.

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.

>>80
Oh, so you expect people to argue against something that you yourself refuse to make an argument for? Objectivism isn't exactly conventional wisdom; don't assume that it's the center of everyone's world just because it is the center of yours. If you wish to discuss it, the onus is on you to make an argument as to why people should consider its points.

>>81
If you'll go back to post >>78 , you'll see I'm only talking about the last 40 posts or so when I'd first brought any points up.
No duh it's not common wisdom, but you'd think the people talking about it and calling it stupid would at least know something about it already, wouldn't you?
... Oh, wait, what the hell am I thinking? This is 4chan. My bad.

John, you opened to the door to judgements about her personal life by claiming that she "was a person who truly understood what it means to be a human being."

That said, you choose to read the arguments made as mere criticism of her personally. Many perfectly reasonable arguments were, in fact, made; people on this thread have pointed out, among other things:

* That her philosophy is simplistic (>>46)
* That her high standards did not seem to bear out in her own life (>>47 which leads us to ask if the philosophy is actually applicable)
* that she misuses rationality in service of emotionalism (>>51)
* That human reasoning is fallible (>>59)
* That the life of a person can and should be used as a context for their words (>>62, >>64, >>66, >>68-69)
* that even the hard rationalism of the scientific method can be corrupted by simply lying (>>71, >>76)

Given this, you should consider the possibility that you are one of those people mentioned in >>1 who are "prone to construe disagreement as ignorance."

>>83
Thank you for the post, 83. That said...

* The nature of its simplicity can be applied to all areas of life, as is the purpose of philosophy, so so what?
* Nobody ever fully lives up to their own standards all the time. Can you really call somebody a hypocrite for trying and failing? The characters in Atlas Shrugged didn't always either, but that doesn't mean their ideals weren't worth trying to live up to.
* How does she do that exactly? Are you sure she doesn't just bring up emotional topics so she can apply her philosophy to them and bring them into reason?
* So since reasoning is fallible, it shouldn't be used? You just shouldn't try?
* I agree, but I go back to point 2.
* So freaking what? Anything can be corrupted by lying. Science, religion, philosophy (especially religion and philosophy), the monetary value of a lump of dog crap that George Washington stepped in, anything.

Given this, you should consider the possibility that, while I may be a condescending jerk at times, I'm not such an idiot as to generally construe disagreement itself as ignorant.
... It's just that most comments I read on this board are pretty damn ignorant. So I bitch about them...
And there you have it.

>>84

The nature of its simplicity can be applied to all areas of 
life, as is the purpose of philosophy 

The purpose of philosophy is not to apply simple answers to all areas of life. That's the purpose of religion.

Nobody ever fully lives up to their own standards all the
time

Then why should we choose a most spectacular failure to emulate?

Are you sure she doesn't just bring up emotional topics so
she can apply her philosophy to them and bring them into
reason? 

It seems to me that she justifies her proclivities with "reason," which is hardly a reasonable way to behave.

So since reasoning is fallible, it shouldn't be used?

Reasoning is fallible, so it shouldn't be relied on all the time.

Spoilers: John being stupid intentionally, he's a troll.

>>85
LOL @ YOU FOR TRUTH TOLD

>>85
Alright, buddy, let's keep going in circles then.

"The purpose of philosophy is not to apply simple answers to all areas of life. That's the purpose of religion."

I'd like to hear what your idea of philosophy's purpose is, then...

"Then why should we choose a most spectacular failure to emulate?"

How's the saying go? "Tis better to have loved and lost ... "
Or just... you know, don't have any fucking standards.

"It seems to me that she justifies her proclivities with "reason," which is hardly a reasonable way to behave."

Dispositions such as what, exactly? My god, put the damn author's personal life aside, because THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT... Critique the fucking philosophy of objectivism.

"Reasoning is fallible, so it shouldn't be relied on all the time."

So then what the hell should you rely on? Emotions? Faith? Just shut your brain off and let it settle itself? Yeah, that sounds like a good way to deal with problems...

I'd like to hear what your idea of philosophy's purpose is, then...

The text you quoted from >>85 is massively oversimplified. Religion, science, and philosophy are all intertwined.

However, I think the poster was thrusting at something else. Methinks you need to learn a little more about Socrates.

Critique the philosophy already.

PLAYBOY: Weren't Hitler and Stalin, to name two tyrants, in control of their own lives, and didn't they have a clear purpose?

RAND: Certainly not. Observe that both of them ended as literal psychotics. They were men who lacked self-esteem and, therefore, hated all of existence.

Playboy Interview with Ayn Rand, 1964

>>90
Good quote, though I suspect you threw that out to try and make her look bad. Think about it though...
Here's some more, if you want to play the damn quote game...

"Everyone has the right to make his own decisions, but none has the right to force his decision on others."

"Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him."

"The most depraved type of human being is the man without a purpose."

"Reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses, is man's basic tool of survival."

"A rational man is guided by his thinking – by a process of Reason – not by his feelings and desires."

playboy?

I only read Playboy for the interviews.

My purpose was to become an architect, but the Bush administration fucked up my education and left me illiterate and with no capability for critical thought whatsoever. My purpose is now to flip burgers and get drunk as often as possible.

Critique the philosophy already.

Yeah, it has already. Can't you read?

"Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him."

The sounds you hear in the background are my screams of agony as I cough my guts up from laughing too hard.

That quote is just deluded. That's like claiming fire is all-wonderful because it can make you warm, but ignore that fire can burn you too.

It's not that simple. GJ Rand!

Oh, fuck it... This isn't debate, it's just bitching, name-calling, and pointing out nothing but the negative aspects of every single fucking thing that comes up. And if there aren't really any, you either bring up irrelevant rhetoric, just make shit up, or start bitching over miniscule points that have little or no relevance to the big topic being discussed. Every fucking thing on here is a negative reaction to anything that suggests that man has to put forth some kind of effort to obtain any kind of real satisfaction or happiness. You people, for the most part, are fucking sad idiots, most of whom probably aren't even out of highschool yet.

>>97

Even though I completely disagree with John (seriously, you are WAY off about Rand)...TRUTH GOT TOLD

>>98
The only reason I've been TALKING about Rand herself was because everyone wanted to bring HER up, and not her damn philosophy! x_x

And what exactly did she even DO that all of you seem to think she's some evil bitch, anyway?

>>99
Who are you, Hitler? If people want to talk about Rand, it's their right. Even Rand herself judges people, rather than their "philosophy" (see >>90).

Don't blame people for attacking her personally if you read every criticism as a personal attack. Take the criticism that her philosophy is too simplistic; that, you choose to ignore. Or that her own philosophy didn't seem to operate in her personal life (she demanded that other's conform to her will, which she called "her" rationality). These (to spell it out impersonally, that her philosophy is firstly unrealistic and secondly unworkable) are all criticisms of her "philosophy." If you don't want to address them, say so, rather than claiming they're just personal attacks (if your circular logic wants to go there, please read >>90 again).

Every fucking thing on here is a negative reaction to
anything  that suggests that man has to put forth some kind
of effort to  obtain any kind of real satisfaction or
happiness. 

Bullshit. You equate not worshipping the Objectivist faith with not putting in effort.

100GET

Like I said...

"I'm right because I'm right," replied the Randroid.

>>102
Got something against somebody being right? :B

>>103
Have you stopped being wrong yet?

>>104
I never started.

>>104
I have however started sucking cock for cash. 8 years ago.

>>106
You started sucking cock at 6?!

>>105
And this is a prime example of Objectivism?

Self-analysis and meta-cognition at its finest!