What's wrong with Objectivism? Why is it so universally rejected as a guiding philosophy?
I guess it makes sense to outline what Objectivism is to head off any confusion early:
>reality exists whether you like it or not, your emotions don't change this
>Logic and the human mind should be the primary instruments for exploring and understanding reality
>man's moral goal is to achieve personal happiness, and pursue rational (long-term) self interest
>Capitalism is the only social system consistent with this world view, and which allows individuals to pursue it
>No person is entitled to another's labor or property
>The collective does not take precedence over the individual
>mutually beneficial trade is superior to sacrifice
Argument 1: Objectivism's selfishness promotes vice, dishonesty, fraud, etc.
Rebuttal: those are not rational strategies for pursuing self interest in the long run.
Argument 2: Capitalism exploits many for the gain of a few
Rebuttal: Some people get richer than others, but if everyone gets richer that shouldn't matter to you. If someone gets poorer, then it wasn't mutually beneficial trade.
Nothing. The only people who get assmad about Objectivism are those clouded by their feels.
There's nothing wrong with objectivism. It's just that objectivism is the philosophy of the 1%, the top dawgs, the creme-de-la-creme, so the plebs will never understand it and will always rally against it.
All the hate against Atlas Shrugged only affirms its message.
arguing "objectively" over abstract truths divides the community.
>>77658043
Why is an individual required to sacrifice his destiny for the good of the "community"?
Anthem is Ayn Rand's best book
>>77657859
read Evola
because it's a fantasy
do you really think people need guidance to act in their own self-interest?
>>77658043
>community
My phone says you're a faggot, faggot.
>>77658346
No, but I think we as a society - because of our historical roots in Christianity - value sacrifice of self over the exaltation of self. Objectivism challenges that not only is it not wrong to pursue your rational self interest, it is moral.
Today, we vilify wealth creators and idolize sacrificers. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
>>77658177
>>77657859
>man's moral goal is to achieve personal happiness, and pursue rational (long-term) self interest
One of the problems with economics, and politics in general, is that the majority of people aren't intelligent enough to distinguish between long-term and short-term self-interest. And even when they are, they often lack the willpower to prioritise long-term self-interest.
Hence why this rebuttal isn't foolproof.
>Argument 1: Objectivism's selfishness promotes vice, dishonesty, fraud, etc.
>Rebuttal: those are not rational strategies for pursuing self interest in the long run.
Most people aren't rational or intelligent enough to truly benefit from Objectivism and Capitalism.
>>77657859
It's too elitist. It breeds an intense fear that you aren't worthy and will become chaff.
>>77657946
>>77657948
This pretty much. Wealth "inequality" doesn't really matter if the poor live a good lifestyle and the rich live an exponentially better one. Who cares what the level of inequality is as long as the bottom is doing great for themselves
>>77658177
>Implying that "sacrificing your destiny" and "goo of the community" are mutually exclusive
>>77657859
>women
>philosophy
but I could also say
>jews
>philosophy
>man's moral goal is to achieve personal happiness, and pursue rational (long-term) self interest
OK so I make a company and exploit uneducated fools and desperate single mothers, use my money to lobby for whatever I just want, mainly more money while not giving a single fuck about anyone else. I impregnate a lot of women then leave them alone with my children because I don't care about them and don't feel any regret and parenting wouldn't make me happy. I also start manipulating stock exchanges then buy up small banks. YOLO.
by your jewish prophet's (welfare be upon her) doctrine, George Soros is a good man, right? He just persued his long term self interest and happiness. Just like Shillary and Obongo
There's nothing wrong with it. Calling people selfish is not a good argument. I'm not an Objectivist, but it's worth pointing out that if you think it's more idiotic than any other philosophy you've got blinders on. Plenty of people who think Objectivism is trash unironically think socialism is a good idea.
>>77657859
The fact that it looks like all other Jewish intellectual cults should be an alarm bell. Extreme logical rigidity based on arbitrary principles, heavy psychologization of opponents and dissent (her clique had psychoanalysis counseling similar like Freud), autistic misunderstanding of human nature, etc.
>reality exists whether you like it or not, your emotions don't change this
Sure
>Logic and the human mind should be the primary instruments for exploring and understanding reality
Individual human reason is overrated. Collective knowledge and tradition exist because the sum total workings of the universe are too vast for one person to know and the division of labor is a division of knowledge. Sometimes you just have to trust the group as a calculated risk.
>man's moral goal is to achieve personal happiness, and pursue rational (long-term) self interest
>mutually beneficial trade is superior to sacrifice
Human behavior is evolutionarily selected for group survival not individual survival or happiness. In a sense that's mutual but it still doesn't really mesh with Rand's atomized hyper individualism. Her definition of altruism and sacrifice are weird and confusing and they don't help matters here either.
>No person is entitled to another's labor or property
I wish I save some of those Stirner images because they would work great here. Property is a good idea but natural rights don't exist. It's a social construct that would vanish if people stopped believing in it.
>>77658915
You don't think that, over time, strategies for more effectively pursuing self interest rationally would arise and gain traction in a society that embraced Objectivism? Debt is an obscure concept that even large groups of poorly educated people have learned over the centuries, for example. So is the religious concept of charity. Why wouldn't people eventually adopt better strategies over time, especially if they were held accountable for all their decisions and kept the proceeds and consequences of them?
>>77659261
>xploit uneducated fools and desperate single mothers, use my money to lobby for whatever I just want, mainly more money while not giving a single fuck about anyone else. I impregnate a lot of women then
See rebuttals 1 and 2
doesnt objectivism actually mean "not relativism"
why does it have to refer to ayn rand capitilism?
>>77657859
Because stormfags like to blame Jews for everything in typical kangz fashion (they want a socialistic system) and Ayn Rand was Jewish.
>>77659309
>individual reason is overrated
I don't agree. Objectivism doesn't suppose you live on an island without other people, it claims the best method of human interaction is mutually beneficial trade and respect of property. We can pursue the universe together, I just don't want to be coerced into doing it your way, we have to agree and trade.
>group survival over individual
see above, we can trade and work together, just without coercion. Don't force people in your tribe to help, appeal to them for help.
>property is a construct
it's a product of labor, which is real. If you dismiss it, you remove any incentive for humans to create
>>77659309
here you go
>>77659452
The problem is you're ignoring the truth of things.
Of course it would be great if everyone were rational actors behaving in their self-interest so that nobody could get screwed over because they would be aware of when they were getting cheated.
But a large number of people aren't rational, and I doubt there's anything we can do to change that. Moreover when a single person gains enough power it becomes impossible to compete with them. They can sway Congress to legislate you out of existence.
You also didn't address his perhaps most critical point, are people like George Soros and the Clintons really what you want humanity to aspire to? Because they certainly seem to embody the philosophy.
