Never but I thought she was dumb for being pro-smoking
Then I saw the effects of nicotine
Smoking is still a dumb, primitive delivery device for nicotine but she might have been kind of right about that one
This. She has a knack for being wrong where everyone else is right and right when everyone else is wrong
>writes cringe shit about smoking to justify an addiction as rational >gets lung cancer >threatened with bankruptcy due to medical bills >signs up for welfare under a fake name
Lol
Individualism: Rand emphasized the importance of the individual and their rights as the foundation of a moral society. She rejected collectivism and advocated for the pursuit of one's own rational self-interest as the highest moral purpose.
Reason: Rand upheld reason as the primary means of understanding reality and guiding human action. She believed that individuals should rely on their own rational judgment to make decisions and pursue their goals.
Rational Self-Interest: Rand argued that pursuing one's own rational self-interest is not only morally acceptable but also necessary for human flourishing. She rejected altruism as a moral ideal and instead promoted the rational pursuit of one's own values and goals.
Capitalism: Rand was a staunch advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, which she saw as the only social system consistent with individual rights and freedom. She believed that capitalism fosters innovation, prosperity, and individual liberty, while socialism and statism lead to tyranny and stagnation.
Objectivity: Rand emphasized the importance of objective reality and objective morality. She rejected subjectivism and relativism, arguing that there are objective truths and moral principles that can be discovered through reason and evidence.
Egoism: Rand's philosophy promotes rational egoism, which she defined as the ethical principle that individuals should pursue their own happiness and well-being as their highest moral purpose.
Aesthetics: Rand also had strong views on aesthetics, arguing for the importance of art as a reflection of human values and ideals. She advocated for romantic realism in art, which celebrates heroic individuals and the pursuit of life's highest values.
If this is an accurate reflection of her philosophy then this is what I intuitively believe and I think these are the dominant American values. Someone tell me I’m wrong or right.
She just gave really simplistic takes affirming one side of her era's culture war and tied it into self-help. If she were alive today she'd be grifting on YouTube about cancel culture while delivering hot takes about how Trump isn't what he seems.
Randtards are incapable of seeing that point. They've tied their self-esteem to affirming her pronouncements.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Elaborate
2 months ago
Anonymous
Objectivism is a failed cult that arose out of the "self-help" era. Rand formulated a (rather simplistic) doctrine of "rational self-interest" which is a form of egoism that boosts her reader's self-esteem by encouraging self-actualization through identifying with characters in her books.
2 months ago
Anonymous
no, it's about boosting self-esteem by accepting objective reality.
Her objectivism is just egoism, and eventually devolves into treating people as means to ones own ends, and in doing so, goes against the personalistic norm. Very anti-catholic, and for that reason, i'm out.
>devolves into treating people as means to ones own ends
the whole point of her moral ideas, summed up, is that human beings are always ends, never means.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>ignores how much emphasis Rand put on her fiction
But yes, moron. Attempting to monopolize how you interpret reality and form opinions is very cultlike.
2 months ago
Anonymous
So every school of epistemology is a cult? They all have their own view of how man interprets reality and forms opinions, after all.
Here's what I don't understand about people who claim to be both individualistic and objective.
If you believe in individualism, you suppose that your acting in accordance with your own rational self-interest as opposed to collective interests. Let's say this indiviualist believes that murdering rich people is a good act because it allows him to reach his individual goal. But there might be another individualist who believes that murdering rich people is a bad act because it is in this other person's self-interest to keep them around. And we could imagine a hypothetical where every single person believes this as well. The one dissenting individualist then has two choices. Either he has to "agree to disagree" with everyone else, which is an admission that morality is subjective, or he has to "get in line" and convince himself that murdering rich people is bad actually. This keeps his stance on objectivity intact but abandons his individuality for the will of the people.
Individualism doesn't mean contrarianism or that you get to make up morality. Whether murder is right or wrong isn't a subjective decision, and you don't become less of an individualist by following rational morality than you do by breathing air just like everybody else.
>Rand emphasized the importance of objective reality and objective morality. She rejected subjectivism and relativism, arguing that there are objective truths and moral principles that can be discovered through reason and evidence.
Wow, that sounds absolutely useless. Moral realism is such a pathetic strand of thought, and yet it dominates everywhere. Truly the midwit's view.
Just say you want to touch kids, you don't need to bother with the whole moral theory stuff.
>and you don't become less of an individualist by following rational morality
And how is it decided what rational morality is? If to me as an individualist it seems irrational to say that murder is wrong, am I an irrational person in the eyes of those who say murder is wrong? And if so, what makes my assessment irrational?
2 months ago
Anonymous
By reasoning from first principles. If you can give me a coherent account of why murder is good, I'd be interested in hearing it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Murder is good because it reduces the number of people present on Earth, meaning less resources have to be extracted to sustain current population which increases the longevity of the planet that hosts the lives of my progeny.
Regardless of whether you can prove that this argument is rational or not, I'll still continue to believe this.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Regardless of whether you can prove that this argument is rational or not, I'll still continue to believe this.
