Thoughts?
in the same camp of extreme wishfulness as Marxism
Humans are not extreme beings
>>399899
Wishful thinking at best to assume or even hope that anyone but a small percentage of autistic robots could operate and exist in the world with an objective mindset.
>>399909
>Humans are not extreme beings
Can you look at the quality of posting here on 4chan, even just on /his/ alone, and really believe that?
>>399909
It's basically right-wing marxism. An ideology with a half-baked philosophical theory in it.
>>400526
we often think in extremes, but we don't behave so, in general
From what I've gathered, objectivism follows the simple principles of...
Anything you experience and perceive is objectively true
Pursuit of anything but personal happiness and hedonism is a waste of time
One would wish for utter freedom to make use of the previous point to the fullest extent
The first point is true, kind of. Everything is objectively true, to you personally, which means its subjective, but appears as if it's objective to yourself. There is no way to gauge things objectively after all, but it is very easy to be mislead.
The second point I must say I agree with. What is the purpose of the miserable existence known as life if not blatant hedonism? Refuse to do anything but the exact thing you wish for, and when you are no longer able to continue doing so, as when you suffer from anhedonia, end your life, simple.
The third point makes sense until you consider that the utter freedom would likely count for more people than your personal self. Of course this ideology proposes that you care not for anyone else at all, which means you'd be perfectly fine with living standards far surpassing the peasants and commoners, without ever giving them a second thought or trying to aid anyone within the span of your life. However, such a situation would be unlikely to say the least, and if everyone were to share the benefits of utter freedom your life would not be nearly as nice. I would propose that the best political situation would thus be socialism, where you can gain all the benefits after going through some loopholes, while all commoners do as previously mentioned, to your own benefit, as you laze away.
All in all, objectivism seems pretty okay.
Objectivism is the most pleb school of egoism there is. It has none of the rigorous consistency of Stirner, or the passion and beauty of Nietzsche. I'd say even fucking LaVeyan satanism is a better philosophy than Objectivism, and that's saying something.
>claims to be based on "reason", despite clearly being empiricist (she originally wanted to call her philosophy Existentialism because she believed it encompassed all existence)
>calls altruism irrational even if voluntary and done for psychological self-benefit
>adherents rely purely on character assassination to respond to opponents
>Rand in her lifetime refused to expose her work to peer review for criticism, preferring to write sci-fi novels that confirm to her POV, modern Objectivism is similarly insular
>assertion of native realism claims all optical illusions are processing errors, rather than perceptual ones, despite illusions often persisting even after they're pointed out
>uses semantic wank to justify free will, as their metaphysics are based on strict causality, but define human will as a "cause" itself without prior cause because... muh axiom
>feigns support for reason and science, but pushes pseudoscience like global warming denial and DDT denial. Rand in her lifetime denied lung cancer caused smoking for a long time.
>responds to Kantian and Humean critiques on the limits of reason by calling them "immoral"
>supports a candyland version of capitalism that's completely unworkable in the real world
>elevates capitalism to the status of a religion in a cringeworthy and emotional way, instead of looking at the benefits a capitalist society produces and honestly admitting where the free market has problems, like dealing with externalities
>rejects any physics more recent that Newtonian babby science because QM makes them scared about probability
>aesthetics is basically "whatever Rand liked"
>>401560
>calls altruism irrational even if voluntary and done for psychological self-benefit
To be fair, and this comes from someone who shares your opinions about Objectivism, Rand uses a weird, counterintuitive definition of "altruism" which doesn't cover psychological self-benefit. To her, "altruism" is something you do for another at the expense of yourself and hate doing it, usually because of some sort of community pressure.
>>399899
>Muh reason to live
It's dumb, OP.
>>401594
Not him, but by definition that isn't altruism
>>400536
This
I'm a right wing libertarian but Rand's philosophy is just utter garbage.
>Hey guys, Aristotle's syllogisms prove objective reality. Guys pls take me seriously.
>>401560
What else would you expect? It was developed by a woman.
>>400616
>Anything you experience and perceive is objectively true
See this is why Rand is a moron. It should be "Anything you experience and percieve is subjective truth, but may/should be treated as objective by the participant"
By stating it's objectively true, objectivism screws itself right off of homeplate. They didn't even put the bat down, just warmed it and stuck it in. If I'm dreaming and sense things, that doesn't mean what I'm sending is what I think it is. Now, sure the stimuli exists in some way (even assuming my reality right now is true, they're neurons giving me a pleasant dream). Objectivists tend to be complete dumbasses and say because they sense itnthey can say it objectively exists, and it's almost like they skipped out on the whole philosophy chapter on Descartes or Kant or basically ANYONE in the past thousand years, and instead just assume it's true.
Because that's what they're doing, they're assuming what they sense is true and consequently they're laughed at.
>>399899
Most of the criticism directed against it is based on misconceptions and cariactures. I don't necessarily agree entirely with Objectivism, and would certainly not call myself one, but I do get sort of triggered when I see most of the common arguments against it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u8Jjth81_Q
>>399899
>Existence exists. And no matter how much people hate it, this will always be true. Therefore, capitalism is just and will be victorious. I am a philosopher.
Yeah it's always been trendy to think that Americans are stupid, but this is actually worrying.
