What do you think of the philosophy of objectivism?
A MAN CHOOSES
Like uplifting pop modernism philosophy? Yeah it's fun, great gym motivation. It's unfortunate it was turned around on its head after WW2 by people whose response to their existential crisis was either nihilism, denial or a combination of both.
>weakness positivity
Just couldn't accept it.
bamp.
Don't really know much about it aside from it triggers leftists.
>>76174834
A NIGGER OBEYS
It's purely subjective.
Can anybody please give a TL;DR on objectivism? Thanks
John Galt is pure fantasy
>>76175589
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VSBGu7-1rU
>>76175589
Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.
>>76175906
thanks
>Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic
This I like
>that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest)
This I understand if not fully agreeing with
> that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism
This, just no. The inevitable and only conclusion to complete laissez-faire capitalism is a winner-takes-all situation. You've less than a 1 in 7bn chance of being that winner. Compassion and empathy are virtues.
Ayn Rand was based af. Top tier 10/10 https://youtu.be/mQVrMzWtqgU
>>76176414
>The inevitable and only conclusion to complete laissez-faire capitalism is a winner-takes-all situation.
How so? There will be a free market competition, whoever offers the best product/service wins. I think that's fair.
>>76176414
>Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic
>This I like
Objectivism doesnt really justify that conclusion though, and in my opinion philosophy should at least question our perception of the world and the nature of reality
>>76176830
Thing is, we've had a version of free-marketism since the 80s and the result has been more and more of the real wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. The 'middle classes' are past the point of no return. They no longer exist. Social mobility from working class to properly rich is near impossible. In the idealised free market what is to stop say apple and google deciding to spend some of that 1tn warchest and buying up a nations water? This is what I mean by winner takes all. All things you associate with the free market are essentially good only for shareholders and CEOs
>whoever offers the best product/service wins
The problem here is tied in to automation. The largest established corporations can afford to do everything you can do cheaper and better than you can. The chances of 'making it' are getting smaller and smaller, and continue to do so as the working classes see their savings and investments corroded and more competition (free movement of labour).
>>76176957
Sure, we should be reassessing our conclusions whenever new data becomes available. But whatever way you cut in, scientific method and materialism give us consistently correct answers and offer great predictive abilities.
Philosophy is far from my strong point though. What would be the anti-thesis to objectivity?
>>76177316
>we've had a version of free-marketism since the 80s
Not really?
The USA has had increasing taxes(50% corporate tax), regulations(I think the federal register is at 100k now and it doubles in liberal states, it's nonsense), and increased government spending(QE? Public "Schools"? Obamacare?.)
This is also on top of big tariffs(over 10k) and straight-up employment controls in the form of affirmative action and UBI
>>76176830
People start to accumulate resources and then it ceases to be an equal competition because more resources are an obvious advantage
Eventually one person or group accrues such an overwhelming advantage in resources that its impossible for anyone to overcome it, and effectively seizes power
A juvenile sexual fantasy written by an undersexed ugly troll with a crush on Nietzsche.
>>76177790
Okay? And those resources are spent on increasing the quality of products or the wages of its employers improving the quality of life of the customers/employees/whatever.
>>76175683
So is communism and marxism
>>76177569
>But whatever way you cut in, scientific method and materialism give us consistently correct answers and offer great predictive abilities.
How could you tell if they weren't doing any of those things, though?
I don't have an answer, but I think any serious philosophy should attempt to find one and objectivism doesnt
>>76178100
>unironically believes increased profits=increased wages
>>76177790
It's not that straightforward, because there is something called creative destruction. What happened to those companies that produced in the past things that we now consider obsolete? At the very least they took significant blows from new competitors entering the market with new things (Example: the cassete tape player companies took a blow from the CD player companies, the CD player companies took a blow from the MP3 player companies, and now the MP3 player companies are taking blows from the streaming service companies).
>>76178100
>Okay? And those resources are spent on increasing the quality of products or the wages of its employers improving the quality of life of the customers/employees/whatever.
Why would you do any of those things when its not possible for anyone to compete with you? It wouldnt be in your "rational self-interest"
>>76178216
That's not what's at issue here
>>76177782
I qualified it with 'a version'. The other side of free-markteism, privatization and indeed the spreading of economic liberalism has picked up pace. Both Thatcher and Reagan cut bennies and the state in general. And everyone who has come since has followed suit.
>>76176414
>conclusion to complete laissez-faire capitalism is a winner-takes-all situation
In order to make more a person must distribute his wealth in some fashion.
And this requires others to have stuff to trade for it.
And saying ti is inevitable is kind of stupid because you know well you just agreed with rand that : that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, but then you form a strange prediction based on well idk wtv you prefer. So yeah shit tier thinking right there buddy.
this pretty much
Rand sucks
>>76177316
>Thing is, we've had a version of free-marketism since the 80s
Dude each year the Fed creates something like 3000 new regulation.
And as long as the Federal reserve exists, there can be no such thing as a free market. No free market in money, no free market at all.
>>76178396
>That's not what's at issue here
No the issue is: not an argument.
>>76178396
Why would anyone not be able to compete with you? Other businesses are still there and will still be improving their products, which means that you'll always need to at least be as good as the 2nd best product in the business.
>>76178235
Likewise, how can you say that results arrived at through scientific analysis of data can be wrong? Just seems an odd game to me to assume we're wrong about everything without good reason. Take gravity for example. We've refined it the past few hundred years and we still don't fully understand it. But as far as the human experience goes at this stage of our evolution, gravity is universal and predictable. Should we ever overcome it, we will do s off the back of the same scientific method we use to describe it.
I suspect that down the line even the things covered by anti-positivism today will be explained eventually in a purely material sense of cause and effect.
Maybe this is why philosophy isn't for me...
>>76178499
My point was about the accumulation of capital. You disagree that it becomes easier to make money when you've already got a shit-ton of it? I'm just playing this process through to its logical conclusion based on the trends we see today.
>>76176830
>whoever offers the best product/service wins
Except Rand inexplicably argued for libertarian minarchism. Government is inherently monopolistic, violently so. That's one reason I'm not an objectivist.
Have to give credit where it's due, I wouldn't be an anclap now if I didn't first get into libertarianism (much as she hated it) through Rand's works.
>>76178844
In the true free market, who would pick second best. Especially if the best was cheaper. Hostile takeovers would abound. I mean once say VW own ever car plant on the planet how can anyone else even hope to compete?
