean what you think they mean, they only mean what I say they mean. In this way, the philosopher pretends to have won.

>b-but he was clearly a kid who doesn't know what words mean

He made a legible claim in easily understood natural language (albeit that the words you complain of have certain technical senses), you just don't want to deal with the substance of the claim because you don't like thing. So ad hominem goalpost shifting ta-da per the above, rather than dealing with what the OP who I am not said.

>> No.15330923

>>15330864
Do your own research, otherwise people are going to misconstrue what she says e.g. >>15330770

>> No.15330986
File: 301 KB, 1107x572, achoo kim.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15330986

>>15330902
i'm not a philosopher. i find most philosophy to be in the same category as rand: pseudointellectual nonsense. although rand is particularly pathetic in being a paid propagandist. it really pisses me off that low IQ losers are touted as smartypants when they can't even get their own basic terms and ideas right, every single time i read these fucks.

really i just wanted to insult oppie because it's fun to write mean stuff sometimes yknow

>> No.15331008

>>15330986
>i find most philosophy to be in the same category as rand: pseudointellectual nonsense
Sounds like someone who wants to create a convent rhetoric to say "im better then all this"

>> No.15331013
File: 7 KB, 218x231, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15331013

>>15330682
What are you talking about? is the best part of her work was the aesthetic, then her books wouldn't be so awful.
No, the best part of her it's the fact that she took the challenge left by Nietzsche and tried to create an objective set of ethics after the death of God. She never recognized this (in the introduction for "the new intellectual" she actually spends a few words specifically criticizing Nitzsche and his work), but when you read Atlas Shrugged it's painfully obvious that she intends for John Galt to be his own version of Jesus Christ (without the final sacrifice for human kind, for that would be contradictory with her own set of morals; he only lives for himself and what he values).
Now, when i say "tried" it's because she failed miserably. You can't have an objective set of ethics without transcendent metaphysics principles to give nourishment to the rest of the system. Despite criticizing him so much, she failed in the same sense as Kant: she rationalized ethics. She tried to create an autonomous and secular morality, her own categorical imperative. All her system of ethics is sustained by a mere commandment that, at the moment one tries to give it a concrete justification, it falls. All the rational ethical imperatives of the philosophies of modernity have this problem, it is not exclusive to Rand; the lack of metaphysics necessarily implies the presumed axiomatic value of unexplained premises, which in the long run are linked to either a personal equation or to the factual and accepted structure from a certain society.

>> No.15331149

>>15330770
The State, or law enforcement more precisely.