>>77659874
>They can sway Congress to legislate you out of existence
>Soros and Clintons are ideal objectivists
I think youre the one ignoring the truth desu senpai
>>77659874
>large numbers of people aren't rational
I don't necessarily disagree, but I also think that if people pursued reason actively they can grow to become more rational over time. Science as a discipline and method of thought has taken root and flourished despite human biases against it, why can't reason?
>Soros and Clinton
see rebuttal 1
Assuming they exploit for personal gain, they are not being rationally objective. Mutually beneficial trade and a wealthy, flourishing society are beneficial to everyone, myself included. I don't have to screw you to advance, and if I do I make enemies that will bite me later.
Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, or Elon Musk seem like better models, though none is perfect.
>>77657859
My only issue with the philosophy is its high focus on individualism and the self serving life style that comes from this.
I personally think the individual is important, however what's better for the collective and the collectives future/preservation takes higher importance.
Example:Sacrifice the few to save the many
Or
Sometimes an individual can do more for society than a number of people making their death for said individual justified.
I like to look at what's better for the many which will ultimately be better for the individual.
I certainly like some of the aspects of Objectivism such as logic>emotion, however differ in its biggest aspect.
Still worth looking in to in my opinion though, you can disagree.
>>77659354
Over time? Sure. Problem is, how much time are we talking? Because until all members of a society would adopt those strategies spontaneously, you would effectively witness that society cannibalising itself over and over again, often at the risk of total societal collapse. Eventually, if that society manages to survive, a stable situation might be reached, but in the mean time, it may have missed out on a lot of progress because of internal conflict and instability.
I'd rather have a bit of collectivism right now to keep the dumb masses in line than have to risk societal collapse in the hopes of one day having a society where all people can spontaneously make rational choices.
>>77660384
Which happens now anyway
>>77658043
Are you too simpleminded to understand "unite and conquer"?
Of course you are, you're too busy whining about its opposite to reflect.
>>77659804
What is with this "coercion" meme? There's no reason why we should take people's volition seriously as some kind of religious principle. At the end of that road lies only narcissistic hyper individualism and maladaptive behavior that will quickly be rectified and removed from the gene pool by more collective oriented groups.
>>77659804
What sort of activity constitutes labor and how much is required to make something property? This is arbitrary. See the Stirner memes.
>>77660339
>self serving lifestyle
this is addressed in the OP. Why is pursuing your individual destiny bad if it doesn't harm others?
Why is it ok for Athens to vote to kill Socrates? Should popular vote or the dictator's decree determine what the "good" of the collective is, and therefore justify coercion against others?
>>77660463
Yes, and it's bad enough already. We don't need it to get worse.
>>77660526
>collective groups beat individual ones
Last I checked, more individual societies were wealthier, healthier, and more powerful than collective ones.
>>77658684
Very good point anon.
>>77657859
This all just sounds like a rehash of Frederic Bastiat.
Did (((Ayn Rand))) just rip off Bastiat?
>>77660537
It isn't bad to pursue ones self destiny if it's harmless or even beneficial to society, however prioritizing that can lead to degradation of society and perhaps the individual if the individual is given more priority than that of society.
Objectivism is not what I follow as it prioritized what I regard as a secondary and therefore will not get my approval, however like I said some of its aspects are good.
Also self serving can vary from different things wether it be degenerate or education, it depends on what the individual is pursuing for them self.
In regards to Socrates his death is only called for if it is objectively best for his society. I'm not just talking a dictators decision or a majority's opinion, I mean what is comparatively better.
>>77660252
>Science as a discipline and method of thought has taken root and flourished despite human biases against it
And it's currently being subverted and corrupted to be a mockery of what it once was.
>Mutually beneficial trade and a wealthy, flourishing society are beneficial to everyone, myself included. I don't have to screw you to advance, and if I do I make enemies that will bite me later.
Honestly it seems you're relying on twisted semantics and denial. If Clinton becomes president tell me how all the enemies (many of which she had assassinated) have come back to bite her in the ass. Tell me what Soros is suffering for his dirty tactics. If anything it seems they have benefited immensely from their tactics and the only retribution they will ever face would be if there is some sort of afterlife where you are held accountable (which objectivism rejects).
While I agree that a wealthy flourishing society is better for all of us, oftentimes screwing a person over for individual gain is better for that individual since the amount it disrupts society is so small that it doesn't even come close to coming back to him.
>>77660677
No, individualism and hedonism are luxuries that we engage in once society has advanced to a certain point where we can tolerate them. I don't think people would call the early colonialist industrial societies or historically advanced societies such as China "individualist" by any means. Even the US was never anywhere near what Randians would consider acceptable. It's a rather modern meme.
>>77661171
I just can't bring myself to agree with the idea that other people matter more than I do, and therefore I have to surrender my time, labor, life, and property for them. Why was I born inferior that this is ok?
>>77657859
Ayn Rand was autistic
>writes story about trains
>good characters have sharp angular features which appeal to the autist
>bad characters have rounded features
>very basic characters that all pretty much had the same personalities and no depth to them other than the contents of their speech
honestly sometimes I found it a struggle to figure who which character was saying what because it was lacking the "he said she said" kind of stuff, and all the characters spoke like fucking autists. And her characters made no real sense. I reckon Ayn Rand was on the autist spectrum because she clearly didn't understand people
>>77661184
>Science
Even if that's true, which I don't necessarily agree with, it is evidence that humans can change the way they think over time.
>Clinton and Soros
This is a decent point, I'll have to think on this. I do think they would have been better off had they pursued their goals legitimately, but if they end up on top of the pile having successfully knifed everyone else in the back then what does it matter? All I can say is that it seems more rational to me to strengthen society than to destroy it, but I admit that's an incomplete answer.
>>77661563
Yea her writing was shit but if you had trouble figuring who was saying what, you might not be ready for atlas shrugged m80
>>77657859
I have a rebutal to objectivism. In the book written by Ayn Rand called "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal" Rand states that Gold or another limited item should be the currency used by people. Because there is only so much gold that means if one person is getting richer another must be getting poorer.
>>77661701
>>77661563
All non-objectivist authors are shit. Rand didn't fuck around on details she got right to the point.
The problem with objectivism is the same as it is with all political philosophies. As a theory, they all have merit. But they don't take into account the insurmountable corruption that human beings bring to the equation. If you think capitalism is "mutually beneficial" you need to have your head checked.
>>77661247
America is the most individualist society in the world, barring some isolated outliers. It has generated more wealth and innovation in its lifespan than any other society. West Europe comes next, then Asia, then everyone else. The scale slides down with individualism, and I would suppose that is because people are more motivated and industrious when they are free to live for themselves instead of for others.
Yes, all these societies could be more individualistic, and I would argue that would have helped them achieve even greater wealth.
>>77661884
pls get your head red
>>77657859
Social species dominate the planet; Individualist species are slowly being wiped out. The evolutionary arms race was won by collectivists. Individualism is an evolutionary dead end.
