What does Sup Forums think about objectivism?

What does Sup Forums think about objectivism?

Other urls found in this thread:

salon.com/2014/04/29/10_insane_things_i_learned_about_the_world_reading_ayn_rands_atlas_shrugged_partner/
salon.com/2015/10/07/10_depraved_lessons_i_learned_reading_ayn_rands_atlas_shrugged_partner/
youtube.com/watch?v=cL8g7zy6qxw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It's shit.

Form your own opinions.

It's objectively dumb.

I had to read that trash book for a report in high school. I raged when the entire thing was summed up in a 60ish page speech at the end. Fuck that was annoying. Her prose is awful.

Full blown libertarianism is full retard mode. It is just like full blown communism. I hope you are ready for ancap memes OP.

...

"So you object, with old Hobbes, that I do good actions for the pleasure of a good conscience; and so, after all, I am only a refined sensualist! Heaven bless you, and mend your logic! Don't you see that if conscience, which is in its nature a consequence, were thus anticipated and made an antecedent—a party instead of a judge—it would dishonour your draft upon it—it would not pay on demand? Don't you see that, in truth, the very fact of acting with this motive properly and logically destroys all claim upon conscience to give you any pleasure at all?"

>I had to read that trash book for a report in high school.
What kind of randian shithole do you live in?

...

It's the most anti-communist thing there is.

It has some useful material.

However I think it doesn't have a realistic view on interpersonal relationships and Rand's own personal life was a horror show, so I'm not a fan of her behavior and those parts that express in the philosophy.

I made through about half of the book and got tired of it's repetitive nature and obviously unrealistic "great-man" theory of economics.

There is right, and there is wrong. The middle is evil.

Atlas Shrugged is one of the few books I put down and never finished. I was about 70 or so pp from the end and just stopped.

It was awful. Very naive "philosophy", but the book itself is just garbage... the characters are all caricatures who spout stilted lines and solely exist to prove the author's point.

It's boring and trite. I don't understand the acclaim it garnered.

Decent food for thought, at the very least. Don't expect stormfront LARPers to appreciate that.

More kids in highschool and college should have to read something like Atlas Shrugged, at least once. That way they're not in an echo chamber of communism/leftism for the rest of their lives, but get exposed to many diverse ideologies.

I don't know much about it. But I do know that Kants argument for subjectivism is Bush league

salon.com/2014/04/29/10_insane_things_i_learned_about_the_world_reading_ayn_rands_atlas_shrugged_partner/
salon.com/2015/10/07/10_depraved_lessons_i_learned_reading_ayn_rands_atlas_shrugged_partner/

Feminists do not like the book.
Therefore I will endeavor to like it.

I did not read their articles of course, I'm sure they are invalid.

This is literally what everone says. Like it is the canned response from reading the cliff notes. Can you even tellbme how danconia bankrupted mexico?

As a book i agree, it sucks. As a parable it is mythology teir. But what do i know? Who is john galt?

>this news site said this, i beleive it.

Has it ever occurred to you that original thought might be even better than a paid journalist?

the fundamental problem is that it requires, expects, and assumes that the captains of industry will also be moralistic superman - they'll never abuse their monopolies to keep down competition, they'll never cut corners resulting in unsafe conditions for workers or consumers.

you know how you reject communism because it simply doesnt work because of the human condition? its the exact same thing for objectivism, its a fanastical pipedream in a world where people would sell their own mother's soul for a nickel.

we were given the choice to pick whatever and I chose a random one that that was popular.

mistakes.

the average reading level in hs in america is like 5th grade dude.

...

Fine other than the atheism.

I can't believe this book has had so much influence. The ideologies presented in it are a slippery slope, if everyone had the 'in it for me' no progress would be made.

I can semi-understand the 'in it for me' attitude with current foreign invasion.

What are some red pilled books?

Honestly the way I look at the world as a whole it is me first. As long as I do well I can help others. After me I look after my family and close friends. After than I look after my community and then state and then nation and then I can worry about some dumbass in ethiopia starving to death.

It is order of importance really. My friends have enough problems let alone the shithole I live in i would never have the ego to try and help syrians or (place shithole country name here) until at least my country is good to go.

But apparently that makes me a nationalist which makes me a bigot and a racist and an unsympathetic cunt.

People have their heads up their fucking asses.

Guns, Germs, and Steel, which pol hates.

The Will to Power and Beyond Good and Evil, which pol likes.

The Secret Behind Communism, which pol loves.

American Lion, on which pol is neutral and is a great read.

Dangerous, I just ordered to piss off libtards and support that faggot milo. I'll let you know since it is sold out.

Intellectual nihilism, into the trash it goes.

Did you even read it? Do you have ADD?

Any Rand?

You mean Alisa Rosenbaum?

It is correct. Free market capitalism is the best system.

>Guns, Germs, and Steel, which pol hates.

BECAUSE IT ISN'T RED-PILLED. IT IS (((OPINION))).

Thanks, I'll have to check those out.

GJS is not red pilled. Written by a faggot kike who literally thinks Abos are smarter than whites.

Complete trash.

It would be based except it worships 'reason' which is dumb.

If they stopped caring about 'reason' and 'truth' then they would be on to something.

Then they would be LeVeyan Satanists.

I think it's a completely reasonable philosophy that all human actors act in their best interest. If you can't see that then you are likely a kike.

When she said a fetus is no more than a bundle of cells like a kidney I passed on objectivism.
But this book changed my life.
I was pretty lefty until I read it.
It made me understand how morally evil socialism is. The whole "steal from rich and give to the poor" theory of economics is terrible.