Yes, that's the crux.
>Just say you want to touch kids, you don't need to bother with the whole moral theory stuff.
Funny, considering how often it's the moralizers who end up doing exactly that. Pathetic moron.
What's wrong with hypocrisy? You better not be moralizing.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Yes, that's the crux.
It's only a crux if you believe that humans must share a collective moral framework. Which an individualist would not accept, as it may interfere with their self-interest. Hence individualists can't (or rather shouldn't) be objectivists.
2 months ago
Anonymous
It's a crux if morality is, in fact, objective, in which case an individualist would reject it only if he valued whim over reason (thereby undermining himself, because reason is his primary tool of survival). Btw, this is one of those areas where Objectivists themselves tend to get into trouble, because they love simultaneously emphasizing objective morality and individually chosen values, though you'll never see them actually accept any values other than their own. They want you to define your own values, and for those values to just so happen to be the exact same as Any Rand's.
>Just say you want to touch kids, you don't need to bother with the whole moral theory stuff.
Funny, considering how often it's the moralizers who end up doing exactly that. Pathetic moron.
>Rand emphasized the importance of objective reality and objective morality. She rejected subjectivism and relativism, arguing that there are objective truths and moral principles that can be discovered through reason and evidence.
Wow, that sounds absolutely useless. Moral realism is such a pathetic strand of thought, and yet it dominates everywhere. Truly the midwit's view.
someone described Atlas Shrugged as being Ben Shapiro caricaturizing leftists in some kind of "I'm silly" sketch, apparently that's what her novels read like.
Her objectivism is just egoism, and eventually devolves into treating people as means to ones own ends, and in doing so, goes against the personalistic norm. Very anti-catholic, and for that reason, i'm out.
>hardly cultish
She literally said she solved all of philosophy and says Objectivism is a "closed system" meaning anyone involved with her official organization (ARI) treats her work like scripture and attributes new writing to what she had already written.
I get that you feel like you understand the world better because you've read Rand. However, what you've really done is link your self-esteem to her worldview.
The disagreement was not about whether all of philosophy was solved forever, but about what should be covered by the term 'Objectivism'. For what it's worth, I think the open system group (Kelley and the Objectivist Center) had it right. >what you've really done is link your self-esteem to her worldview
That would be a bad idea, since I disagree with her worldview.
She's right about some things and wrong about others.
Never but I thought she was dumb for being pro-smoking
Then I saw the effects of nicotine
Smoking is still a dumb, primitive delivery device for nicotine but she might have been kind of right about that one
This. She has a knack for being wrong where everyone else is right and right when everyone else is wrong
>Never but I thought she was dumb for being pro-smoking
>Then I saw the effects of nicotine
QRD?
>writes cringe shit about smoking to justify an addiction as rational
>gets lung cancer
>threatened with bankruptcy due to medical bills
>signs up for welfare under a fake name
Lol
Not sure what QRD means and I’m too lazy to look it up but read this: https://gwern.net/nicotine
quick rundown
>She's right about some things and wrong about others.
Is she right or wrong about trains?
When I became moronic
good on metaphysics, good on epistemology, excellent on aesthetics, shame about the politics
>self-help cult
who are you quoting?
Randianism. It's a self-help cult.
Individualism: Rand emphasized the importance of the individual and their rights as the foundation of a moral society. She rejected collectivism and advocated for the pursuit of one's own rational self-interest as the highest moral purpose.
Reason: Rand upheld reason as the primary means of understanding reality and guiding human action. She believed that individuals should rely on their own rational judgment to make decisions and pursue their goals.
Rational Self-Interest: Rand argued that pursuing one's own rational self-interest is not only morally acceptable but also necessary for human flourishing. She rejected altruism as a moral ideal and instead promoted the rational pursuit of one's own values and goals.
Capitalism: Rand was a staunch advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, which she saw as the only social system consistent with individual rights and freedom. She believed that capitalism fosters innovation, prosperity, and individual liberty, while socialism and statism lead to tyranny and stagnation.
Objectivity: Rand emphasized the importance of objective reality and objective morality. She rejected subjectivism and relativism, arguing that there are objective truths and moral principles that can be discovered through reason and evidence.
Egoism: Rand's philosophy promotes rational egoism, which she defined as the ethical principle that individuals should pursue their own happiness and well-being as their highest moral purpose.
Aesthetics: Rand also had strong views on aesthetics, arguing for the importance of art as a reflection of human values and ideals. She advocated for romantic realism in art, which celebrates heroic individuals and the pursuit of life's highest values.
If this is an accurate reflection of her philosophy then this is what I intuitively believe and I think these are the dominant American values. Someone tell me I’m wrong or right.
She just gave really simplistic takes affirming one side of her era's culture war and tied it into self-help. If she were alive today she'd be grifting on YouTube about cancel culture while delivering hot takes about how Trump isn't what he seems.
