>>811675
Do it yourself you leech
muh smokes
libertarianism
Fuck everyone but yourself and your selfish interests, it's ok to be a total dick.
>>811675
We're all better off if we look out for our own interests; the path to hell is often paved with good intentions
I-I mean fuck poor people, desu
Summarize his philosophy
Muh special snowflakes.
A=A, for no particular reason
>>811675
Jew buttblasted eternally about Soviets taking her family's business and running them out of the country.
>>811675
Not being rich is immoral
>>811769
This.
Objectivism was a mistake.
>>811746
>philosophy
>>811788
What else would you call it? A conspiracy?
>>811746
fuck poor people
Stirner if you came up with it yourself after Soviets fucked over your daddy's shop and dropped all the logical flow and instead projected all your insecurities
>>811939
Aristotle plus capitalism.
Altruism is bad, and one should do everything selfishly because that is what takes heart. You'd save your wife over 5 strangers right? Humility is bad, you should be proud of your accomplishments. G/T students should get more funding than retards/handicapped.
think stirner, but with a less philosophical and more pragmatic approach
I'm starting to think people dont understand Stirner very well.
>>812424
Objectivism is super spooky though.
>>812473
Can anyone understand the Einzige?
>>812001
If you go by her fiction, she seems to have a lot of soviet ideas, like valuing production absent any market demand, or her portrayal of the ideal men as a stakhanovite who works without sleep, rest, or medical attention.
>>811675
>stop liking things I don't like
Have you seen how she tries aesthetic tastes to morality?
>>811679
Damn. . .
>>811939
>>811758
She could have just saved tome by starting with I=I
>>811675
Money alienated me and I want the moral high ground.
>>811675
Be a strong, independent woman who don't need no help from no one.
>>811675
>philosophy
>>812424
Its literally nothing like Stirner
>>811675
Ayn Rand would be cool if she took the idea of Psychological Hedonism to it's full extent.
She makes a valid argument about how the government shouldn't force people to partake in Altruism, but then she moves onto say that even voluntary Altruism is immoral. That basis comes from the fact that she likes keeping her money to herself (as do most people.)
However, she fails to account for the fact that there are many people who would find more enjoyment from philanthropy than spending their money on selfish amenities.
She ignores the fact that Hedonism takes many forms, just as much as she enjoyed having money and fancy cars and shit, there are other people who find equal enjoyment in Altruistic and Spiritual endeavors.
In meme terms, she told everyone to stop having fun wrong. Anyone who doesn't have fun just like her isn't actually having fun and also they are immoral.
>>811939
>Englishman
>>811675
I'll take my ball and go home!
>died a welfare slave leech
>>811675
fuck you, I've got mine
"
Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read:
“Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.”
“You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”
“Man is an end in himself.”
“Give me liberty or give me death.”
Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."
t. Ayn Rand
lame. should read napoleon hill or stirner instead depending on what part of her philosophy ur lookin for
>>811801
Yes
>>815917
>Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Where does she refute the entirety of Kantian ethics? Because this seems like a form of Kantian psychology.
>>815927
I typed that post jokingly but then realized that analytic philosophy very well may be a conspiracy to discredit traditional thought. I just don't know. There isn't enough evidence either way.
>>815945
kantian ethics is just a bunch of arbitrary postulations
>>815950
analytic philosophy is largely based around discrediting traditional thought (wittgenstein..) its not even a conspiracy
>>815963
>815963
Yeah but he makes a lot of postulations and tries to back them up better than I've ever heard objectivist arbitrary postulations asserted.
>>815972
How is it not a conspiracy? Doesn't an organized school of academic school of thought meet most of the definitions of a conspiracy? Isn't the only thing that sets them apart the fact that one is seen as a legitimate academic enterprise?
>>811675
>This is MY rifle.
>There are many like it, but this one is MINE.
>>815917
>Le non-aggression principle
>what are externalities
>violence is not a key part of human nature
>"Reason is man's only means of perceiving reality"
>human reason is categorically different from what animals' brains do
>humans don't have fine tuned instincts as well
>"Man is an end in himself"
>not reproduction is the goal of man
>"Complete separation of state and economics"
>law has nothing to do with economics
>economic activity doesn't happen in a legal framework
Just as autistic and out of touch with human nature as communism desu
>>815989
the difference is that that's pretty much their stated aim and the methods they employ are transparent and, uh, you know analytical.. if i were you i'd set my sights on postmodernism because 99% of shit under that banner makes about 0 sense (though i think they're just in for the money and being the hip trendy thing)
>>816034
Postmodernism meets the standards, too.
>>811675
Bizarro-communism.
Living through stalinist russia in her youth and releasing her breakthrough book "the fountainhead" during ww2, her individualist philosophy offered an explanation for the madness going on in the world. The japs, nazis and commies are collectivist fanatics while individualists think for themselves, naturally America best represents individualism with individual rights enshrined in the constitution. It caused a sensation and also touched a nerve with liberals adding to her fame.
Stop whatever you are doing. Think clearly. Its going to go down.
>>811679
>>811675
Intelligent, nihilistic, and with a wicked sense of humor
Rules: ZOMG none!!!
>>816934
Rand is not a nihilist though
>>816934
That's Freddy "mustache" Niyczskqtssche
>>811675
>>815917
>Epistemology: Reason
It's empiricism, actually, but Rand is retarded.
>>818211
No because sensory experience can be misleading. Mirages and other events need to be processed by means of reason.
>>818211
Or better put, knowledge outside basic in the moment sensations must be conceptualized to be kept, hence reason.
>>818219
>>818226
Objectivist epistemology is not a form of Rationalism because Objectivism holds that all knowledge is derived from and validated by perception. Perception, according to Objectivism, is veridical; it does not deceive us. In fact, perception is the only form of awareness of reality there is, and therefore, it is the only source for knowledge. (For more on the validity of the senses, see David Kelley’s Evidence of The Senses.) So in contrast to the Rationalists, Objectivists do not hold that knowledge of the world can be directly known merely through the use of reason.
On the other hand, it is not completely accurate to call Objectivism a kind of empiricism. In the most general sense of the term, as the view that our senses are the primary means of knowledge, Objectivism is a kind of empiricism. However, the Objectivist theory of knowledge differs substantially from prominent empiricists like John Locke and David Hume, and so calling Objectivism a kind of empiricism might be confusing.
According to Objectivism, reason plays an essential role in forming and developing our knowledge. While the senses are the source for all knowledge, reason integrates all our perceptual data into concepts and principles. In this way, Objectivism begins to look less like a theory of empiricism.
http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4107-rationalism-and-objectivism
>>811675
J e w e r y