>>77657859
Libertarianism is a way for Jews to protect themselves from state genocide.
>>77661884
>lifts 2 billion people out of poverty in one century
>highest production, industry, and standard of living for all classes of people in all societies ever
>not mutually beneficial
ok
>>77661701
>Yea her writing was shit
80 page monologue.
It really is all you need to say to prove that she's a terrible author.
>>77661967
Name the social species currently dominating the planet
>>77662077
If you aren't Ayn Rand you are a terrible author. She is the only author I read because everyone else is total shit.
>>77661641
>All I can say is that it seems more rational to me to strengthen society than to destroy it
I agree. But it seems to be a sort of prisoner's dilemma.
>>77661854
you're a fucking idiot. It was the biggest rambling book of all time. John Galt's speech was the outline of Objectivism and it went for 80 fucking pages. The whole book was rambling and nonsense that could have been confined to something far smaller. If anything, Objectivists and people in this spectrum love epic bullshit of grandeur. Take Stefan Molymeme for example. He makes 40 minute fucking youtube cliips on topics he could cover in 5 minutes. They're all full of themselves and full of shit
>>77661701
I could follow the book fine buddy, just I had to re-read some sections to follow precisely who was saying what because Ayn Rand was too autistic for character development. Whatever you think of the ideology, it is some of the crappiest writing I have ever come across
>>77661426
Not all people are created equal.
Some people are inherently more valuable than others, this applies to everyone. You may not be able to come to terms with it, but I am.
In this I say Logic>Emotion.
This is my truth and belief. You can disagree, but I shall always look to the individual (myself included) second for the betterment of all to progress and evolve through time.
>>77662149
>Doesn't read other authors
>Claims other authors are shit
Of course you're a leaf.
>>77662173
I'm not interesting in how good she is at writing, I am interested in her arguments.
>>77661426
>Why was I born inferior that this is ok?
What do you mean?
>>77661884
>muh capitalism is evil meme
Seriously I was walking with my friend on campus and someone had a table set up talking about pro capitalism and he basically said "lol is he trying to be inflamatory"
I told him I agree with that guy at the table and he just smirked at me and was like "well lets agree to disagree" like I was a retard or something
I follow the based jew shapiros advice and just dont argue with them unless they make an explicit effort to ask me.
>>77662273
I've read them before but I hate them because they aren't Ayn Rand
>>77662173
you're a fucking idiot. It was the biggest rambling book of all time. John Galt's speech was the outline of Objectivism and it went for 80 fucking pages. The whole book was rambling and nonsense that could have been confined to something far smaller. If anything, Objectivists and people in this spectrum love epic bullshit of grandeur. Take Stefan Molymeme for example. He makes 40 minute fucking youtube cliips on topics he could cover in 5 minutes. They're all full of themselves and full of shit
We are full of ourselves because we are better
>>77662243
I do accept that some are better than others, and I don;t believe this is an excuse to cut down those exceptional people in the name of the good of others. The people who are most capable aren't born with yolks on their necks.
>>77662094
>denies reality
Call yourself an "objectivist"?
>>77662343
>Can't even quote properly
>Certain of his superiority
Can we just ban Canada already?
>>77662304
I reject the notion that because I have property, skill, or gifts I am required to sacrifice them to the betterment of the society at large. That implies I am worth less than the people I am forced to provide for.
>>77662289
You should always expect these threads to tangent off to talk about her writing ability.
I'm impressed you've had this much discussion of the philosophy in fact. Oftentimes all I need to do is say
>80 page monologue
And that's enough to derail an Ayn Rand thread.
>>77662413
I'm not following your argument. If you are saying that humans are the dominant species, I would agree and point out that the most individualist human societies also possess the lion's share of the wealth and prosperity.
If you mean that collectivist societies are winning the arms race, I challenged you to point out which society, since all collectivism societies are failures.
>>77662243
For me this is the true distinction between left wing and right wing. Left wing is egalitarian and right wing is acceptance of hierarchy. So social systems with castes are right wing and social systems aiming for homogenous societies are left wing.
>>77662436
Canadains are superior because we take in immigrants and absorb there culture and economy making us stronger
>>77662273
I wish there was a way to filter out posts from particular countries. Canadians are the worst
>>77662668
But the existence of trade makes a hierarchy meaningless. The word implies that one person is above, and therefore exploiting another. That's just not true.
>>77661909
Your theory is incapable of explaining basically all of human history. Centralizing of political power and forcing people to give up many of their rights was equivalent to advancement most of history, which is why despotic regimes such as China, the Ottomans, the various Persian States, the European colonial powers, etc. were the pinnacle of civilization in their times and drove society forward technologically. There was no individualism to be found then. The US itself thrived and prospered under a government that was heavily protectionist, implicitly white nationalist, and with heavily restricted franchise. Also, our centralization of government into the Fed and our aggressive entry into the politics and wars of Europe in the twentieth century was part of what secured our position at the top. If we had been more individualist we would be irrelevant.
>>77657859
There is a rising tide intellectually in the west. Simplistically, one of the main tenants of this intellectual change is the stupidity of altruism, or that altruism needs to be curtailed or logically focused towards something more excellent than muh humanity or muh equality.
I have disagreements with Objectivism, but, perhaps especially on a social level, Ayn Rand was a huge influence on that change of perception towards altruism. And for that, she is not invalid.
But this individualism shit needs to die OP. Its poison in our veins.
>>77657859
>man's moral goal is to achieve personal happiness
If this was true then man would not have been made to die.
Thus man's purpose is necessarily spiritual in nature.
>inb4 no objective purpose
Hey I didn't make any more presuppositions than OP
>>77662371
You can believe that, however with the fact that some are more important than others I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to "cut down" those who are less valuable if it is what is nessecary for the collective to continue at its best rather than appeal to only ones interest and suggest it's of equal worth to all others.
A quote that I like very much that applies to my belief is
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."
Prioritizing only ones interest above the collective if it is damaging to society is something that can hurt many and therefore Objectivism can't gain my favoring.
>>77657859
>what's wrong with objectivism?
Subjective values which render objectivity subjectivity.
Ayn Rand lead a large group of objectivits with her boyfriend, who were making head way in a political movement.
He slept with other women, they got frustrated/mad at each other, she excommunicated him from their party, party split, and it never took off.
There is no better example for a failure of objectivity right there.
In order for an ideological system to work, it must be from top to bottom:
>1. Absolute Truth
>2. Objective Truth
>3. Subjective Truth
Because what ever truth is on top, descends to the one immediately bellow it.
>>77662832
Anarchy is not freedom because it is rife with coercion, not freedom. You can't build because someone with a club will take it. Despotic regimes reduced the clubs to one person - the state. Capitalism and personal property flourish when society has no clubs at all, and property rights are respected.