>>76178317
It misses the nuances, but that argument is still true enough to undermine laissez faire capitalism
>>76178844
The best product design in the world means nothing without the ability to distribute and sell it and that is more a matter of resources than brainpower
>>76179502
It's not a "nuance" at all when entire economic sectors are destroyed by innovation.
>>76179193
>Hostile takeovers would abound
Would you buy from Wal-Mart if they just shot some local store owner and burned down his shop in order to make space for a supercenter?
>>76179502
>without the ability to distribute and sell it
That's one of the reasons the concept of investment was invented. If your product is better that the rest, investors (commercial and private) stand to make a lot of money if they help you get set up.
>>76179802
>Would you buy from Wal-Mart if they just shot some local store owner and burned down his shop in order to make space for a supercenter?
If I needed bread and the store they'd just burnt to the ground was the only other one in town, yes.
>>76174796
Sorry, OP, my opinion would be subjective.
>>76175589
>>76179896
Why bother buying? Shoot the store manager and steal all the bread you want. Murderers don't get the privilege of having normal business transactions.
The thing is, violence is expensive. Look at what happened with Shkreli and the price of that drug he jacked up. He didn't hurt anyone and just did what he was legally entitled to do, yet he was completely destroyed by the public. Imagine the fallout if he had his security actually kill someone to further his business.
The real world is not some simplistic dystopian novel. Market forces are far more powerful than you seem to think.
>>76178915
Philosophers and theologans have grappled with this question for thousands of years dude, don't go too hard on yourself
>>76179574
Philips, for example, made both CD and cassette players
Apple is basically the only player in mp3 downloads and also runs a widely used streaming service
It doesnt really happen like that
>>76179802
>That's one of the reasons the concept of investment was invented. If your product is better that the rest, investors (commercial and private) stand to make a lot of money if they help you get set up.
Its not hard to imagine someone or one group of people amassing enough resources that they become the only way to secure the level of investment you need to bring a product to market
They would rule the world
>>76179896
It's practically impossible to get a monopoly in a free market system. To have a monopoly you would need to have the best technology, lowest prices and best quality. It would be a win - win situation for you and customers. But the moment you raised your prices too high (because you have monopoly and think that you can do that), the competitors would start knocking on your door.
I'm a subjective idealist.
>>76174796
written by a parasite, for fellow parasites
>>76180365
>He didn't hurt anyone and just did what he was legally entitled to do
Let's not forget he was able to do so because of state protection, too.
It's probably correct but entirely impractical.
>>76180438
>Its not hard to imagine
It is. What you're describing is so improbable that it's hardly worth considering. At no point is human history has this come even close to happening, and it doesn't seem to be any more likely in the future.
>>76174796
A tiny addendum to Aristotelian philosophy wrapped up in a bloated, poorly written package.
>>76174796
Utterly retarded. There is no such thing as objective thought.
Since the dawn of man, Armies, Churches, Thinkers, and Inventors have pondered reality, created words, made up gods, ways to live, thought up time. You are debating things no man can/has figure out, what have you even discovered? It's a dead horse, you're on the internet asking other people what they think, what does this say about your ability to think for yourself?
>>76175906
>proper moral purpose
SPOOKED
>>76180758
I'm an objectivist, but I like to challenge my positions and listen to different points of view.
>>76176414
Thats not true. There is no "winner takes all" because someone who wins at real estate development isnt going to come in and steal your car repair business.
>>76180458
I'd say advanced manufacturing would be the exception here simply cause of the start-up money required.
>>76181108
You honestly think so? Maybe not buy out but incorporation would certainly be an option.
>>76176830
>whoever offers the best product/service wins. I think that's fair
Yes, and then they keep winning because they can afford to crush or buy out anyone smaller than them. They can set the standards of living for workers in an entire industry. They can capture regulatory bodies. Once you control everything, you are not bound by ordinary market restrictions. You have the capital to take losses for years in order to drive people out of the market. It's perfectly fair at the outset, and then decidedly unfair after that.
>>76179802
>>76179802
>Would you buy from Wal-Mart if they just shot some local store owner and burned down his shop in order to make space for a supercenter?
If Wal-Mart owned the local printing press too, how would I ever know about that?
>>76180609
>Wow really makes u think
What's the difference between libertarianism and objectivism?
![the-infant-hercules-political-cartoon[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/gEfS3q2.jpg "the-infant-hercules-political-cartoon[1].jpg")
>>76180609
>What you're describing is so improbable that it's hardly worth considering. At no point is human history has this come even close to happening
inb4 no true scotsman
The main thing that confused me about objectivism (and AS in general) is that the book consistently contradicted itself.
Throughout the novel, Rand argued against the State taking goods at the barrel of a gun. She also railed against those that seize goods for "moral" purposes.
Yet, at the same time, she argues that the highest objective of man is his own interests (morality of selfishness). If that's the case, then the actions taken by the State and those moochers was entirely consistent with her philosophy; they were also acting in their self-interest.
So in the end, while stating that the only responsibility a person has is to themselves, she also implicitly says that people also have a responsibility to each other, to honor a set of rights/privileges generally based in a Western Capitalist system (property rights, etc), even if it means sacrificing your self-interest.
It's a bit of a contradiction.
>>76175906
Interesting... very interesting.
>proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest),
This is basically what I think too. We are all selfish and only make choices that we think make us happy.
>the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism,
This is what I disagree with. Through proper social engineering, you can manipulate humans to believe anything (current education system). Hence, you can basically "tell" them what would make them happy. Perfect NatSoc propaganda would make them fight for the white race, commie education would... and so on. And then, they act by their social engineering.
Only very few individuals could break out of this conditioning on their own.
>>76179047
You have an extremely misinformed view of economics and finance. Wealth does not tend to accumulate but very easily dissipate. Whether you look at the Forbes Rich List or any studies done in the area, it is shown time and time again that it is very difficult to maintain inter-generational wealth.
>playing this process through to its logical conclusion based on the trends we see today
>logical conclusion
No. At least explain yourself a little bit instead of making retarded assumptions to reach impossible conclusions...
>>76179193
>In the true free market, who would pick second best.
Holy fuck, are you mentally retarded? There are many different subjective factors - not just some """best""" product. This is literally a non-argument.
