![11-ayn-rand.w529.h529.2x[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3XseQ1x.jpg "11-ayn-rand.w529.h529.2x[1].jpg")
Will I ever be relevant?
Hasnt every time someone follows her ideals lead to the company pretty much ruining itself?
She is relevant, just not respected.
>>282605
Only relevant in North America
Her entire work is relevant for some videogame backstory and nothing more.
>>282605
She made herself disliked by both leftists and conservatives during her time, both of whom spread their cariactures of her philosophy and which are now so ingrained in people's minds that they just assume that the cariactures are the real thing. It also probably doesn't help that a lot of people who claim to be influenced by her books clearly did not understand them, as they often seem to have more in common with the villains than the heroes, and that the leadership of the Ayn Rand Institute has turned out to be willing to bend Objectivism into a pretzel if it serves their purposes - something that Rand was fervantly opposed to. Then there's also the whole thing with her messed up personal life. Logically it should not be taken into consideration when discussing the merits of the philosophy as such, but there's no denying that Rand was probably a little bit crazy, or at the very least narcissistic.
That said, most people who critique Objectivism obviously do not understand the pilosophy and rarely appear to have even read anything by Rand. Some of my favorites are when people claim that Rand said that all people are egoistic -- she actually said that people should be egoistic, as serving your own self-interest is what logically follows if you decide to stay alive -- that she was against helping friends and family members in need -- she was actually against altruism which she used the original definition of, that is self-sacrifice for others that goes against one's self-interest -- and that she asserted that people must choose between life and death based on nothing -- she actually asserted that all people currently living are actively choosing to be alive, you can choose suicide anytime you want, and by refusing to choose you also refuse to act in which case you will starve to death.
She is pretty relevant.
The fact that you and I agree with her or not is secondary and ultimately unimportant, the vast majority of people doesn't go beyond Vanity Fair in terms of knowledge, Carneades is pretty fucking relevant but good luck finding someone in the streets who'd argue with you about him.
If you want to argue that her vision isn't shared by most intellectual, well, that's really a matter of opinions.
If you ask me, her ideas look pretty good on paper, but there's a distinct stench of cynical nihilism, closemindedness and background wishful romanticism that makes me take a few steps back from her vision of objectivism, but I am admittedly more of a socialist/anarchist so it's only natural for me to disagree with her ideas.
I do believe she definitely shaped the modern american cultural background though, and I can't deny that again, the bulk of her philosophy is sound and admirable, problem is she was an extremist, and extremists are rarely relevant in the mainstream.
>lol i am rational and objective
>free will exists!
>>282936
>people claim that Rand said that all people are egoistic
>she actually said that people should be egoistic, as serving your own self-interest is what logically follows if you decide to stay alive
Claiming that people are egoistic is actually much more plausible than claiming this bullshit. I'm especially triggered by "logically follows"
>>282936
>she was actually against altruism
Why would someone be against altruism if that's (partly) in our nature? Why should I strive to be egoistic if I enjoy being altruistic?
>>283015
So objectivity is impossible as long as free will exists?
>>283024
Our nature is to stay alive. Altruism is self sacrifice, which is against one's survival, and therefore against our nature
>>283137
>Our nature is to stay alive.
Bullshit, I never liked Bee Gees, your argument is invalid.
>>283137
Altruism isn't self sacrifice, it is self sacrifice for no personal gain.
Plenty of things that benefit staying alive involve self sacrifice. You trade in your time for money by working, you trade some comfort for health by exercising. You sacrifice immediate pleasure of eating an entire cake so you don't get ill.
>>283015
But free will is merely a consequence of existence of objective reality and man being rational
>>283198
Sacrifice means exchanging something valuable for something of lesser value or of boo value. Trading, working, helping the people you love isn't sacrifice.
Altruism is, as you said self sacrifice for no personal gain, out just simply self sacrifice, and therefore it's against one's personal interest
>>283137
But that is just wrong.
How would we evolve to have altruistic dispositions if it was disadvantageous? It is literally in our nature since it is part of our evolutionary heritage and is therefore innate to every human being.
And there are plenty of explanations how altruism evolved, for example, Axelrod's theories are a good start.
>>283253
And altruist societies were living like shit, only in semi-egoistic United States we started to prosper
>>282605
Her books sell thousands of copies a year to this day even if few read them all the way through and few still understand them. A guy who almost became Vice President was inspired by her to enter politics. She's quite relevant.
>>282607
Not that I know. The Founder of Wikipedia and the former head of BB&T are both acolytes of her.
>>282783
No she's apparently got a cult following in India
>>282936
This is largely accurate though I'm not sure >>283024
what your gripe with ARI is.
