.

Finally, she and some of her followers are often perceived as being dogmatic, frequently ignoring published criticism of the system instead of responding to it. This is in part because many of them were young people excited by her novels and unlearned in philosophy; such people are not often aware of the complexities of their subject and prone to construe disagreement as ignorance. Furthermore, many of her supporters would not permit modifications or additions to her philosophical system, leading some to label Rand as a cult leader.

>>40
Yeah, it's sad to realize that most people my age don't have standards of competency these days, much less philosophy...
Breaks my fucking heart, man. e_e;

>>1
"My philosophy advocates reason, not faith; it requires men to think -- to accept nothing without a full, rational, firsthand understanding and conviction -- to claim nothing without factual evidence and logical proof. A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. Objectivism is not a mystic cult."
 - Ayn Rand

AYN RAND SUCKED THE BRAINS OUT OF BLACK BABIES WITH DRINKING STRAWS AYN RAND SUCKED SO MUCH COCK THAT HER BRAIN WAS MADE OF SMEGMA AYN RAND SELLS CRACK TO THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES AYN RAND MADE ME IMPOTENT AYN RAND CAUSED THE HOLOCAUST BECAUSE HER CUNT WAS HITLER!

>>42

Yeah, the irony there being- that's exactly what Objectivism has become.

Socialism is better.  Look at Finland.

>>44
As much as I hate to admit it, anti-chan nailed it. You can't summarize Objectivism much better than that.

It was flawed to begin with. If Rand's novels are accurate representations of Objectivism, it's a childish philosophy that works in a world of gross exaggeration. If they aren't accurate, then why are there so many "Objectivist" Rand fags out there (where are the reasonable ones that distance themselves?), and why was Rand a bitch that deserved the end she received?

She was too stupid to realize that the Communism she so loathed didn't work because Marxism was a simplified theory itself. So she went and made something even more simplistic.

And then warped it to her own ends. Rand was far from rational about anything. Take a look at her personal life.

As much as I hate bringing people's personal lives into their "work", I have to agree. And I don't want to sound like a male pig asshole, but Rand was a woman...that alone voids any attempts at rationale.

Even more ironic than Rand's heart failure is that the only reasonable ones that still somewhat refer to themselves as "Objectivist" are persona non grata to the "movement" itself. Like that guy she had the affair with? Something-Brandon (I forget).

Listen we all loved the Fountainhead to some extent, but there comes a time when you have to, like, you know....*Grow the fuck up*.

>>47
Grow the fuck up in what sense? You and >>46 and >>44, rather than attacking *ANY ASPECT OF HER ACTUAL PHILOSOPHY*, want to instead attack her personally. Nobody on this board so far has given any rational perspective as to why Objectivism in its original context is a wrong view for a person to have.

So what are you people saying, exactly? That people just shouldn't aspire to anything above the mediocrity of your 'average Joe'? That people shouldn't have any dreams or work ethic? What are you guys trying to say exactly? What are you people about?

>>47

wow. you DO realize that you just attributed someone's personal flaws to the fact that they are female, right? you didn't want to sound like a male pig asshole, but that's exactly what you achieved. way to go.

>>48

there is more to becoming a better person than earning more money.

>>49
I said nothing about money, and it has absolutely nothing to do with money. The only reason money ever comes up in these types of discussions, when they start talking about the "rich" versus the "poor", is pure envy, but that's another thread.

>>49

Yeah. But I'm 100% right. Her very reasons for adopting this so called "rationale" are steeped deeply in emotional resentments against communism.

>>51
What the ever-loving hell does it matter where it came from?
It's a good philosophy to follow, so debunk the actual ideas, or shut up.

So why are most objectivists Ayn Rand fags then?

Oh, that's right...

>>52

It matters a great deal. Building what is basically supposed to be a philosophy of pure logic upon pure emotion is a fallacy.

>>54
so you are not a communist anymore? that's good, and suprising, well done!

P.S. WHO TEH FUCK IS AYN RAND WHO TEH FUCK IS AYN RAND WHO TEH FUCK IS AYN RAND WHO TEH FUCK IS AYN RAND WHO TEH FUCK IS AYN RAND WHO TEH FUCK IS AYN RAND WHO TEH FUCK IS AYN RAND

>>55

I never was.