>I mean once say VW own ever car plant on the planet how can anyone else even hope to compete?
-Anti trust laws
-If they are price gouging, a competitor can step in and undercut
-etc...
What's your level of education?
>>76181588
The fucking NSA, the most highly funded data intelligence organization on the planet, couldn't keep their secrets. What makes you think a retail company could?
>>76181958
It hasn't. Are you really suggesting there has been any firm in history that has controlled all the capital?
>>76182373
underrated comment
>>76182808
>anti-trust laws
Did you even read the thread, or did you just see some buzzword and got excited that you could spout some pseudo intellectual nonsense?
>>76174796
If the world is not objective, solipsism is the next logical step. However, I would definitely not want to be such a dick to myself.
>>76183425
Are you going to make a valid point, or just bitch and moan like a retarded leftist? It's like you can't refute my point so you chuck a hissy-fit lmao
>people should be free to follow their self-interest to the fullest extent
>which for most people means having more of their rightfully earned resources to direct toward their career, enterprise, family, community, nation, causes they care for
>LOL SO YOU WANT EVERYONE TO BE A SELFISH ASSHOLE HUH YOU"RE DUMB
![1310483412100[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Cgiq5VV.jpg "1310483412100[1].jpg")
>>76183193
>Realizes industry and regulatory capture are incredibly common
>*Moves the goalpost*
>"ALL the capital"
>>76174796
Fuck, here we go....
Objectivist here. AMA.
Keep it civil. No ad homs.
>>76182576
> Wealth does not tend to accumulate but very easily dissipate
Look at the rich list's total values year on year. More and more in fewer and fewer hands. Income disparity is getting worse and worse.
>No. At least explain yourself a little bit instead of making retarded assumptions to reach impossible conclusions...
You want me to talk you through the process by which the rich get richer? No. Look it up.
>Holy fuck, are you mentally retarded? There are many different subjective factors - not just some """best""" product. This is literally a non-argument.
See the image here >>76181613
The trend is towards consolidation. Removing government rules will only accelerate this because the companies at mthje top of their game are so far ahead in terms of investment potential.
>-Anti trust laws
This would be a government device. Something the free-marketeers ITT argue against.
>>76183653
>4 post in
>'retarded leftist'
Good going lad. Maybe you need to go back to bed.
>>76180355
You got it
>>76183896
How do you justify your belief in objective knowledge?
>>76182373
According to objectivism it's immoral to sacrifice yourself to other people and to sacrifice other people to yourself. It's immoral to take away the unearned. That's why Ayn Rand used the term "rational self-interest".
>>76174796
Posting Objectivist characters.
>>76184152
>How do you justify your belief in objective knowledge?
Because the only method to gauge reality is reason, conclusions can be termed valid only if they are approached through reason, and not anyother "supernatural" means. Once you eliminate most variables, you can be sure that your conclusion is true. That's it.
>>76184332
fuck no.
>>76184332
>>76184427
Also, defining a proper context is the most important step.
>>76184476
>>76184476
No, Just stop.
>>76184476
despite the anime hate, this is true
>>76184526
>>76184590
>>76184646
>>76184590
>>76184526
>>76184476
>>76184332
None of these are objectivists. Even Andrew Ryan from Bioshock is not an Objectivist.
>>76181613
This is bullshit, and only true for a narrow definition of 'media'.
With the internet there are vastly more media publishers today then there were in 1983,. What that graph is pointing to is 'old media', and it's a dying industry.
Of course there are going to be fewer players in newspaper and broadcast TV because they are dying industries that are consolidating to survive.
>>76184427
>Because the only method to gauge reality is reason
That is what I am asking you to justify, not a justification
>>76184765
>>76184826
Do the same with car manufacturers. Telecoms. Pharmaceuticals.
>>76183914
I work in a HF and used to work IB... What you're saying is absolute trash. Anyone who works in finance or economics would just laugh at your propositions and their reasoning.
>The trend is towards consolidation
Because it is an industry in fucking decline
>This would be a government device. Something the free-marketeers ITT argue against.
That black and white thinking...
You're an idiot, Muhammed. Go back to flipping burgers and leave the intellectual stuff to people with brains ;)
>>76184902
>something isn't true
>"lol calling it false is a fallacy"
>>76184856
Because the word is what it is. There is no other world beyond our perception, reality is reality. Reality comes before consciousness. And the "other methods" are all false. There is no method other than reason. The only way to reject reason and accept other "methods" is to curl up and die. ESP and religious methods and stuff are all nonsense.
>>76184826
Its about market share, aka what people are actually consuming, not the number of companies in business
6 companies have 90% of that
>>76174796
>objectivists together in a room
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs
>>76184905
So?
All industries do this. An industry pops up, it goes through it's 'wild west' period, and a boom of players enters the market. Then the market becomes established, economies of scale are taken advantage of, and the industry consolidates down to smaller number of successful players.
Take car manufacturers for instance. Yes, there used to be dozens upon dozens of domestic manufacturers, but cars were prohibitively expensive, unreliable, and inefficient. As the industry advanced, those who couldn't keep up, went by the roadside. You can lament that 'superior' companies like duesenberg went under, but they couldn't adapt to market conditions, and it doesn't matter if your product is superior if it doesn't offer value for money.
Just because there aren't hundreds of car manufacturers, doesn't mean that it's a problem. Cars are far better and far cheaper than when there was more competition.
>>76185204
>The only way to reject reason and accept other "methods" is to curl up and die
Other philosophers have questioned the nature of reality and the powers of their own reason to discern it, and come up with answers so that is not true
If you can't even engage with those questions you have a gaping hole in your philosophy
Her metaphysics and epistemology are solid, some of her conclusions are not so great due to some errors made along the way.
>>76174796
Any form of *-ism is degenerate and false.
>>76184427
Lex Luthor was a great man shitskin
>>76185510
>libertarian=objectivist
when will this meme end
>>76185636
lol what "answers"
>>76185686
lol
>>76185801
He was a jelly fag who isn't an Objectivist.
>>76185258
That is 90% of those defined industries:
Broadcast TV is a dying industry:
https://variety.com/2016/digital/news/netflix-tv-ratings-decline-2015-1201721672/
>Netflix Caused 50% of U.S. TV Viewing Drop in 2015 (Study)
And so are newspapers:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/04/28/decline_of_newspapers_hits_a_milestone_print_revenue_is_lowest_since_1950.html
Your chart doesn't take into account that 'media' is a lot larger realm than in 1983
>>76184332
>>76184765
>>76185204
Fine, I'll explain how Lex Luther is an Objectivist point by point.