>>283024
In Randian jargon altruism=/=charity
If you enjoy being charitable, and it's rational you aren't being altruistic
>>283015
Ironically Penn Jilette is also a big fan of hers
>>283198
>>283253
Altruism, as defined by Comte, and the defiition Rand uses for the word, is self-sacrifice, a complete inverse of self-interest. It's not helping others because it pleases you to do so, it's putting your own life and happiness at risk for the sake of others. Comte's definition of altruism was so extreme that almost no one chooses to follow it, but people still like to call themselves altruists even though what they're actually doing is something more akin to what Objectivists call benevolence.
>>283182
kek
For anyone who says that Rand is relevant or that her philosophy has merit because she sells a lot of books, well, I'm pretty sure that Marx sold more copies.
>>283398
You know I think Rand was a fucking retard but she has a point there. How the fuck can anyone claim white people stole America from the natives, if the natives didn't even have a concept of America to begin with?
>>283137
Altruism keeps the pack going, thus aiding in your survival in the end. Altruism has probably evolved as a social mechanism, since good relations and codependency on your group was key to your survival. I don't know how much it applies anymore though.
>>283439
So forcing natives out of their homes and slaughtering them is just because they have no concept of property rights?
>>283465
Technically there wasn't much slaughtering. America was close to depopulated by plague by the time the settlers arived, like 85% of natives were already dead. The blanket smallpox shit wasn't a genocide either, since you can't expect some 17th century retards who had no understanding of microbiology to wage a biological warfare on someone.
My point was you can't really say "we took their country" if they had no country to begin with.
>>283489
Anon can you pass me the sauce?
>>283510
Sauce on what
>>283439
They had a concept of private property.
Why the fuck would they need a concept of "America"
>>283519
on the information that you provided.
>>283523
http://www.examiner.com/article/apocalypic-mysterious-plague-killed-millions-of-native-americans-the-1500s
>>282605
why would a terrible novelist ever be relevant?
>>283522
Of course they didn't have a concept of that, but calling them "original Americans" seems to imply they did.
>>282605
Rand IS relevant, she is probably one of the only philosophers most Americans know... which is not necessarily a good thing
>>283570
>Rand
>philosopher
>>283273
You better be trolling because that is just retarded. The question here is obviously not what society is "prosperous" (even if you could find a common definition of prosperous)
>>283374
Ok that makes sense, but then it's quite philosophically sterile, because very few humans can satisfy such a definition of altruism.
>>283599
>Ok that makes sense, but then it's quite philosophically sterile, because very few humans can satisfy such a definition of altruism.
That's the whole point. If you follow altruism completely consistently, you're dead.
>>283640
Or at least in a very bad state.
Nonetheless, even most of the leftist political philosophers do not require such a degree of altruism, but only limited altruism which can be a part of the human dispositions.
>>282607
All companies ruin themselves given enough time.
>>282605
Posting again.
1/4
2/4
3/4
4/4
>>283594
Sorry
Philosophette
Let's be real here
How many of us here actually agree with Objectivism and where do you stand? I'd like more context with you before we continue. I find myself agreeing with Emotivism/Nihilism more than Objectivism. I want to give Objectivism a few more decades of dialetic before I put any weight to it. And the only Americans who really know her are the Green Party, most either don't know/care
>>287552
Fuck not the green party, I meant the Tea Party. Who are fucking stupid for supporting Rubio despite being a status quo nominee, the hypocrisay is astounding
>>287560
I doubt most members of the Tea party have even read her novels, much less read up on the doctrines of objectivism.
>>287572
>I doubt most members of the Tea party have even read books
ftfy
>>287591
>>287572
As an American, I can confidently say not a single sane soul in this country has read all of Rand's work not in a vacuum and advocate it to lead public policies without warping a single letter of it. She truly has become the laughing stock of all the poltical sciences, DESPITE every libtard's hateboner on her "cult" circlejerk. She's only famous for coming up of a "new" idea in the last 100 years
>>283346
>The founder of Wikipedia is an objectivist.
That's hilarious. I'm glad so many people ignore his pleas for money.
>>283427
Marx definitely is relevant though considering he profoundly shaped the last century, and is still effecting history massively.
>>287612
There are two things to be cautious of when seeking philosophers to give your time and attention to.
1. Women
2. Americans
Both groups have almost no presense in philosophy what so everytime someone shows up they want to say it's the second coming in order to make up for it. Both groups are so underexposed to philosophy that they don't even have the ability to judge what the hardcore philosophy even looks like.
So an American woman is the ultimate red-flag, the only way it could be worst is if she was black.
>>287705
You know rand was an imigrant from one of the eastern block countries right?
>>287739
She's kike, so that makes her even more relevant
>>283398
Literally a butchered version of Locke
So she was with the jew bankers who want people to be segregated and be easily controlled by the powerful
>>287543
You mean novelist.
Or do you call Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoyevsky philosophers too?
>>287739
Yes, anon needs to add assblasted ex-communist emigres to that list.
>>287515
Yes, gib shekel.
>>287552
I do not consider myself an Objectivist, but I have read most of Rand's books and agree with many of the points she makes, and can at least see the reason behind most of the others. In short, I feel confident in my ability to explain her philosophy to those with questions and debunk prevailing misconceptions of it.