>>54
"Objectivism regards reason as an absolute. It holds that all knowledge is based on the evidence of the senses. It holds that all beliefs, conclusions, and convictions must be established by logical methods of inquiry and tested by logical methods of verification. In short, it holds that the scientific approach applies to all areas of knowledge."
- David Kelley

Yeah, that's just dripping with pure emotion, lemme tell ya. ¬_¬

>>58

"Objectivism regards reason as an absolute."

The problem with regarding reason as absolute is that human reason is faulty. We tend to jump to false conclusions, make sweeping generalizations and engage in magical thinking. It doesn't really matter which dogmas we reify -- whether it's dead Jewish carpenters or Objectivism. These mental trinkets, though perfect in their own closed-loops, are unworkable in reality. People try to subjugate reality to their dogmas, but it ends up in fanaticism and disaster; the exact opposite of what was intended.

I hear that Rand's life was a mess, but it's hard not to cheer for the heroes of her books.  Nobody in real life is as awesome as John Galt and his posse, but it would be cool if they were. Anyway, Rand didn't really give a damn whether or not people donated to charities, all she wanted was an end to forced generosity (which of course is no generosity at all)

>>59
"The problem with regarding reason as absolute is that human reason is faulty. We tend to jump to false conclusions, make sweeping generalizations and engage in magical thinking."

Well, that's not using reason, now is it? O_@;
Reason isn't faulty when you know how to use it. One plus one equals two, for example. Shifting plates in the Earth's crust cause earthquakes. Now was that so hard?
...
Look, all any philosophy is for is to give people some form of satisfaction or happiness. Living in a system such as America's where effort is rewarded and laziness is not, makes me happy, and I'm sure people who don't like to make an effort to make their lives any better feel the opposite. If life was meant for anything, it sure as hell wasn't to be composed of handouts.
Objectivist ideas are just my way of being encouraged toward what I want out of life. That's it.
I really don't give a damn how bad other people fuck up their own lives, they choose to let themselves go on in those circumstances out of depression caused by their circumstances rather then being driven to make them better, and that makes them idiots. It's a sad state to be in, but not one ultimately to be pitied. They come and they go, that's all their life is to em, so the hell with em... Am I an insensitive jerk, or what? :3
I mean yeah, if people could pursuade allllllll of those people to be driven, then yeah, the world would be a better place, and more power to you for trying... but good luck.

>>60
Once again, you are attacking not her philosophy, but her personally. You can't judge a damn book by the person that wrote it. I mean hell, Tookie Williams wrote childrens' books.

And Tookie Willams got executed for murder.

>>62
I know. That's why I used him as an example.

>>63

LOL, you didn't get it, did you?

>>64
Yes. I did. He didn't.
To my knowledge, Ayn Rand didn't kill anyone. Tookie Williams wrote some books too, and he did kill people. Ayn Rand wrote philosophy, Tookie Williams wrote hell if I know, some kind of childrens' books. Ayn Rand wrote. Tookie Williams wrote...
My point that you can't judge a book or a philosophy by the person that came up with it still stands perfectly. It's beside the point, it's irrelevant. Am I clear now?
Why the hell Ayn Rand herself keeps getting criticized as opposed to the philosophy she came up with, which is part of the topic of this damn thread, is a mystery to me.

Ayn Rand wrote philosophy

Adolf Hitler also wrote philosophy. It is not unreasonable to take into account his life when judging his writing. In the same way, it is not unreasonable to take into account Ayn Rand's life when judging her writing. Just because she claimed she was reasonable doesn't mean she was, and looking at her own life is fair game.

Nietzsche went insane and he was ugly. That does not degrade his philosophy. Argue the merits or otherwise of his philosophy but not his life.

>>61

The structure of your belief system strikes me as particularly Judeo-Christian. You have the "elect" like yourself, who have been enlightened by the words of Mistress Rand, and the damned, whom you like to call "the fucked up."


>>67

This isn't a limited academic discussion of philosophy. It is world4ch. It should be pointed out that even academic symposia  include a discussion of thinkers' biographies and its relation to their thought.

Also, since we are talking, presumably about a lived and therefore relevant philosophy, an examination of effects of living said philosophy is particularly relevant.

>>69
And yet no such examination seems to have happened so far at any point in this thread.