>Thinks that Superman doesn't really care for anyone he saves and only does it to flaunt his superiority over mankind. This is very much the view of objectivists and why every character in an objectivist work that gets described as an altruist would be considered a bad samaritan by people who aren't a part of the philosophy. In a similar manner he can't comprehend that Superman wants to be obsolete and for people like him to not be needed anymore. This is exactly the same as objectivists claiming that altruists want people to suffer because it makes them feel superior to others. It's a rather typical example of an utterly ruthless self-serving person being unable to comprehend why everyone else isn't as ruthless and self-serving as they are.
>>76184332
>>76184427
>>76185204
>>76185979
>In "Lex Luthor: Man of Steel" he makes a bunch of humanist justifications for his actions until the end where he suddenly reverses his position claiming that there isn't a single soul in metropolis that wouldn't have killed the toyman if placed in the same position. This goes together with the Objectivist world view of all that truly matters to anyone being themselves and that all acts of goodness towards others as having a purely self-serving ulterior motive. In addition his enormous ego makes him view all of humanity as stupid, messy, chaotic and constantly making the same mistakes. This ties in with author tracts from "The Sword of Truth" and statements from Ayn Rand that the masses cannot be trusted to act rationally. Lastly, Luthor's claims that no one in Metropolis would show mercy to the Toyman as if that's a positive trait which combines with the author tracts of Mr A who claimed that acts of mercy are at the expense of the victims with the implication that every victim wants to pay back their tormentors a hundred-fold. Objectivists claim that mankind is a noble, rational being but strip away flim-flam and humbug and they really expect everyone to be irrational, vindictive and self-serving. The response to the first is to pretend to be a paragon of rationality and the response to the second and third is to say "I'm ruthless and self-serving, so is everyone else. At least I admit it".
>In "All Star Superman" Luthor realizes that all of his rationalizations are delusions, learning that he could have saved the world years ago if it had mattered to him. This is a lot like the actions of the designated heroes of "Atlas Shrugged" who won't lift a finger to prevent the collapse of the world and even help it along so that they can build it on exactly their terms, collateral damage from their actions be damned.
>>76175506
Underrated
>>76185021
>I work in a HF and used to work IB.
Would you like a fucking balloon?
What have I said that triggered you so hard? That wealth accumulates? How bout this then
> Oxfam: 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world (2014)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world
> Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population, says Oxfam 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined
Whatever way you cut it, the is accumulation of ore and more money in fewer and fewer hands. A process set to continue.
>That black and white thinking...
I was making a point specifically against those who argue for complete deregulation.
>>76184332
>>76184427
>>76185204
>>76186077
>From an objectivist standpoint, Superman is evil since he allows and helps evil exist due to his policy of never killing and always saving the villain. He also helps people without regard for if they deserve it or who they are which flies in the face of objectivists only doing good things when it benefits them later.
>Constantly claims that Superman is jealous of him. Quite similar to how objectivists react to criticism by claiming that the person doing the criticism is jealous of their talent.
>In one of Lex's cruelest moments, he cures his sister of a disease and then gives it back to her in order to mess with Superman and in one of his pettier moments he gives a bunch of people superpowers and then takes them away when he found that the technique wouldn't work for him. From an objectivist standpoint, this isn't villainous because he was returning people to their original state.
There is no definitive philosophy. They are merely tools for understanding how humans interact with the world and each other via our technology. As the world and technology changes, so does philosophy.
Its best not to make a claim to a specific philosophy, but rather, enjoy the nuances of many
>>76174796
It places you on the path to the redpill of NatSoc
>>76186089
You have yet to explain why wealth accumulation is an issue. When it comes to wealth there is no "pie", your Ferrari does not make an African starve.
There is no upper limit to either demand or wealth creation.
>>76185979
>>Thinks that Superman doesn't really care for anyone he saves and only does it to flaunt his superiority over mankind.
Nope. He blames people for making him a god, not the other way round.
>This is very much the view of objectivists and why every character in an objectivist work that gets described as an altruist would be considered a bad samaritan by people who aren't a part of the philosophy.
No, no and no. Altruists are suicidal Their "philosophy" doesn't work. Supes wouldn't take breaks, he'd die helping every fucking man on earth.
> In a similar manner he can't comprehend that Superman wants to be obsolete and for people like him to not be needed anymore.
fuck no
>This is exactly the same as objectivists claiming that altruists want people to suffer because it makes them feel superior to others.
No, that is completely false. I blame the pursuit of pure altruism as evil. Kantian duty is evil. What you're mentioning is ego-stroking under false pretenses, and it is NOT DESTRUCTIVE until you are the giver/taker.
>It's a rather typical example of an utterly ruthless self-serving person being unable to comprehend why everyone else isn't as ruthless and self-serving as they are.
Wring again. Objectivists are highly sympathetic.
>>76185686
Shhh
Don't interrupt their tribalistic tendencies
>>76177316
>Thing is, we've had a version of free-marketism since the 80s and the result has been more and more of the real wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer hands
I think you forgot about the 'laissez-faire' bit
>>76185817
Here's one to start you off, top of the article if you don't feel like reading the whole thing
>http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/
>>76185941
I am actually not sure how that chart defines "media," so there may be truth to what you're saying
However, I don't think that's enough to totally dismiss the dangers of wealth becoming consolidated in too few hands under a laissez faire system
>>76175589
Aristotle adapted for modern times.
>>76186077
>>In "Lex Luthor: Man of Steel"
That's a fringe comic you faggot
>he makes a bunch of humanist justifications for his actions until the end where he suddenly reverses his position claiming that there isn't a single soul in metropolis that wouldn't have killed the toyman if placed in the same position.
So did the joker in TDK
>This goes together with the Objectivist world view of all that truly matters to anyone being themselves and that all acts of goodness towards others as having a purely self-serving ulterior motive.
Not true at all. You're attacking a strawman. Also, burden of proof.
>In addition his enormous ego makes him view all of humanity as stupid, messy, chaotic and constantly making the same mistakes.
Again, not true.
>This ties in with author tracts from "The Sword of Truth" and statements from Ayn Rand that the masses cannot be trusted to act rationally.
