Find a flaw.
>Rand maintained that the first question is not what should the code of values be, the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?" According to Rand, "it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible", and "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do".[52] Rand writes: "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action.
Making a distinction between life and non-life strikes me as foolish.
being a worthless postmodernist homosexual strikes me as foolish
Stomping your feet angrily is not going to put the genie back into the bottle.
this is true, only killing enough postmodernists will
>Woman speaking
First flaw.
This is what makes leftists seethe.
>NOOO YOU'RE A HECKIN' WOMB BEARING PERSON AND OPPRESSED MINORITY HOW CAN YOU DO THIS
Apostates are hated more than infidels.
>life and non-life!
the boundary between the two is arbitrary
>Early life
How true is the statement that Ayn Rand's philosophy is just a shitty version of Nietzsche's? I've heard it before.
Libertarianism and objectivism is just Marxism-Leninism except for radical shitlibs
Worse, all she really did was take Marxism and turned it upside down morally, so that what Marx declared evil, she declared good and vice versa, thereby proving that the opposite of a bad idea is another bad idea.
Yeah, pretty much this. They're all mouth breathers.
Worthless psued israelite like Marx
She had a cringe personal life.
Basically a femcel
>Find a flaw.
Objectivism is fine as a _personal_ philosophy but when applied to society, it allows the elites to take over.
>things are what they are and aren't what they aren't
>therefore Andrew Carnegie should frick me
truly the greatest mind of the 1920s
Occasional reminder this hag died in poverty living off federal gibs.
Rand concludes that life should be our fundamental value but iirc she herself admitted that suicide can be a rational choice under some circumstances. Unfortunately I can't recall the source, it was in an interview. A character in Atlas Shrugged also seems to speak for Rand when he expresses sympathy for people who commit suicide saying something like "Who are we to pass judgement on how much suffering another man can bear?" Yet if life our is the ultimate value shouldn't we condemn suicides as unconditionally immoral?
No because life on it's own isn't the ultimate absolute value but a fulfilling life and happiness, or in aristotelian terms 'Eudaimonia'.It's important to notice that those values/goal only appear if the answer for the question "is (your)life a value/worth living?" turns out a 'Yes', if for whatever reason it turns out as 'No' suicide becomes the right course of action
not even conscious life, just life.
Seems a weird premise for her to start if she ended up at Objectivism. How does one follow the other?
>Find a flaw.
Female, israelite
2 for you to chew on OP
Notice how this thread attracted so much vitriol with barely any discussion of her ideas. Mostly ad hominems. Not an objectivist btw, just a noticer.
If I want others to be means to my ends, I will naturally be hostile to every premise that leads away from that conclusion.
>The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not
Extremely moronic
The flaw is that she believed that anyone would naturally choose existence over non-existence when the truth is that no one was asked if they wanted to be born in the first place.