>>66
Yeah, Hitler wrote philosophy, and it was a fucked up philosophy. A philosophy is a philosophy, regardless of who the hell came up with it. Why does the personal life of whoever came up with it MATTER?
CRI-TIQUE-THE-AS-PECTS-OF-THE-AC-TU-AL-PHI-LO-SO-PHY.
Not the author!
If you want to examine Hitler himself, then you can reasonably take into account his philosophy, communism or Nazism, or whatever. But when you're talking about communism or nazism, then what sense does it make calling those ideas bad only due to the nature of its creator? It's like saying ... "Oh, well, Hitler drank wine, that must make wine an evil commie! ... Hitler had a penis, that must make penises evil Jew-killing commies!" The author is completely irrelevant...
Nature came up with flowers and it also came up with arsenic. You going to call flowers evil just because the same force created something that kills things?
My god, have I made my point yet?

The best and most philosophically sound method of determinning the truth isn't scientific method.

Scientific method can be corrupted, a person can leave out the facts he does not like in full knowledge of doing so. A person can simply lie in a complex manner to fool those who put their trust in them and will not question them for whatever reason.

What we need is scientific method, but scientific method under intense scrutiny. Even if everyone agrees with a certain declaration, people must intentionally criticise it with obsessive fervor to ensure it is correct.

Believe it or not we need whackos questionning evolution, just as much as we needed whackos who questionned god's existence.

The best method of determinning the truth is free speech and criticism on he main philosophical tenets of the truth, being reason, logic and science. It appears that criticism is easier than creating an elaborate scheme to prove something, thus it is extremely likely that anyone will have the intelligence to create a lie that no one can debunk.

Then, of course, the only thing we have to fear is tyranny.

>>71
"the only thing we have to fear is tyranny."
True. However, in the spirit of your post, I must find some aspect of what you said that is in some way ridiculous so that I may criticise it obsessively and fervishly, as is my nature...

"The best and most philosophically sound method of determinning the truth isn't scientific method."
"The best method of determinning the truth is free speech and criticism on he main philosophical tenets of the truth, being reason, logic and science."

... Um. Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself here?
"You can't figure out the truth by using science, you have to figure it out using science! ... Only with more people bitching about it!"
But that's just my take... :B

>>65
Tookie William's books fucking suck. That was my point. And um, what thread have you been reading? People have been attacking her philosophy. Another thing: You can't just come out and say whatever you want and not have it be expected that your ideas match us with your actions. Especially in philosophy. Ayn Rand was hypocrite. Pure and simple.

>>73
Yeah, you really made that clear by saying "And Tookie Willams got executed for murder. LOL, you didn't get it, did you?"
And no, they've just been calling it stupid, and calling her a messed up hypocrite. I recall no intelligent debate of philosophical points of any kind... Just name calling.

>>73
How the hell was she a hypocrite exactly?

>>72
I mentionned that scientific method can be corrupted by the simple act of lying. If you show someone the results of a parachute drop and claim that the results are from a rock dropping down with little air resistance, then you can use scientific method to come up with all sorts of fallacious theories about gravity.

Of course this wasn't proper scientific method, but it's obvious to anyone that abstract methods don't always work out as planned in practice. The fail safe for scientific method is "bitching". As long as people can bitch and criticise and whine all thy want we can be certain that scientific method will be implemented to the best that our intelligence allows.

Let's go back to that galileo dropping stuff from the tower of piza simple scientific method example again..

The fact is as follows.

"When dropped form the tower of piza an egg with a parachute takes 15 seconds to touch down."

Under intense scrutiny even the most complex magic tricks will be revealed. If you are allowed to stop a magician half way through his trick and search his pockets you will always find the hidden handkerchief and ace of spades. Thus when the eggy parachute is revealed, no fallacious theories can be composed.

All bodies accelerate equally depending on the gravity unless something pushed back up. We will call this push a force. The relationship appears to be that acceleration is proportional to the force per mass ratio. a=k/m, to find this elusive property of the natural world we must multiply the acceleration by the mass, thus ma = F

F=MA, zomg physics!!

>>74
Why don't you bring up the specific points of Ayn Rand's thought that you wish to discuss?

>>77
I did. ( >>42, >>58 )

>>76
Why do you say all this as if everyone that searches for a scientific answer to something is just absolutely going to lie to everybody?

>>78

Those are quotes, not arguments.

>>79
I didn't bring them up as arguments, I brought them up as talking points for arguments, which have so far failed to happen in any relevant way...