The US thrived when people were permitted to the fullest extent to pursue wealth and keep it absent government intervention. Are white people "better" than others? Perhaps, if they are a category are full of people who are smarter and more industrious. It's not the race element that makes them that way, it's the way they think and work. This does not discredit Objectivism.
>>77663066
I think the idea is that you start from the presupposition that there is no objective purpose to life. Moving from that leads you to the conclusion that we must create our own purpose. Which leads to the conclusion that most people will choose making themselves happy.
Which all seems pretty reasonable, but I choose enlightenment over happiness so I think you're still correct.
>>77662468
If you accept that some people are more important than others and are superior then you'd have to accept the implication that you are worth less than some or a multitude of people.
One should sacrifice of it could lead to betterment of more UNLESS you are more important than the other individuals.
>>77663115
No subjective values steangthens objectivity
But at least you aren't an idiot like that Aussie autist in this thread.
>>77663122
>You can't build because someone with a club will take it.
That is why you have a bigger club.
>>77659259
>Wealth "inequality" doesn't really matter if the poor live a good lifestyle and the rich live an exponentially better one.
This. Like when Thatcher called out that Lib Dem. "He would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich."
> No person is entitled to another's labor or property
Good luck enforcing your imaginary property rights without a well-funded government, though.
>>77657859
Look at all of the logical and wholesome things that the left and "intellectuals" and SJW's attack now. OF COURSE a book as powerful and poignant as Atlas Shrugged will be attacked. There's your answer. The majority of the books critics are the very looters the book describes.
>>77663256
I'm not sure people understand what I said. Some people are just objectively better, that's genetics, happenstance, what have you. I have no problem with this. The problem I have is that people use the existence of this inequality to justify coercion against those who are better, to effectively yolk them to carts and make them pull everyone else. That, to me, is evil.
>>77657859
>Rebuttal: those are not rational strategies for pursuing self interest in the long run.
It is generally true, but what if in a situation where you CAN make some quick gain and you know it won't bite you back?
Also, mostly, honesty is very good if everyone else is doing it, but whether you're being honest yourself might or might not matter depending on the nature of your trade.
Also, Rand's presentation is fairly absent of any idea of redemption. So I guess, if you're already an ubermensch with no flaw and divine inspiration, good for you, but I'm not. Meanwhile I'll pursue a philosophy that leaves room for my own self-improvement, otherwise why bother?
>>77663430
Government exists to prevent coercion. It establishes order and a justice system. Objectivists and Libertarians are not anarchists, they just want the role of government focused on this one thing.
Ayn Rand is a horrible author and only Lolborgtarians and conservashits like her
>>77663267
like every Canadian you're fucking shit at shitposting. Canadian tier posting
>>77659309
This man has probably read Hayek and is my conservative nigga.
>>77663409
But if the rich are getting richer they must be getting the money from the non-rich.
>>77662650
>I'm not following your argument. If you are saying that humans are the dominant species
I'm "saying" the truth: social species dominate the planet. Solitary individualist species are becoming extinct, they are an evolutionary dead end.
Altruism trumps selfishness in the natural world. A group dominated by individualists cannot compete with a group dominated by altruists.
This is just the way the World works.
>>77661641
>All I can say is that it seems more rational to me to strengthen society than to destroy it, but I admit that's an incomplete answer.
It's simple physics that entropy favors destruction and chaos over order. It is easier to destroy than to make. Man is a fundamentally rational creature, yes? He understands this basic truth, from the dumbest to the smartest.
However, man is a fundamentally social creature. He measures his own wealth not in a truly objective manner, but in a comparative manner.
A man alone is neither poor nor rich, he simply is. A man in society however, has a place in that society, and the ambitious man wishes to be as close the the apex of the social power pyramid as possible.
A smart man of society realizes that after a certain point it takes less energy to cut his competition an inch shorter than grow another himself. Sure, you still want to grow, but growth in power becomes more relative rather than concrete after a point.
The difference in actual, tangible wealth between 50 billion and 51 billion dollars cannot be measured in simple luxuries... but in the exercise of power over peers. At this point it becomes reasonable to cut the loosen the strings of the economy a little and watch some of your peers freefall. After all, you're a 'clever man', and you knew when and where to hold on.
>>77663606
>market is a zero sum game
>>77663573
>dismissing philosophical argument because of style of prose
into the trash
>>77663573
Ayn Rand is the only good author. All others are shit and should not be taken seriously.
>>77663596
You're not good at shitposting for an Aussie.
>>77663267
The difference between objective endearing quirks, and objective insatisfying flaws, is subjectivity.
You can't have objectivity when people place different emphasis on what renders objectivity valid. If people aren't on the same page, it's just Marxism.
>>77663606
>being this dumb
>Canada
ah, ok
>>77663663
It is a 0 sum game. There is limited currency.
>inb4 gov printing money
Ayn Rand believed in using gold as currency. THere is limited amount on earth.
>>77657859
>reality exists whether you like it or not, your emotions don't change this
>Logic and the human mind should be the primary instruments for exploring and understanding reality
>man's moral goal is to achieve personal happiness, and pursue rational (long-term) self interest
Agreed with all of this.
>Capitalism is the only social system consistent with this world view, and which allows individuals to pursue it
>No person is entitled to another's labor or property
>The collective does not take precedence over the individual
Aaaaand this is why people reject it. Trickle down, economic Darwinism has failed the west. The top 25% of incomes in the USA have grown exponentially while the rest have decreased.
>>77663685
>implying Rand has a cogent position...
>>77661563
She was an INTJ if that helps.
>>77663720
True
>>77663742
>being this dumb
>being American
Goes hand in hand
>>77663755
holy shit nigga, you are Canada-tier
>>77663606
the rich are getting richer because of globalisation. they can now invest around the world in markets where labor is cheaper. It's been a good thing for hte rest of the world because a billion people have escaped poverty in the last 30 years but it's been bad for American workers because there's little investment at home
>>77663762
>the rest have decreased
tell me more about how people in the 1970s were wealthier without the internet, cell phones, better cars, personal computers, and better medicines?
>>77657859
>>reality exists whether you like it or not, your emotions don't change this
Okay, fair enough.
>>Logic and the human mind should be the primary instruments for exploring and understanding reality
That's a bit of an assumption, but we'll roll with it
>>man's moral goal is to achieve personal happiness, and pursue rational (long-term) self interest
Aaaand I'm gonna stop you right there. Why should personal happiness/self interest be man's moral goal? By what authority is that correct?
>>77663640
>social species dominate the planet.
Depends on your perspective. I could easily say that single celled bacteria and viruses dominate the planet based on many metrics.
>>77663914
Globalization is American imperialism tho. It's bad for Canada and Europe because America sucks all their wealth out. So that can't be it.
>>77663964
yeah sure buddy
>>77663964
Internet was created by Government.