Goodkind only borrows objectivism for certain aspects and I'll need that quote from Ayn Rand.
Protip: there isn't one.
>Lastly, Luthor's claims that no one in Metropolis would show mercy to the Toyman as if that's a positive trait which combines with the author tracts of Mr A who claimed that acts of mercy are at the expense of the victims with the implication that every victim wants to pay back their tormentors a hundred-fold.
Again, Steve Ditko is another guy who adopted Objectivism. He wrote children's comics for a living and invented Doctor Strange, who is a fucking mystic, the opposite of an objectivist.
>>76178661
How is living for yourself being a douchebag?
>>76186805
>kant
lol you have no idea
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html
>>76186957
>Objectivists claim that mankind is a noble, rational being but strip away flim-flam and humbug and they really expect everyone to be irrational, vindictive and self-serving.
Again, wrong. Also, prove it, faggot.
> The response to the first is to pretend to be a paragon of rationality and the response to the second and third is to say "I'm ruthless and self-serving, so is everyone else. At least I admit it".
Nope.
>In "All Star Superman"
Another fringe comic
>Luthor realizes that all of his rationalizations are delusions, learning that he could have saved the world years ago if it had mattered to him.
Except that he was trying to murder someone for having more power than him (which is envy, and is un-objectivist)
>This is a lot like the actions of the designated heroes of "Atlas Shrugged" who won't lift a finger to prevent the collapse of the world and even help it along so that they can build it on exactly their terms, collateral damage from their actions be damned.
They weren't trying to murder anyone, others were trying to strangle them and emselves. Big difference.
>>76175352
I never understood why, either, bc Ayn Rand was pro-choice and anti-racist.
But conservative fuckheads just cherrypick the parts of objectivism they like, and its only ever the parts that have to do with money, so i shouldnt be surprised.
If conservatives were really down with Ayn theyd be a lot more about personal autonomy n the right to make choices w/o gov interference and, well, theyre just not
>>76180365
But killing and stealing infringes on the personal liberties of others.
Shkreli raised his price and was then undercut by a competitor. That's all.
>>76186451
It wouldn't be so much an issue were wages rising across the board. Disparity IS an issue and is bigger than ever. Disparity is an issue because unless at some point a meaningful redistributive measure is taken we are heading back to a two tier society with the have-nots not much more than serfs.
>>76187007
It isn't
>>76186156
>>From an objectivist standpoint, Superman is evil since he allows and helps evil exist due to his policy of never killing
Fuck no, Objectivists don't aim to kill people they disagree with.
>and always saving the villain.
Uh-huh. And he lets them walk scot-free, doesn't he? They never break out of jails or prisons.
>He also helps people without regard for if they deserve it or who they are which flies in the face of objectivists only doing good things when it benefits them later.
And this affects only those who are a part of this trade. Others are not.
>Constantly claims that Superman is jealous of him. Quite similar to how objectivists react to criticism by claiming that the person doing the criticism is jealous of their talent.
What is this, strawman central?
>>In one of Lex's cruelest moments, he cures his sister of a disease and then gives it back to her in order to mess with Superman and in one of his pettier moments he gives a bunch of people superpowers and then takes them away when he found that the technique wouldn't work for him.
That's called being a psychopath.
>From an objectivist standpoint, this isn't villainous because he was returning people to their original state.
Another bs statement. I need proof with quotes for all these statements, faggot.
Protip : you won't find any.
>>76187129
>But conservative fuckheads just cherrypick the parts of objectivism they like
Theres nothing wrong with that...
>>76187129
>why Ayn Rand was anti-Racist
Because it's a form of collectivism.
Read "racism" from The Virtue of Selfishness.
>>76187446
lol
>>76176414
The capitalism part is the part of objectivism conservatives n republicans love best.
>>76187471
are you implying there is a problem with it? What is the problem?
>>76187668
Cherrypicking without observing the base first will always lead to contradictions.
See Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Rush, etc.
>>76187062
Im still not seeing a solid argument in favor of objective thought there
The closest youve got is this I think
>All knowledge is processed knowledge—whether on the sensory, perceptual or conceptual level. An “unprocessed” knowledge would be a knowledge acquired without means of cognition. Consciousness . . . is not a passive state, but an active process. And more: the satisfaction of every need of a living organism requires an act of processing by that organism, be it the need of air, of food or of knowledge.
Which I dont think is necessarily wrong, but also doesn't preclude our perceptions of reality from being subjective and therefore is not an argument against Kant
>>76187951
>not a full argument
And it's not supposed to be one, read "Causality versus Duty" in Philosophy : Who Needs It.
Kant basically rejects that reality is reality, and says that it is all just a sham, and that sensory perception is false.
>>76188204
Also, he advocates Cinsciousness before reality, which the exact opposite of objectivism and Reality being an absolute is the basic tenet of Objectivism.
Ayn Rand HATED Kant and was once asked what she would do if she had a time machine. She said that she'd kill Kant, because he gave the base to all the subjectivism that plagues society today. Even Plato identified some aspects of reality.
>>76188361
*Consciousness
>>76174796
I like it in a way. I'm a fan of social darwinism.
>>76188204
>>76188361
>>76188393
That is a gross misunderstanding of Kant
Saying that our perceptions of reality are just that - perceptions - is not the same thing as saying reality is a sham
>>76187924
>putting the great Elder Statesman Rep. Dr. Ron Paul, M.D., Esq. in the same category as Ted Cruz and Rush Limbaugh
>cartoon_penn_jillette_in_front_of_trash_can.jpg
>>76174796
Based and as anti-degenerate as you can get.
Reminder Ayn Rand wasn't against individuals giving charity or helping their community, when she talked about pro-selfishness she's talking about social welfare, aka the root of all western social ills.
>>76187447
I have read it. How the fuck do you think i know shes anti-racist?
>>76187446
Of course there is. Its just using small bits of a larger whole to justify your actions, like ppl do w the bible n the torah n the quran. Its intellectually dishonest
>>76189289
I dont see it that way, I just see it as taking parts of something that you agree with and incorporating it into your own system
>>76174796
>>76189049
Yet you wrote that you never understood why she was anti-racism
>>76189046
>Reminder Ayn Rand wasn't against individuals giving charity or helping their community, when she talked about pro-selfishness she's talking about social welfare,
lo wtf hahah
>aka the root of all western social ills.
true
>>76189013
Well, they might differ in degrees but they all adapted some part of it officially, and failed.