I don’t see your point
Randtards are incapable of seeing that point. They've tied their self-esteem to affirming her pronouncements.
Elaborate
Objectivism is a failed cult that arose out of the "self-help" era. Rand formulated a (rather simplistic) doctrine of "rational self-interest" which is a form of egoism that boosts her reader's self-esteem by encouraging self-actualization through identifying with characters in her books.
no, it's about boosting self-esteem by accepting objective reality.
>devolves into treating people as means to ones own ends
the whole point of her moral ideas, summed up, is that human beings are always ends, never means.
>ignores how much emphasis Rand put on her fiction
But yes, moron. Attempting to monopolize how you interpret reality and form opinions is very cultlike.
So every school of epistemology is a cult? They all have their own view of how man interprets reality and forms opinions, after all.
>So every school of epistemology is a cult?
Nope.
Here's what I don't understand about people who claim to be both individualistic and objective.
If you believe in individualism, you suppose that your acting in accordance with your own rational self-interest as opposed to collective interests. Let's say this indiviualist believes that murdering rich people is a good act because it allows him to reach his individual goal. But there might be another individualist who believes that murdering rich people is a bad act because it is in this other person's self-interest to keep them around. And we could imagine a hypothetical where every single person believes this as well. The one dissenting individualist then has two choices. Either he has to "agree to disagree" with everyone else, which is an admission that morality is subjective, or he has to "get in line" and convince himself that murdering rich people is bad actually. This keeps his stance on objectivity intact but abandons his individuality for the will of the people.
An individualist can never be objective.
Individualism doesn't mean contrarianism or that you get to make up morality. Whether murder is right or wrong isn't a subjective decision, and you don't become less of an individualist by following rational morality than you do by breathing air just like everybody else.
Just say you want to touch kids, you don't need to bother with the whole moral theory stuff.
>and you don't become less of an individualist by following rational morality
And how is it decided what rational morality is? If to me as an individualist it seems irrational to say that murder is wrong, am I an irrational person in the eyes of those who say murder is wrong? And if so, what makes my assessment irrational?
By reasoning from first principles. If you can give me a coherent account of why murder is good, I'd be interested in hearing it.
Murder is good because it reduces the number of people present on Earth, meaning less resources have to be extracted to sustain current population which increases the longevity of the planet that hosts the lives of my progeny.
Regardless of whether you can prove that this argument is rational or not, I'll still continue to believe this.
>Regardless of whether you can prove that this argument is rational or not, I'll still continue to believe this.
Yes, that's the crux.
What's wrong with hypocrisy? You better not be moralizing.
>Yes, that's the crux.
It's only a crux if you believe that humans must share a collective moral framework. Which an individualist would not accept, as it may interfere with their self-interest. Hence individualists can't (or rather shouldn't) be objectivists.
It's a crux if morality is, in fact, objective, in which case an individualist would reject it only if he valued whim over reason (thereby undermining himself, because reason is his primary tool of survival). Btw, this is one of those areas where Objectivists themselves tend to get into trouble, because they love simultaneously emphasizing objective morality and individually chosen values, though you'll never see them actually accept any values other than their own. They want you to define your own values, and for those values to just so happen to be the exact same as Any Rand's.
>Just say you want to touch kids, you don't need to bother with the whole moral theory stuff.
Funny, considering how often it's the moralizers who end up doing exactly that. Pathetic moron.
>Rand emphasized the importance of objective reality and objective morality. She rejected subjectivism and relativism, arguing that there are objective truths and moral principles that can be discovered through reason and evidence.
Wow, that sounds absolutely useless. Moral realism is such a pathetic strand of thought, and yet it dominates everywhere. Truly the midwit's view.
I worry if I read her books I’m going to roll my eyes a lot. Are they really preachy and propagandey?
They are absolutely insufferable.
someone described Atlas Shrugged as being Ben Shapiro caricaturizing leftists in some kind of "I'm silly" sketch, apparently that's what her novels read like.
Ersatz Neitzsche
Her objectivism is just egoism, and eventually devolves into treating people as means to ones own ends, and in doing so, goes against the personalistic norm. Very anti-catholic, and for that reason, i'm out.
The collective? Sure. The philosophy as such? Not really. Wrong about a lot of things, sure, but hardly cultish.
>hardly cultish
She literally said she solved all of philosophy and says Objectivism is a "closed system" meaning anyone involved with her official organization (ARI) treats her work like scripture and attributes new writing to what she had already written.
I get that you feel like you understand the world better because you've read Rand. However, what you've really done is link your self-esteem to her worldview.
The disagreement was not about whether all of philosophy was solved forever, but about what should be covered by the term 'Objectivism'. For what it's worth, I think the open system group (Kelley and the Objectivist Center) had it right.
>what you've really done is link your self-esteem to her worldview
That would be a bad idea, since I disagree with her worldview.
What makes one monopoly better than another?
I cannot believe you morons are actually engaging seriously with this stupid israeliteess.
When I was 10, before my brain started developing beyond libertarian-tier.