>>77663755
Using gold as a basis of currency is still creating an artificial value to it and market goods relative to it so haveing a finite amount of gold is not an argument.
When less gold is worth more its as if there's more gold currency
>>77657859
I'm with you, OP. The Fountainhead is my favorite book.
That said Atlas Shrugged is a bit tedious.
>>77663464
It may be to you, however if it's whats objectively better for all then it is a nessecary thing to occur, however it doesn't always have to occur.
>That, to me, is evil.
Perhaps it is to you, but there's no absolute way of measuring evil as it is entirely subjective to each person.
As for me evil, is what's damaging to the many and allowing decay of society for the preservation of an individual's self proclaimed destiny on the basis of subjective beliefs.
What we can and should do I my opinion, is exercise life and society through absolute and objective truths, rather than some subjective ideals.
That's just me though, i can see how you disagree as its not in accordance to your beliefs, but I regard it as what's the most important for all.
>>77663640
No. Individualists dominate the planet.
Want proof? You own your own car, your own apartment/house, you eat your own food, earn your own money
The idea that you are property of the collective is dying. Individualism will always win.
>>77657859
>Rebuttal: those are not rational strategies for pursuing self interest in the long run.
Rebuttal rebuttal: Man is not a rational being; ergo any philosophy that presumes rational actors is useless as a guideline or for explaining behavior. (See economics for another example)
People can and do act against their rational self interest all the time. To deny them the ability to do this is to deny the freedom that is the cornerstone of objectivism, and now the whole house of cards has imploded on this paradox.
Game over. Would you like your possessions identified?
>>77664034
A single bacterium doesn't doinate anything.
Only bacteria that sacrifices its longevity and reproductive capacity for the benefit of the group thrives.
This is just how the World works.
>>77663964
That is not what wealthy means. People back then had more spending power than they do now.
If you do not understand basic definitions of economic terms, gtfo.
>>77664049
stop commenting.
>Looks at rest of the thread
Yikes.
>>77664159
>ant proof? You own your own car, your own apartment/house, you eat your own food, earn your own money
heh
We're a social species.
Try denying reality, if you want.
>>77664238
>Only bacteria that sacrifices its longevity and reproductive capacity for the benefit of the group thrives.
Nigger that's straight retarded. Most bacteria aren't social. Most bacteria do nothing in terms of group fitness. Most bacteria just maximize their personal reproduction at the expense of all else. Look at all the scenarios where bacteria will continue to reproduce to the point it destroys the environment (in animals, alcohol). Most bacteria act only in their own personal interest and that's part of what makes them so successful .
>>77664074
If the value of gold becomes more valuable than the rich will be even richer since they hold it. At any moment they could crash the market by spending.
>>77664346
Ha, stop denying it. Humans are VERY anti-social. We hate being watched shitting, having sex, sleeping. We only want to be around our families half the time and even then we want some alone time. We want trees around our house to block view. Humans are autists of the animal kingdom.
>>77657859
I've read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead.
I do see the logic in objectivism and so I do like her books. Not because of her writing, but or her stories, but because of her ideas.
I can't defend her writing. It's terrible. She says in whole pages what she could say in a paragraph. She did not know how to be concise. She needed a really good editor.
>>77664475
>the post industrial car-based lifestyle that has only existed for about a century is relevant to us as a species
>>77664579
>the post industrial car-based lifestyle that has only existed for about a century is relevant to us as a species
Humans have always been individual. Even in middle ages those with the money to do so lived in their own private houses with walls to block of the peasants view.
>>77664525
All non-Ayn Rand authors are terrible. Ayn Rand is the only good one.
>>77664475
>Ha, stop denying it. Humans are VERY anti-social.
I look out of my city window and see a skyline built on co-operation and mutual benefit. The sacrifice of millions of people for the nation. As the motto of the USA says: "from many, one".
>>77662769
4chanX can do that
>>77663115
>Subjective values
there is no such thing as subjectivity
values are influenced and shaped by various variables which can be objectively identified along with the patterns they form
the world is one giant cluster of algorithms and values are just another one of them
subjectivity is nothing more than a heuristic
>>77664783
Yeah and I look out my window and see houses on my street. All privatley owned by individual people. The people in front of me blocked off the view with a line of trees and despite cutting off my waterfront view they planted trees anyway devaluing my property so they could have more privacy. Not collectivist at all. Everyone is selfish.
>>77664711
>Humans have always been individual. Even in middle ages
You need to learn some history. In the Middle Ages people were subordinate to God, they served God. They acted on God's behalf. Society was ordered in a hierachy, it was based on serving those above you, it was the very definition of authoritarian collectivism.
Feudalism is not individualism.
Why Libertarians try to rewrite history is a mystery to me...
>>77664976
>Yeah and I look out my window and see houses on my street. All privatley owned by individual people
Who owns the road?
>>77664994
You need to learn history. Kings lived in castles with a shit ton of privacy. Lords lived in private houses. Servents were asked to leave the king hom a lot. And Priests spend 90% of their time alone.
Stop re-writing history.
>>77659113
It's not really elitist at all. It superficially is, by the language that Objectivists use, but I think as this quote by Bastiat points out >>77661038, it's far more elitist to assume that you are of a certain group of incorruptible people who don't have the normal failings that you see in the human race (failings that need to be fixed by government or community) and are therefore able to decide what's best for the rest.
Objectivism really only says that you should decide what's best for you. And apparently that's selfish and elitist because some people are so used to being told what to do that they lack the ability to decide what is in their best interest.
>>77661247
All the regulations designed for the "common good" such as labor laws and protectionism and consumer safety all came after individuals had built the market. And in all cases after the market had mostly corrected things such as child labor. The industrial revolution is a great example of individualism because the new market wasn't regulated yet. People sough their own self interest and countries flourished.
Compare that with USSR or Venezuela or even Nazi Germany. The gains were short ter and soon enough they crumbled. It's an illusion.
Just because in the past countries were isolated to the point of looking nationalist, doesn't mean they were collectivist. China was still traditionally hierarchical.
>>77665077
The government but everything else is privately owned.
>>77662832
>There was no individualism to be found then.
Monarchism, fascism, Control over others for self interest, democracy, national sovereignty, independence. It IS individualism. Even colonialism, everyone was essentially looking out for their best interests in that situation.
> not getting your hands cut off etc
Agreeing with others that your interests are aligned and that fighting this war will prevent your beloved from being abused by the evil Japanese invaders is a personal desire. Why is propaganda using personalization (how does this affect YOU, what do YOU get from this, "no Vietnamese ever called me nigger") so ubiquitous. Because its about you first and foremost. "enfranchisement" is important in the relatively new system of democracy because people have to feel like it is in their interests to support the system.
Individualism doesn't discount group efforts,
What you are thinking of is the pit-fall OP pointed out.
> Argument 1: Objectivism's selfishness promotes vice, dishonesty, fraud, etc.