Her philosophy honestly reads like "happy merchants guidebook"
>>283198
>You trade in your time for money by working, you trade some comfort for health by exercising. You sacrifice immediate pleasure of eating an entire cake so you don't get ill.
>impliying I do
>>283439
>How the fuck can anyone claim white people stole America from the natives, if the natives didn't even have a concept of America to begin with?
All I'm reading is
>Do you have a flaaaaag?
>>283427
Even being against Marx, you should be aware that he is the most relevant writer (I refuse to call him philosopher t.b.h.) of the past couple of centuries. He and his followers managed to create what is basically a new cult or religion that shaked the whole planet. It would be like saying that Muhammad was irrelevant.
>>283439
I have a concept of a federation called "Bumfuckistan". I will invade your country and several surrounding countries to create my federated super-state, because you don't have a concept of "Bumfuckistan" and thus no right to defend the land you live in.
>>283198
Altruistic actions give people psychological pleasures like "I'm a good person" or "I'll get karma for this" or "It makes me feel good knowing that person has money" or "Other people will like me for being generous". Just because it's not material gain doesn't mean there's no gain.
>>288503
So his merit is that he managed to fool entire generations in the span of two centuries? Even Marx's most loyal and early followers discovered his ideas were shit some years after he died, but were in too deep to give up on the ideals they spent their whole lives believing in.
I heard she's banned on r/philosophy
>>283209
>man being rational
>objective reality
Spooky shit.
>>288552
She probably isn't the only one banned there to be honest.
I bet everything but Nietzsche, Foucault and Derrida is banned.
>>288542
"Merit" has a connotation of goodness and admiration that "relevancy" lacks. They're not the same.
>>288582
I'm sure they'd let you bring up Kierkegaard as long as you santized everything he said and removed it from any context it had and rip out any of the things he cared most about.
>>288599
I dont know about r/philosophy, but r/badphilosophy makes fun of atheists all the time
>>288582
>Foucault and Derrida is banned.
Why would they be banned? They're reddit-tier
>>288640
>reading comprehension
>>288542
You can't call it "fooling" when his ideas have never been refuted.
>>288818
Laughing_Stirner.jpg
>>283182
Ha
Her work was only relevant as a way to understand Greenspan as boss of the Fed, but he is long gone.
>>288552
>>288582
To be fair, Rand is probably banned because
a) She's not considered a philosopher by many people, due to her ideas basically being re-labelled older shit, detailed in her autistic novels which are almost universally considered garbage
b) Her cult of personality among Objectivists causing constant shitposting
>>288513
>I have a concept of a federation called "Bumfuckistan".
Sounds like a perfect country for you.
>>289432
>Best selling modern book, second, after the bible, bestseller ever
>universally considered garbage
>>288568
Not as spooky as your bullcrap
>>291813
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books
>ctrl-f ayn rand
>0 results
Is that you, Jay Naylor?
>>283022
It's actually rather simple. Rand makes the assumption that reality is real and objective, and that we are capable of percieving through our reason. She then states that because we people have the capacity of reason we are, unlike any other animal that we know of, constantly faced with choice, the most fundamental of which is life or death. Rand further states that no person can decide to not choose -- refusing to choose is the same as choosing death, because if you refuse to choose you also refuse to act, and a man must act to survive -- and that all people currently living have choosen to live. Rand here also claims that because reason is the tool man's tool for survival it is essentially the same as taking another man's life to rob him of his reason by living his life for him.
>>291926
>Quran is best selling book of all time
Never have I been prouder to be of the true faith
>>292002
I think I lost track of myself there for a moment.
Anyway. She also states that because the choice of life is our most fundamental one all our other choices must then also logically follow from that, and egoism, that is self-interest, is the only position that does. She further states that your own reason is the source of your happiness and that it's therefore irrational to base it on other people's happiness or their oppinion of you. Now she did not say that you should be uninterested in other people -- Rand was very clear that it was very unegoistic to be indifferent to wether the person you were talking to was an idiot or a genius -- just that you should be selective with your friends and loved ones, so that you only call people who have value to you -- that is that their presence is pleasing to you in a rational way -- as your friends and loved ones, and when those people are in need of help it can certainly be in your self-interest to give it to them if your life would be worse without them and your own life is not endangered by doing so.
>>288582
A lot of the /r/Philosophy mods hate continental trash. Its the boards only redeeming feature desu
Adam Smith fucked Frederick Nietzsche and after Nietzsche laid an egg and it hatched...Rand was born.
>>287800
Yes I do call them that
>>292002
>>292123
>Anyway. She also states that because the choice of life is our most fundamental one all our other choices must then also logically follow from that
This whole thing just reads like one of those postmodern ramblings where they just wildly jump from one concept to another every 2 sentences.
>>291926
Best selling in USA
>>294807
>USA
>reading