Also, Penn Jillette is a lib, not an objectivist.
>>76189012
You are misunderstanding him. He states that reality is not real, that there is no way to know what is truly in front of us through any logical means. He goes as far to say that logic is a method of subversion, and that the first thing to disbelieve is what you see. This was the base for his "noumenal" world, through which he states that everything can be known, and the only way to tap into this world is to let go of your mind. Duty follows from this.
He explicitly states that reality is not real at all, that it is a delusion by our collective brains.
>>76189406
But does it work? You're avoiding that. Why would you want to fail, anyway?
Rational self interest doesn't interest me.
The highest pursuit in ones life should be for ones own people and their nation.
>>76189784
Thats not what rational self interest is. Effort made for the greater good of nations and nationalities is what she was against
>>76189595
I said I dont understand why
>liberals dont like her, considering she was anti-racist.
Try reading for comprehension and not speed and stop wasting my fucking time.
>>76189595
Kant argues that our perceptions are linked to, but exist independently of, objective reality. That is not at all the same as saying that reality is a delusion, that reality doesnt exist, and that its impossible to know anything
If you cant grasp the distinction then you are stupid
>>76190442
My bad.
>>76190650
>linked to
No, he states that they are just a method of deluding yourself, and that reality is just a false construct created by your mind.
>>76190833
No problem, friend. Have a great day! : D
>>76180760
Rev up the Stirnerposting.
>>76190833
Well particulars of Kant (which again, you are wrong about) aside, you have to entertain the possibility that the mind makes an a priori contribution to knowledge - and therefore that knowledge is not totally objective - until you can prove definitively that it doesnt
You have yet to produce that proof so lets hear it: how do you justify your belief in objective knowledge?
>>76174796
I always liked Objectivism as a life philosophy but honestly I think it has no place in determining or becomimg involved in capitalistic politics.
Where do you think radical lefties and SJWs came from? Their same school of thought is a bastardization of objectivism. They take the desire to figure out your own subjective truth and twist it to fit a hiveminded victim complex mentality. Its extremely dangerous. Somewhere along the way in objectivist thought people have to be reminded that the government must still retain a sense of power and that your conclusions cannot take away the rights of others.
>>76191686
>Where do you think radical lefties and SJWs came from? Their same school of thought is a bastardization of objectivism.
lol
They take the desire to figure out your own subjective truth
nope
>and twist it to fit a hiveminded victim complex mentality.
strawman
> Its extremely dangerous. Somewhere along the way in objectivist thought people have to be reminded that the government must still retain a sense of power and that your conclusions cannot take away the rights of others.
Objectivist =/= Anarchist
>>76191566
>Well particulars of Kant (which again, you are wrong about) aside
not wrong
>you have to entertain the possibility that the mind makes an a priori contribution to knowledge - and therefore that knowledge is not totally objective - until you can prove definitively that it doesnt
Motor functions are developed after practice, but you CAN NOT expect someone to hunt or do anything else without complex mental integrations. All of these require conscious thought and conscious effort on the part of the individual. Objectivism holds that individuals are born Tabula Rasa, and that everything else (not initial motor functions) are a result of consioud effort.
>You have yet to produce that proof so lets hear it: how do you justify your belief in objective knowledge?
I already posted it. It rests on the axiom that the world is real, and that we observe it correctly. Definite actions have definite consequences, so you know that the world is real and that reason is the only means of gaining knowledge. There is no way you can prove anything without reason. There are no "proofs" without reason.
>>76186477
>Nope. He blames people for making him a god, not the other way around.
In the Black Ring, Lex specifically states that Superman doesn't empathize with humanity.
>No, no and no. Altruists are suicidal Their "philosophy" doesn't work. Supes wouldn't take breaks, he'd die helping every fucking man on earth.
That's already been addressed. Superman intends to be the paragon who inspires others to be better. He doesn't solve problems that humans aren't around to solve.
>fuck no
Got an actual argument?
>Wrong again. Objectivists are highly sympathetic.
Really? Because I've never seen it.
>>76186957
>That's a fringe comic you faggot.
>So did the joker in TDK
Your point?
>Not true at all. You're attacking a strawman. Also, burden of proof.
"There is only one thing that matters and that we'll remember. The rest doesn't matter." Source: We the Living.
One may do things, affecting others, for his own pleasure and benefit. This is not immoral, but the highest of morality.
One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself. Fine!
has learned long ago, with his first consciousness, two things which dominate his entire attitude toward life: his own superiority and the utter worthlessness of the world.
Source: Journals of Ayn Rand
>Again, not true.
How so?
>Goodkind only borrows objectivism for certain aspects and I'll need that quote from Ayn Rand.
No True Scotsman again. And also:
The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...
Source: Journals of Ayn Rand
When someone considers that the majority of people have committed worse crimes than mutilating a 12 year old, you know that they think humans are bastards.
>>76192684
>black ring
Comics don't have a fixed storyline or facts. Pretty much every writer changes something. Quote from the same comics and we'll see.
>doesn't solve problems that humans can't
yet he drives away suns, lifts cars, etc
>actual argument
Objectivists aren't driven by others' prrcieved need for them, or their approval. Only approval of those (and even then, not necessary) who follow the same values.
>never seen it
How many have you met IRL?
>your point
You need to consider the context and not just the action.
>"There is only one thing that matters and that we'll remember. The rest doesn't matter." Source: We the Living.
And you'll find a thousand more lines like these in her other books. Does not mean Objectivists are murderers or hurt innocents.
>One may do things, affecting others, for his own pleasure and benefit. This is not immoral, but the highest of morality.
very shallow statement (as in not very elaborate), but okay.
>One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself. Fine!
Only things you own. Not others' property or other people.
>has learned long ago, with his first consciousness, two things which dominate his entire attitude toward life: his own superiority and the utter worthlessness of the world.
Yet, you removed the surrounding paragraphs and are quoting shit from her unedited journals. Seriously?
>Source: Journals of Ayn Rand
JOURNALS. They are unedited. That's basically from her rough thoughts and many of them are wrong, because it's not final. She's thinking things through in that journal.
>how so
Objectivists espouse a Benevolent view of the world, not a Malevolent view.