> Rebuttal: those are not rational strategies for pursuing self interest in the long run.
>>77665125
>You need to learn history. Kings lived in castles with a shit ton of privacy
So, "might make right"? What about the peasants?
> Lords lived in private houses
Only if the King let them.
All land belonged to the Kingdom, not the Lords. Lords were vassels.
>>77665077
dont reply to him
>>77665232
>The government but
But?
hehe
>>77665338
Yeah a thing made up individual people
>So, "might make right"? What about the peasants?
They lived shitty lives because they lived collectivist lives
>All land belonged to the Kingdom, not the Lords. Lords were vassels.
Lords collectivily had more power than the king.
>All land belonged to the Kingdom, not the Lords
Lords had more control individually over their area tho. And yeah they were vassels. Vassels were the ruling class.
>>77663802
is that a good thing or a bad thing?
I'm currently trying to figure out how I feel about my result. I only Just found out about all this
Because we're better off with Stoicism.
>>77657859
I'll leave this here.
Bitch was based.
>>77665497
>They lived shitty lives because they lived collectivist lives
So, the fact the King monopolized everything using force means nothing to you?
>Lords collectivily had more power than the king.
So, you're preaching the virtue of "collectivism" now?
>Lords had more control individually over their area tho.
Lords worked the land for the King. The Lords were managers.
>>77665197
All of Europe went through the industrial revolution and it started in England. It didn't require any particular condition unique to the US and certainly doesn't require autistic hyper-individualistic philosophies invented by drugged out Jewish cult leaders.
>Just because in the past countries were isolated to the point of looking nationalist, doesn't mean they were collectivist. China was still traditionally hierarchical.
I don't know what the fuck these sentences are intended to mean. China was the pinnacle of arbitrary despotic collectivism and it was the most advanced society for most of history. Empires in general are the shit and are responsible for all of human advancement.
>>77665702
>So, the fact the King monopolized everything using force means nothing to you?
It means a lot to me, he was a scumbag
>So, you're preaching the virtue of "collectivism" now?
No. I hate Lords and Kings
>Lords worked the land for the King. The Lords were managers.
Yeah but they owned land just like how people own property. The king didn't own all the land.
>>77665559
Can you link me to the test you used? I'd like to see which INTJ I'm most like. I'd probably be an evil cunt too.
INTJ is a good thing, it's hands down the best type. We're the most independent and tend to have the most will power. We're the ideas people and systems builders.
We have a lot of potential to do great things and terrible things. But we're also social autists and tend to be very bad with people because of our bluntness and our unforgiving nature.
>>77664896
Understanding is a subjective value.
Collectivism > Objectivsim
>>77665812
>Yeah but they owned land just like how people own property.
No, the King owned all the land in the Kingdom. The King was the ultimate power. Lords were stewards of the land, they provided the King with rent.
>>77665936
no it isn't
>>77665849
for the stuff on the right
http://www.celebritytypes.com/villain/test.php
for the stuff on the left
http://www.celebritytypes.com/test.php
>>77666004
>No, the King owned all the land in the Kingdom
Unless we're talking about Saudi Arabia, hell no.
>>77666004
Well then that's fucked up. People lived shitty lives. Shows humans are not collectivist, if we were we would be happy living in Lord villages or whatever they were called.
you haven't earned anything
>>77666006
This theoretical conversation proves it.
>>77666229
no it doesn't
you are objectively wrong
>>77657859
I very much agree with objections about immigration, but allowing so much immigration from one country is just untenable. You have to realize after a certain point of time, no country can handle that.
I don't read hipster periodicals
>>77666275
No, your arguments are subjectively shit. And, I don't know, objectively lack citations? Therefore is objectively shit.
>>77666356
Ayn Rand was pro-open borders
>>77666388
stfu hipster periodical
My coincidence detector makes it difficult to tell when people are intentionally doing the (((()))))
>>77657859
Atlas shrugged was great.
Anyone new to Rand should probably read anthem or the fountainhead first since atlas shrugged can be a bit overwhelming
>>77666422
my arguments are logical and consistent
just because you fail to recognize patterns doesn't mean they aren't there
again, subjectivity is a heuristic
>>77666422
sure, actually no, only autists like citations. You are objectivily shit.
>>77664145
Objective evil is simple.
There's no possible positive argument that can be made for the destruction of the universe. This would be an objectively negative (evil) thing for literally everything.
Anything that contributes or adds to this is by extension also objective evil.
>>77657859
>>reality exists whether you like it or not, your emotions don't change this
>>Logic and the human mind should be the primary instruments for exploring and understanding reality
These two things don't really have anything to do with the rest of the philosophy.
>reality exists whether you like it or not, your emotions don't change this
>Logic and the human mind should be the primary instruments for exploring and understanding reality
>the leaves of jicama are delicious and good for you, if you don't eat them exclusively you're failing as a human being.
Attaching basic inarguable aspects of life to specific opinions does not suddenly make the opinions inarguable facts.
>>77666431
>pro open borders
Gonna need a source buddy. She was anti-savages.
>>77666609
>if you don't eat them exclusively you're failing as a human being.
This is an emotional argument, not logical by any means.
>>77666674
No im not giving you a source because you don't deserve one if you won't trust me
When asked about immigration once she looked angerly at the reporter saying "if it weren't for the United States liberal immigration policy where would I be right now?". She loves open boarders because otherwise she would be gulaged to death by Stalin, considering she was a refugee.
>>77659259
And how well are YOUR poor doing? Every happy, are they?
>>77666674
http://openborders.info/ayn-rand-immigration-obvious/
The very idea of closed borders offended her. How very Jewish.
>>77666814
sure
>>77665676
>>77666759
Now you're getting it!
>>77657859
>>Logic and the human mind should be the primary instruments for exploring and understanding reality
>should
Can't get from an is to an ought. Morality doesn't exist.
>>77666596
>>77666598
>"insert logical objective assertion here", is true because "material response happens here".
>But "material response here" holds no water because, so and so thing caused/is caused by: global warming/whites rigged IQ tests/mansplaning/financially backed scientists/oppression/Jews/Liberals/rhetoric/etc...
You have absolute truth in your life. But others do not. It's natural to assert your absolute truth, as a objective truth, since it is your value. Subjective truth is when everybody has different absolute truths, making them subjective.
>>77667211
By that logic niggers could say their "way of life" is correct because subjectivity. Whites are objectively superior to niggers, Ayn Rand hated niggers.
>>77667482
I never said subjectivity was correct. Quite the opposite. It's the cancer of Marxism.
>>77667677
Oh sorry then, I misunderstood. Literal savage subhuman apes aka niggers could argue they were superior under subjectivism
>>77666020
>Left
ISTJ-Eisenhower
>Right
Lenin
>>77663640
So when the people rise up and demand more power/rights, Is this selfish or are they taking an altruistic hit for others? If they are powerful, they are undermining themselves and effectively "dying out" to those who want more for themselves. If they are not powerful they are seeking personal gain.