>>401594
I know, her definition of selfishness is different from common vernacular, too, but that just adds to my position that she was pointlessly insular and hostile towards anyone who didn't already agree with her.
>>401594
>>402636
>>404196
Rand uses Comte's original definition of altruism, which is self-sacrifice, to place the well-being of others above your own. Rand thought of this as equivelent to cannibalism, and she wasn't the only one to be against Comte's ideas either. Other philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill, who is today often considered to be an altruist, was originally sympathetic to Comte's ideas but condemned them once they were explained in full to him.
And, as can be seen in the Donahue interview >>404080 Rand was not against helping other people, as long as it was something you did to please yourself and as long as you didn't think of it as being morally virtious.
On the one hand, Rand didn't quite always understand what the other philosophers were saying.
On the other hand, her epistemology is GOAT
>>404675
>On the other hand, her epistemology is GOAT
Kill yourself
>>399899
A literal meme
Daily reminder Rand was a welfare queen and didnt even take her own shitheap of a philosophy seriously.
>>399899
Objectivly bad philosophy
Rand is a qt.
>>403285
The dumbest thing philosophers did was cast doubt on reality/shit external to the mind.
Absolute wank.
>>401560
>calls altruism irrational even if voluntary and done for psychological self-benefit
That is not altruism
>>405374
I would definetly have fucked her if given the opportunity. She was a nutjob, but she must have been great in bed.
What's interesting is why people gobble her shit up when you actual have proper American philosophers concerned with politics. Rawls separate between moral philosophy and political philosophy, and Nozick is one if not the most influential libertarian in modern time.
I'll admit that I've always been curious but ended up not giving a fuck about her.
She isn't even mentioned in the academics. She's unheard of at the philosophy departments. Never in my life have I came across anyone referring to her. Took a quick look at her, and from what I understand, part of her epistemology is just nonsense.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/#Per
"Hence perceptual error is not strictly possible, though it is possible to misinterpret perceptual evidence—and phenomena that many would regard as perceptual illusions are instead identified by Rand either as correct perceptions misinterpreted (e.g., optical illusions) or as non-perceptions mistaken for perceptions (e.g., dreams and hallucinations)."
> The information we get from our senses is always correct
> Well how about when you're watching an optical illusion or are drunk?
> That's not really data you got from the senses since they're wrong, are they?
What kind of circular logic is this shit?
>>405374
I don't think she's attractive, but I would have fucked her anyway. She had fantasies of being dominated, and you could say something autistic like "Property is theft!" while coming inside her just to piss her off and make things really awkward.
>>399899
None to speak of.
>>399899
It is quite spooked, as the fella' says.
>>407939
Then why post?
>>405507
>Nozick
I love Nozick, but it's easy to see why he's not as popular as someone like Rand; he's just not accessible enough.
Now, I'm not saying that you necessarily have to have read Locke to get Nozick, though it certainly helps, but he way he lays out his theories is simply hard to follow for many.
>"We can assume that the people A, B, C and D want to do X, but in the case of A and B the factor P makes them instead do Y, and in the case of C the factor Q makes him instead do Z"
He has almost always at least two different lines of thoughts going at the same time which he then compares to each other as he goes.
>>405387
It's impossible to determine whether someone does an "altruistic" act for mental self-benefit.
>>399909
>>400536
that is a just a meme
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html
>The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence.
Ayn Rand espoused a moral philosophy to guide decision making, she did not presume to have all the answers as Marx and did.
>>409574
>Ayn Rand espoused a moral philosophy to guide decision making, she did not presume to have all the answers as Marx and did.
Fuck off, disphit. It was more than a mere guide as you downplay it. Naming her philosophy "Objectivism" is a testament to her arrogance, she claimed to have objective answers not only to ethics: but metaphysics, epistemology, politics and aesthetics.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/book/conceptual.html
Just look at how many fucking hyperlinks there are. I couldn't post them all here.
>>409785
>Naming her philosophy "Objectivism"
Literally because "realism" was already taken.
>>409785
>Naming her philosophy "Objectivism"
A second choice.
> she claimed to have objective answers not only to ethics: but metaphysics, epistemology, politics and aesthetics.
As does every other school of philosophy.
>>410168
>As does every other school of philosophy.
No m8. They don't.
>>410210
Yes, they do. Plato divided philosophy into four branches; Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and Politics. Every serious school of philosophy attempts holds positions in each of them, and those positions are thought to be objectively true, which is why we can have debates and discussions about them in the first place. There would be no use arguing over philsophy if the fundamental position was always "what's true in your mind is not necessarily true in my mind".
The metaphysics and ethics of objectivism are very poorly justified. The arguments in their favor are low level.
>>399899
Surpisingly enugh, TVTtropes, of all places, actually has an article on Objectivism that does a decent job of explaining the philosophy to those who seek to better understand it, either because they are interested or to be able to argue against anything other than strawmen.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Objectivism
>>399899
A collection of all the stupidest ideas ever invented, designed to appeal to underdeveloped middle-class whites in the United States. Indeed, it is an ideology that could only have arisen in a cultural wasteland like middle white America.
But hey, if you want to believe in nothing greater than yourself then go right ahead.
Doesn't holds up today.
There is much better philosophies.
>>410685
Forged in the asinine arbitrary world of rhe post war Warsaw Pact, tempered and brought to bear in an even more ignorant but cushy 20th century America.
