Why do people refuse to acknowledge Ayn Rand as a serious philosopher?
Because she isn't one.
/thread
>>895473
Because she doesn't have cohesive philosophy, and its a rip off of other philosophies?
aggregate writers have no genius of their own.
>>895473
She didn't present her ideas in an acceptable fashion.
+
Her philosophy is just rugged individualism.
>>895473
Because she's boring.
>>895473
Anthem was alright i guess
>>895473
Your philosophy is pretty shit when a mediocre FPS can BTFO it
It's only on pol that anyone cares about some dumb whore who accepted social security benefits while railing against helping the poor.
>>895473
Because she's mean and being mean isn't nice.
She isn't a philosopher. She's barely even a writer.
>woman
>philosopher
Because she was good source of anti-communist strawman arguments, like real arguments weren't enough.
>>895475
Don't "/thread" yourself, fag.
>>895853
>mediocre FPS
>expecting an actual FPS
For fuck's sake this is not /v/.
only closed-minded idiots do so
>>895473
Because she was a novelist. A good novelist, I will not deny. And, incidentally, the leader of a rather disturbing cult.
>>895473
Because she's no more a philosopher than Stan Lee is.
Actually Stan Lee has done a far better jo at doing everything she ever tried to do.
>>895853
>Objectivism stops working when you stop following it
Randlets literally on suicide watch
Because objectivism isn't even a coherent set of doctrines. It's a Jewish plot.
Because the concept of objective reality has been proved wrong for centuries and because she tries too hard.
>>897036
No objectism stops working when someone goes too far with his objectism. Fontaine was acting like any proper objectivist should.
1/4
>>897262
2/4
>>897263
3/4
>>897268
4/4
>>897269
Oops
>>895473
Too much wish-fulfilling fiction.
She was a pulp author, not a philosopher.
What did she even contribute? Individualism was already asserted in far more air-tight, poetic, or deeper ways through Nietzsche and Stirner.
He economic theories are only slightly more sustainable than Marx's.
>it's okay to be an asshole
How profound
>>897273
For good measure
>>895873
>pays into social security through taxes all her life
>but you can't use it because you don't like it :^)
>>897377
>Not being able to follow your own philosophical idea
But I'm suppose to follow them right.
Her writing was shit and she didn't contribute anything that hadn't already been said.
>>895853
>bioshock
>mediocre
pick one
>>897377
>it is the individual who must struggle and over come
>except when I'm old and I need to go on food stamps to eat
Gee if only she didn't write books about not doing this...
>>895473
Because she mostly wrote fiction, not serious philosophical writings.
In the context of fiction, it's easy to craft an alternate world in which your ideas are unassailable, because you don't have to seriously address counterarguments. Rand wrote every anti-capitalist character as a hateful jealous weakling, and acted like her books refuted the political left.
She was a skillful propagandist, but her writings were hardly philosophical works in an academic sense.
>>895473
She KEKED her husband. I, as a cuck fetishist, would like her as my wife, so she would KEK me.
I seriously follow her philosophy and endorse it
>>897797
To be honest, it was in her rational self-interest to take what was offered to her, whether she agreed with the concept of social security or not.
Her ideology is one of opportunism and self-exceptionalism, not of ideological purity.
>>896065
It's the rare exception that he's actually right.
>>898071
Then why didn't she said that but instead claimed her lawyer made the decision for her without her knowledge?
>>898326
Did she? I'm honestly surprised she didn't call "rational self-interest," it's an explanation that fits perfectly with her ideology.
I'd have to theorize it was because she was crazier than a shithouse rat, or simply didn't wish to appear weak, she was an extremely prideful woman after all.
Or, while I think that would be very unlikely, she's actually telling the truth and her lawyer really did make that decision for her.
Because objectivism is one of the most vapid ideologies out there. Pure self interest is not conducive to creating, or maintaining, a civil society.
Doesn't her philosophy basically prevent anyone from having children if they fully it fully.
Having children is a massive finance sink.
>>897617
In terms of gameplay mechanics it is
>>898381
Civil society benefits everyone within it, so it's well within one's self-interest to pursue its formation and maintenance.
That said, her philosophy is based on a fundamentally broken premise. We cannot attain objective knowledge through senses and reason; this is a fundamental limitation of the human condition.
I also feel that the idea of egoism made into a moral ought (and egoism tied to a moral system at all) is fundamentally contradictory. Egoism only makes sense if it's evaluated in a world without external moral truths, in which only an individual is fit to decide what is and is not moral for them, even including whether the idea of egoism itself is worth adhering to.
Because she isn't a serious philosopher.
Her works are a fan fiction wankjob.
>>897273
And even if you look in THAT genre, she gets BTFO. If you want a serious exploration of rugged individualism in a pulp novel, Howard does everything 100 times better than Rand.
>>898362
>Did she? I'm honestly surprised she didn't call "rational self-interest," it's an explanation that fits perfectly with her ideology.
Because her understanding of rational self-interest required people to act in certain way. Income Tax can't be the result of lots of individuals engaging in rational self-interest, it's the result of an irrational mob dragging down those who persue their self-interest. That's the entire point of Atlas Shrugged, is how stupid it is for 'society' to try to take what they can get.
Remember, she's not a Stirnerite. Stirner was a lot more thoughtful and considered. 'Rational Self-Interest' is not subject to the desire of the ego, but of absolute, objective laws. This is why she named her philosophy 'objectivism.'
>>895853
I personally blame Bioshock for the rise of the alt-right among nerds/autists.
Fucking /r/Libertarian literally had Andrew Ryans speech in the sidebar.
>>897808
>n the context of fiction, it's easy to craft an alternate world in which your ideas are unassailable, because you don't have to seriously address counterarguments.
And this is why The Dispossessed will be a superior political fiction story. Because it openly explores the different societies and political ideologies and the main character experiences the benefits and negatives of those societies and what they do better and worse than his own.
It's also just an insanely well written book, unlike anything shat out by Rand.
How the Dispossessed is forgotten while Rand is still circlejerked over is beyond me.
>>898562
>Civil society benefits everyone within it, so it's well within one's self-interest to pursue its formation and maintenance.
Civil society is not maintained by mere self-interest.
>>898838
Of course not, unless you're a psychological egoist. But I also didn't say it was. I said civil society is entirely compatible with the pursuit of self-interest.
>>898841
It is compatible with some amount of pursuit of self-interest.
>>895473
Because she just said meaningless truisms("To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence". Really, nigga?), arbitrarily picks her definitions(law of identity is just one of the 3 greek theories on the subject) and doesn't get into any deep philosophical conundrums. And she doesn't even understand her own philosophy( no, Rand, your epistemology even really rationalistic. It leans more towards empiricism)