> Oh and also agreeing with others (without anything to lose at this point) that the same situation will also apply to them.
Agreeing on the share of future gains before they have been obtained (the other partner being a tool to obtain them) IS NOT ALTRUISM!
IT IS A VENTURE!
>>77666604
I can see the evil in the destruction of the Universe, however it's not a "undeniable" truth either. One could easily interpret that or look at it differently than you can. Maybe it's objective, but that's so far stretched its interprative rather than objective.
Justice and evil are dependent on the person, the more important thing is reality in which we live and taking the best route that last the longest for all.
Even if it means what some may consider an "evil" act.
>>77668073
sure
>>77668382
>moral relativism
>>77666814
I'm not particularly wealthy, but I'm pretty happy with my life and where it's going. The fact that I'll never be as rich as the "1%" or whatever the fuck doesn't bother me at all, as long as I can keep what I earn and use it to continually better myself. What else could life possibly be about?
>>77668455
Issue?
>>77668073
> Is this selfish or are they taking an altruistic hit for others? If they are powerful, they are undermining themselves
What was "Magna Carta"?
>IS NOT ALTRUISM!
Any organism that sacrifices their longevity and reproductive capacity for the benefit of the group is "altruistic".
>>77666942
>>77661184
>Honestly it seems you're relying on twisted semantics and denial. If Clinton becomes president tell me how all the enemies (many of which she had assassinated) have come back to bite her in the ass. Tell me what Soros is suffering for his dirty tactics. If anything it seems they have benefited immensely from their tactics and the only retribution they will ever face would be if there is some sort of afterlife where you are held accountable (which objectivism rejects).
I'm sure they have a wonderful life. Especially Clinton, with the STDs and with physically abusive Hillary.
>Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver.
>>77668991
> What was "Magna Carta"?
...tell me how Magna Carta is relevant to you counter point.
> Any organism that sacrifices their longevity and reproductive capacity for the benefit of the group is "altruistic".
And an organism that "sacrifices" (or rather, RISKS) these things in the pursuit to extend their longevity and reproductive capacity? Because thats what humans do.
And again:
> Any organism that sacrifices their longevity and reproductive capacity for the benefit of the group is "altruistic".
They are also called slaves.
>>77657859
The most you'll see around here as a rebuttal to objectivism is:
>ayn rand was a kike
>fukken dropped
>>77658320
>it's all about the Kali Yugi-oh, man
>get on board with that eastern mysticism
No thanks.
>>77657859
Rand has forwarded some of the most important ideas in the modern era, and those ideas are probably among the most readily misinterpreted. It is very chic to hate Ayn Rand, especially when you've read nothing she has ever written, and even those on the so-called "right" are wont to regurgitate soundbytes they've been spoonfed by the likes of Gawker, Slate, and Jezebel.
Rand opposed the U.S. entering WW2 until we were attacked. Otherwise, she believed we should have stayed out of the conflict altogether.
Rand opposed desegregation in the U.S., and argued that forced integration would only worsen racial tensions. She was right.
Rand opposed multiculturalism and moral subjectivism, and argued that Western ideals were superior to those of uncivilized cultures.
Rand denounced Israel as a fascist state, and said that the U.S. should stop sending them aid.
Objectivists predicted the Muslim invasion of Europe, and have argued that Europe will be lost if it continues along its current path.
Objectivists differentiate themselves from libertarians in that they believe in enforcing borders and upholding the rights of your own citizens rather than catering to foreign invaders.
What's not to like?
>>77672360
Armenia makes some good points. Drunk dude, don't normally love Ayn Rand but damn.
>>77671125
>And an organism that "sacrifices" (or rather, RISKS) these things in the pursuit to extend their longevity and reproductive capacity? Because thats what humans do.
If you are taking a calculated risk for the purpose of realizing a longer-term benefit, then this is not altruism. This is self-interest.
Altruism means taking a calculated loss for the sake of another person even though you know you will not benefit.
If you've never read anything by Ayn Rand, at least read this essay. She outlines how the Left seized control of public education and began turning out useful idiots as if from an assembly-line... leading to the mass of SJWs we see today.
http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RandAyn-The-Comprachicos.pdf
>Power-lust requires guinea pigs, to develop the techniques of inculcating obedience—and cannon fodder that will obey the orders. College students fill both roles. Psychoepistemological flattery is the most potent technique to use on a person with a damaged brain. The Progressive nursery graduate’s last link to rationality- the feeling that there is something wrong with him—is cut off in college. There is nothing wrong with him, he is told, his is the healthy, natural state, he is merely unable to function in a “System” that ignores human nature; he is normal, the “System” is abnormal.
>The term “System” is left undefined, at first; it may be the educational system, the cultural system, the private family system—anything that a student might blame for his inner misery. This induces a paranoid mood, the feeling that he is an innocent victim persecuted by some dark, mysterious powers—which builds up in him a blind, helpless rage. The theories of determinism—with which he is battered in most of his courses—intensify and justify his mood: if he is miserable, he cannot help it, they tell him, he cannot help anything he feels or does, he is a product of society and society has made a bad job of it. By the time he hears that all his troubles—from poor grades to sexual problems to chronic anxiety—are caused by the political system and that the enemy is capitalism, he accepts it as self-evident.
>>77657859
K victor
>>77672360
B-but Ayn Rand was a jeeeew. Reddit told me to hate her, and my professor says she's wacko. He has tenure so he must know what he's talking about.
The family unit takes precedence over the individual.
>>77673750
Got a family unit that isn't made up of individuals down there?
>>77657859
Nothing wrong's with Objectivism, anon.
[Spoiler]I'll see you at OCON.
>>77673791
Literally not an argument, all groups are made of individuals fuckwit.
>>77673898
You just missed the argument. The fundamental unit of any group is the individual. If you undercut the fundamental unit, and propose to sacrifice it for "the group," then you destroy the foundation that makes the group. This is why all arguments from collectivism of any species are wrong.
Can you give an example of a good "family unit" that says the father should be separated from his children and have half of his assets automatically given to his wife, just because someone seems that it's "best for the family?"
>>77672681
I know you are correct, but read the chain of posts brother.
You definition of what it IS:
> Altruism means taking a calculated loss for the sake of another person even though you know you will not benefit
My definition (that started the chain) of what it is NOT:
> Agreeing on the share of future gains before they have been obtained (the other partner being a tool to obtain them) IS NOT ALTRUISM!
IT IS A VENTURE!
The anon replied as if that scenario WAS altruism.
Trying to assert: >>77663640
> Altruism trumps selfishness in the natural world. A group dominated by individualists cannot compete with a group dominated by altruists.
I was just making the assertion that collectivism is a VENTURE partaken by those who seek to profit from it.