>>76192684
>>76186957
>Again, Steve Ditko is another guy who adopted Objectivism. He wrote children's comics for a living and invented Doctor Strange, who is a fucking mystic, the opposite of an objectivist.
Another case of No True Scotsman. And while Doctor Strange was invented to entertain people, Mr. A was specifically made to promote Ditko's objectivist beliefs.
>>76187062
>Again, wrong. Also, prove it, faggot.
See above.
>Nope.
>Another fringe comic
Come up with actual arguments.
>Except that he was trying to murder someone for having more power than him (which is envy, and is un-objectivist).
From an objectivist standpoint, Superman is far weaker than Luther since Superman willingly shackles himself to his principles and doesn't use his powers for his own benefit.
>They weren't trying to murder anyone, others were trying to strangle them and emselves. Big difference.
You mean purposefully designing buildings that people are supposed to live in that are meant to collapse, undoubtedly killing people inside, or expecting piracy to not require physical force, or murdering security guards paralyzed with indecision in cold blood, or the narrator acting like the bystanders who were suffocated to death when the train went into the tunnel completely deserved it.
>>76187340
>Fuck no, Objectivists don't aim to kill people they disagree with.
In this post >>76188361 you stated that Ayn Rand would kill Kant if she had a time machine.
>Uh-huh. And he lets them walk scot-free, doesn't he? They never break out of jails or prisons.
You're missing the point, Superman figured out something that remains alien to you, that destroying evil isn't the same as creating good. He tries to reform people instead of taking the simplest option.
>And this affects only those who are a part of this trade. Others are not.
Your point?
>>76192684
>No True Scotsman again. And also:
Uh huh. Calling something wrong because it is not exactly what I want is a fallacy. right.
>The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...
Again, out of context quote and misread.
>Source: Journals of Ayn Rand
Already explained why this is not a very credible source.
>When someone considers that the majority of people have committed worse crimes than mutilating a 12 year old, you know that they think humans are bastards
She wasn't talking about them condemning him for murder, she was talking about people beig condemned when they have done nothing. People being condemned because they can think for themselves, because they are individualists, etcetra. She was fiercely against murdering someone and condemned him for doing it, but the view she expressed was that had he not drowned in the river of bs, he could have been a very smart young man. Instead, he chose to kill people because he felt shallow, for whatever reasons.
>>76192400
You cannot seriously expect me to accept, in a discussion of metaphysics, as dogma that the mind's interaction with reality is in every way perfect and that no alternative perception is possible
How can you say that for sure?
>>76194375
Do you have some evidence that there are any other means of learning about the reality?
>>76193896
>steve ditko
Honesty is important in work, and "entertaining people" is no reason to divert from your values. Also stop quoting that bs fallacy. If you're asking me if something is objectivist and if it isn't, then it's not a fucking fallacy when I say it isn't objectivist.
>see above
how does that prove anyhing?
>come up with actual arguments
Graphic novels use different characters than the mainstream continuity. Comic characters follow a hazy view of morality that every writer shifts and changes according to the plot. So criticizing superman in ASS because of something that happened in the main continuity is wrong.
>superman is far weaker
shifing goalposts. I was taliing about pure physical strength and abilities, and lex is vastly inferior to supes here. Also, there is no reason to pay attention to an altruist. If you do, that means you are pursuing a value lower than yours, and that puts you on a pedestal lower than the altruist. Have you even read the fountainhead? Roark vs Toohey is the embodiment of this debate.
>Building meant to collapse
The building was structurally sound, retard. Roak bombed it and that's why it fell. Also, no one was staying there, only the security guard guarding the premise, whom Dominique distracted.
>piracy to not require physical force
Ragnar basically hit a lot of thieves. What are you talking about?
>security guards
Dagny killed him because he was the end point of what the morality of altruism could concoct - a selfless brute who rules with guns. He refused to move, and she shot him because he was objectively a non-value whereas John was the greatest value ever. The same concept is applied in Lawful executions in an objectivist government.
>Narrator not doing anything
what could the narrator have done? Nothing. It's a narrator.
>Rand would kill Kant
Same, I explained it above. If someone is a non-value and gets in your way, and if the only way to get rid of him/her is murder, then do it.Otherwise, it is immoral
>>76175906
>embodied in laissez-faire capitalism
>by selective reproduction of reality
A drop of poison in a cup of water.
>>76174796
Bullshit,based on abstractions,and giving them arbitrary values. People like Burke debunked that kind of crap before it even existed.
>>76194613
If, as Kant argues, the mind makes an a priori contribution to knowledge, a different mind could easily make a different a priori contribution which would mean it formed knowledge differently
>>76177316
>the real wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer hands
Nothing wrong with this. Progress comes through inequality. If wealth was distributed more equally high end investments woukd be nearly null,and technology and the economy would stagnate. The most advanced economies in the world have high inequalities,like Hong Kong or Singapure
>>76174796
Have you actually read the Virtue of Selfishness or For the New Intellectual?
Objectivism isn't philosophy. It isn't rigorous or logical. It's barely even coherent. It's a bowl full of quasi-spiritual blah-blah with a dollop of epicurean hedonism, served with a side of amateur economics.
>>76193896
>Destroying evil isn't the same thing as creating good
I know, otherwise John Galt would've exiled himslef and let the world burn.
>tries to reform
Yet, failing is not an option. Because if you fail, people die in this context. Putting them in a prison suited for them is proper.
>your point?
That you don't have to be concerned with anything unless it affects you. If someone you don't know dies at the hands of some other guy you don't know, you don't go out to seek retribution for murder.
>>76194375
Not in every way, but that Our senses can percieve reality as it is. It can percieve certain wavelengths, hear certain frequencies, but that does not mean that is all there is.
It's an axiom and there is no way to prove otherwise. Values are based on life and your own happiness and if anything ends life, then it is not a value.
Post at /r/trueobjectivism for detailed answers, this place is too fast.
>>76195071
>selective repoduction
That's for art, faggot. Improve your comprehension
>drop of poison
refuted
>>76195471
And objectivist holds Tabula Rasa as true.
>>76195142
>>76195618
lol
>>76190265
Which is why I'm against rational self interest.
>>76174796
shit tier philosophy advocated by a tranny degenerate in love with a serial killer.
it would only breed revolution.
have to find a balance in society or its always going to be at war with itself.