>>77674170
But that is empirically proven to not be best for the family, the only people that suggest that it is completely miss the point of the family unit. You said it yourself that it only "seems" like it's best for the family when in reality it is not.
>>77674329
Really? Even if the husband is raping his children?
>>77674431
The exception isn't the rule.
My counter to objectivism is that we don't know if there is a reality outside of our consciousness, for all we know is that the focal point of reality is consciousness itself and there's nothing that can disprove this so objectivism cannot be 100% certain
>>77674500
So what you're saying is that there should be a standard for separating husbands from their families--a standard like the violation of individual rights, as is what happens when harm is initiated.
>>77657859
(((Rosenbaum)))
>>77674584
That's not what I am saying at all. All that I care about is that the dissolution of families is not glorified and subsidized as it is now.
Objectivism is general enough to be logically consistant, "do things in your long-term self-interst" basically covers any cases where being selfish actually sets you back.
Objectivism is basically psychopathy as philosophy, if you do something nice for another person it's ultimately with the aim of helping yourself. It's not really a great philosophy because I'm not a psychopath. Yes a fair amount of successful people are psychopaths, but that doesn't mean that society should strive to be more self-interested, societies full of selfish people fall the fuck apart. Again, because objectivism has the catch-all "Work in your rational self-interest" you can argue this isn't a problem, but honestly, the problem with society isn't that people aren't selfish enough, so objectivism is a bit useless as a philosophy.
>>77674767
The arbitrary dissolution of families is definitely wrong, and objectivists would agree with you on that. It is an egregious violation of individual rights to separate families in the basis of whims and SJW political agendas, which is what happens now all too frequently.
My point was just that this issue is still best viewed from the perspective of individual rights. There is nothing contradictory in the notion of upholding the sanctity if the individual and valuing the family unit. I would argue that the family unit is best defended by understanding the ideas of objectivist individualism.
>>77675023
Also IMO
"Nobody is entited to anothers labor"
and
"work in your rational self-interest"
contradict eachother.
If you're poor, it's in your rational self-interest to support the redistribution of wealth because regardless of the long term effects on society in the context of your lifespan it's on your self-interest, even if you're not doing a bit of work. If your rich, your aim is to try and give other people the smallest share of the profits from any combined effort as possible, and increase your own share as much as possible. A company couldn't work without boring workers like drivers and HR people and IT workers, but objectivists should appearantly be striving to make sure they get the least money possible using the strong negotiating position of say being a good CEO, rather than trying to share the success of a company with the rank and file workers that made it a success with their labor.
>>77675084
Aren't families objectively a burden on the individual?
>>77657859
Man's moral goal is to give glory to God, spread the gospel and help the unfortunate in need, but yes Capitalism is the only means of a free society and one that can bring prosperity to the most amount of people.
>>77665849
I am an INTP.
How much worse off am I?
>>77657859
>reality exists whether you like it or not, your emotions don't change this
Fucking kek. How bout brain in a vat?
>>77675839
>Fucking kek. How bout brain in a vat?
then your expiriences are a simulation, but the simulation is real in the outside world
>>77663802
fuck no, Objectivists are ENFJ
>>77675351
Depends on the person. Most people see a family as hard work that is worth the effort.
>>77679554
I thought that objectivity didn't care about your feelings?
>>77673695
yeah man reddit and prefessors always hating on jews and telling us to hate them
>>77657859
How would family work in an objectivists world? Also its often rather hard to correctly judge your long-term self-interest and a lot of people are entirely incapable to do so, should we just leave them to their own?
Objectivism has a lot of good points but like every ideology it fails when it becomes Dogma.
There's always the need for compromise.
>>77664018
Not correct by any means, but to be fair Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Nietzche, and even Kant identifies man's ultimate goal as happiness and self fulfilment almost as a biological necessity.
>>77657859
>reality exists whether you like it or not, your feelings don't change this
I agree with this, but the rest is wrong.
Reality needs to be understood through logic AND emotion, as emotion will always be important and relevant- whether you like it or not.
There is a lot more to life than personal happiness, and that of which makes one happy is often bad- paedophiles would be happy in sexual contact with children, in fact the child may also be happy- but that doesn't make such an act desirable or right.
Capitalism is not the only view consistent with this, how about egoist. Anarchism or forms of fascism
>no person is entitled to another's property
But if that entitlement is allowed, then a society which allows for the pursuit of happiness would be easier
>the collective takes precedent over the individual
Why? Because your mummy thought you were so important? Because you're scared to admit there's something greater than yourself?
>mutually beneficial trade is superficial to sacrifice
But trade often includes sacrifice, and is actually better because of said sacrifice.
My main issue with it is that for something that insists to be purely logical it is extremely idealistic, and avoids many truths of reality and contains many fallacies- it is the result of someone who saw the opposite of all of it and needed to construct their own reality which seemed the exact opposite.
It is rejected in philosophy for good reason.
>>77657859
the problem with objectivism is that its the polar opposite of communism and assumes that profit margins are always universally better in the long term than actual moral codes.
all this isn't to say that it doesn't have its merits. it actually has a lot of good economic ideas and identifies a lot of problems, but it ultimately assumes that humans are/can be entirely individualistic and approach problems with long term thinking. so essentially, in Ayn Rand's attempt to create a counter to communism, she made the same mistakes that Marx made.
>>77682316
christ, you are a brit yet your write like a brazilian
>reality needs to be understood through emotion
fucking hell, no it obviously isnt, your feelings change jack shit about the general state of reality.
>But if that entitlement is allowed, then a society which allows for the pursuit of happiness would be easier
society would be easier? wat? Id say society will soon fall apart if there are no personal belongings, even socialists know that thats why they always talk about a world where everything is owned by everyone but never went through with it.
>>77658320
Evola>Rand
>>77657859
>What's wrong with Objectivism?
Nothing
Good goy.
>(((0.3 shekels have been deposited to your account)))
>>77683211
this leaf is correct though
>>77657859
Objectivism is widely derided by mainstream philosophical discussion because the current trend in mainstream academia is to push Marxism. Objectivism is a strong opponent to this, so the left-wing academia attempts to drag its reputation through the dirt.
Also, it sucks to actually have to be responsible for yourself instead of blaming everything on the cis white patriarchy boogeyman.
>>77663430
That's why we have guns
>>77659261
>exploit fools and mothers
How is it exploitation of you're paying them?
>impregnate many women
Did you rape them? Even if you did, they could have gotten abortions
>>77677847
enfj's are mob rule whores
>>77657859
>>man's moral goal is to achieve personal happiness, and pursue rational (long-term) self interest
How is this moral? Looks like simply the very basic instinctive thinking that every human possess.
>The collective does not take precedence over the individual
If you're living in an ideal perfect utopia without any enemies or natural forces, maybe.
>>77658177
Because the community can achieve much greater things than each of its individuals pursuing their own happiness independently could ever hope for.