>>76190265
>she
wewlad
>>76196331
>>76196266
kek
>>76196259
slave
>>76195471
Maybe this is what you're looking for.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fundamentality,_rule_of.html
test
>>76196907
okay, are trips banned on /pol/ or something?
>>76195008
>>76195887
>shit tier philosophy
>has one poo-in-loo superfan
Not surprising
>>76196973
>who is posting for "gets" off of /b/
Jesus fucking christ, kidd-o.
>Objectivism
The TL:DR version is that Rand read Nietzsche, didnt really understand it and then came up with an ideology that is breathtakingly naive and totally misunderstands human nature but is beloved of greedy, selfish fools who imagine they will be successful at some point (if only those pesky looters would stop holding them back).
In short...
>philosophy
>written by a woman
Pick one
>>76197281
>posting for gets
nope
>ad hom
kys
>>76197408
And now the wave of retards approaches, ever so slowly....
>>76196558
>http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fundamentality,_rule_of.html
It isnt
I am asking you to convince me that your axiom - "we perceive the world objectively" - is true, rather than offering it up as an article of faith
>>76195887
>lol
How is this an argument budy?
>>76197778
It's an axiom, nothing else. You asking for proof proves it.
>>76197794
>how is this an argument, budy?
The same way their post was a proper criticism. lol, "budy".
>>76198071
You have to assume the world is real, that existence exists. Then you will know that reason is supreme. Testing your senses through cause and effect while accepting life as the source of values leads to the conclusion.
It was made by someone who had to live through the horrors of Marxism and, understandably, tried to take the exact opposite stance.
Rand's great for triggering leftists though, and in spite of the villains being "caricatures" they're a perfect depiction of most SJWs.
It's a secular philosophy, likely wouldn't work without violence, but at the very least it's great for pissing on Marx.
>>76198071
I'll take Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" over that shitty non-argument, thanks
>objectivism
>being a real philosophy
>>76198665
>>76198411
It's an assumption for Kant.
>>76174796
Someone tl;dr me this welfare-consuming jewish dyke's "philosophy" and why is it liked by beta boys who want to be edgy?
An excuse for Jewish elitism
>>76198071
Objectivism is created around abstractions. It is simple. If you dont get that there is nothing objective about objectivism,ironically. Is just based around assumptions made in a finction book.
>>76199393
strawman pls go
>>76199714
Can you at least tell me what is objetive about Rand's ideas?
>>76199299
>why is it liked by beta boys who want to be edgy?
They imagine themselves to be the future captains of industry, great scientists/inventors/thinkers etc. Their brilliance is unfortunately restrained by a system that siphons away their labour and hands it to lesser beings.
Also it's the sort of rebellion against mainstream socialism that makes sense to embittered teenagers.
>>76187340
>What is this, strawman central?
And this is the whole shabby secret: to some men, the sight of an achievement is a reproach, a reminder that their own lives are irrational, and that there is no loophole - no escape from reason and reality. Their resentment is the cornered Dionysian element baring its teeth.
>That's called being a psychopath.
And it's the personality type that is considered the ideal in objectivist thought since Rand idolized William Hickman for literally not having an organ of understanding (which is the very definition of psychopathy) and described John Galt as the man who has never felt "fear, pain or guilt".
>Another bs statement. I need proof with quotes for all these statements, faggot.
It's not as strong as the rest of my statements and sources but in one of my conversations with objectivists I mentioned outsourcing, removing loyal competent workers in favor of less competent but cheaper ones in other countries. His response was that it isn't immoral because those former workers are being returned to a previous state.
>>76175906
>proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness
gay
>>76174796
In some ways i like it, but i think it has some flaws. I think a State is needed to keep law and order, but regarding the economy I'm not really sure about laissez-faire capitalism being a good system. I'm skeptical in that matter. I think it can easily turn in an oligarchy.
ObJEWctivists dig it tho.
>>76199972
OK, thanks mate but what did this whore say that is supposedly so special?
>philosophy
>by a woman
Threads like this make me think that half of pol didn't swallow even the most elemental red pills they should.
A woman fundamentally can't understand virtues.
A philosophy without virtues is fit only for the half-dead.
>>76195471
I'll take it as a "no" then.
>>76193646
>>76193940
>>76195008
>>76195887
>What are your masses [of humanity] but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?
Source: We the Living (by Kira, Rand's mouthpiece)
>Objectivists espouse a Benevolent view of the world, not a Malevolent view.
Actually, objectivism is a case of tender misanthropy where someone despises humanity in general but believes that they can love the real people. It's reflected in your own statements where you say that someone of no value should be removed or that objectivists only care about what other objectivists think and consider everyone else to be a non-entity.
>Also, there is no reason to pay attention to an altruist. If you do, that means you are pursuing a value lower than yours, and that puts you on a pedestal lower than the altruist.
So you don't consider the arguments that anyone says and just dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as being evil, stupid and beneath you?
>The building was structurally sound, retard. Roak bombed it and that's why it fell. Also, no one was staying there, only the security guard guarding the premise, whom Dominique distracted.
I'm talking about Francisco D. Antonio.
>Dagny killed him because he was the end point of what the morality of altruism could concoct - a selfless brute who rules with guns. He refused to move, and she shot him because he was objectively a non-value whereas John was the greatest value ever. The same concept is applied in Lawful executions in an objectivist government.
he was cringing against the door, making no effort to resist her. As we’ll see shortly, she hasn’t come alone, so why don’t the good guys just disarm him, knock him out cold or tie him up? The only reason Rand has Dagny shoot him is to reassert the moral validity, the inherent rightness, of the murder option.
>>76202560
>quote from we the living
so?
>misanthropy
Nah, It's judging people based on values. We don't implicitly assume everyone is bad. Currently, most people are idiots and immoral. That's why the world is going down. And you would see that in Galt's statements or any book by Rand, that accpeting reality and using reason is the only way to live, and those who don't fail to live fully and consciously. You can see this in the novel's title, "We the LIVING".
>dismiss everyone as evil
No, I'd consider a libertarian better than a socialist and I'm more inclined to talk to an honestly mistaken socialist than a brainwashed one. There are degrees of dislike, and most objectivists choose to ignore those who evocate this feeling in them.
>Francisco D'Anconia
What building? Can you elaborate?
>reassert moral validity of murder
basically. It's a novel, she's doing it to make a point.
>>76174796
Dead.
Can't win using arguments vs someone who does not use arguments.