She is very correct in that free-market capitalism is superior.
You should go to the Ayn Rand Institute website and listen to her videos on Capitalism.

What's weird is that I live in SoCal with elites driving in there Mercedes with Bernie bumper stickers.
Shit is weird.

Basically, she's the Goddess of the Market.
She's also based af desu. Referred to Native Americans as "squatters", rightfully so.
youtube.com/watch?v=cL8g7zy6qxw

this

That's Russian writing for oyu.

Shit tier bs for shit tier people.

fpbp

>Can you even tellbme how danconia bankrupted mexico?
I think you're conflating two separate occurrences.

>Dagny wants to shut down Taggart's Mexico line
>James insists it'll all work out and keeps spending money on it
>Mexico nationalizes Taggart's Mexico line, severely damaging Taggart

>D'Anconia is managing his Chilean copper mines splendidly
>Chile nationalizes the D'Anconia mines; D'Anconia disappears
>It discovers that the previously-profitable mines are now spent, and the most recent shipments have been fraudulent

Hey Rabbi

Only truly red-pilled philosophy.

libertarianism is retarded, i know not an argumnt, but i ain't wating my time arguing withyou bozos

Objectivism and libertarianism are wildly different. Ayn Rand hated libertarianism.

Jewish trash

I laid it out however subjective and called exactly how pol would agree.

I think GGS is a good book to read whether you like it or not. If you don't agree with it make sure to read it. Know your enemy and how they think.

What's the part of the book that talks about that factory being ran like communism? It's like United Motors or something

People get upset whenever Ayn Rand is mentioned because she was right about everything she thought.

People are inherently selfish. That's a natural fact, and no amount of mental gymnastics will lead to an opposing conclusion. People (collectivists specifically) get triggered over objectivism because it hurts their fee fees.

Gotta go think more, but, fuck why a woman..

Don't read anything written by a jew, women or nu male

Self-centred pipe dream on par with Marxism

Ok as an internal philosophy I guess, fucking shit when it gets anywhere near informing policy.

Retard tier philosophy, really. Invented as a knee-jerk reaction to collectivism, which is also a retard tier philosophy.

Nice for personal life (like said) sucks otherwise. I think Atlas shigged is ok as a collection of essays. It's pretty crappy otherwise.

what do liberals make of it?

Make sure you don't just read the shit this echochamber pukes out however. Know and understand your opposing views and accept that you could be wrong. Kapital by Marx for example, by pols and my definition are not red pilled. But you must read it to truly understand the other side and how their ideology is flawed.

Most people will spout bullshit about marxism here without realizing that he loved capitalism. He thought automation and industry would eventually the the catalyst for communism. He didn't realize that communism looks great on paper and pragmatically doesn't work just like full blown libertarianism since people are greedy pieces of shit.

You have to read this too and form your own opinion. Maybe you will go full blown commie since you could have a room temp iq, but the important part is you knowing all sides and forming your own goddamned opinion.

It will lead you right back to Sup Forums. They are right.

Great book, great phylosophy.

Nihilism is the final redpill

I'm reading it right now and that's basically my reasoning.

Quite possibly the most Jewish philosophical system ever devised.

So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
“When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?
“Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions–and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

you dumb dago

Nihilism is useless in practice.

it's a kindergarten level (((philosophy))) for retards

babbies first independent thinking

reasonable to like if you're still in highschool but if your obsession goes beyond then, re-evaluate your life

For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are perishing-you who dread knowledge -I am the man who will now tell you.”
The chief engineer was the only one able to move; he ran to a television set and struggled frantically with its dials. But the screen remained empty; the speaker had not chosen to be seen. Only his voice filled the airways of the country-of the world, thought the chief engineer-sounding as if he were speaking here, in this room, not to a group, but to one man; it was not the tone of addressing a meeting, but the tone of addressing a mind.
“You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that the words had no meaning. You have cried that man’s sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded. Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster. In the name of a return to morality, you have sacrificed all those evils which you held as the cause of your plight. You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.
“You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection.

>The Will to Power and Beyond Good and Evil, which pol likes.

And you know this how?
>implying anyone here's read Nietzsche

Starting with these two isn't the way to go about reading his work. BGAE has to be worked up to to comprehend, otherwise it's a book of meaningless aphorisms that have no context.

Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. A morality that dares to tell you to find happiness in the renunciation of your happiness-to value the failure of your values-is an insolent negation of morality. A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man-every man-is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose.
“But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.
“Sweep aside those parasites of subsidized classrooms, who live on the profits of the mind of others and proclaim that man needs no morality, no values, no code of behavior. They, who pose as scientists and claim that man is only an animal, do not grant him inclusion in the law of existence they have granted to the lowest of insects. They recognize that every living species has a way of survival demanded by its nature, they do not claim that a fish can live out of water or that a dog can live without its sense of smell-but man, they claim, the most complex of beings, man can survive in any way whatever, man has no identity, no nature, and there’s no practical reason why he cannot live with his means of survival destroyed, with his mind throttled and placed at the disposal of any orders they might care to issue.

Pretty dumb. Society would not be able to function if objectivists ran the show.

Diamond is the Levitt of sociology/history though now. Levitt had Freakonomics which is also a GREAT read and now he is the god in that field. Diamond came from cali so he has obvious bias in his writing, but his view and interpretation are important to understand.

If you haven't read freakonomics/superfreakonomics I highly suggest it to you. Very objective reading from an economist pov without needing bias, especially in superfreakonomics where he didn't need money.

What do sumo wrestlers and teachers have in common? They both cheat for incentive.

That's why it's the final one

Not an actual philosophy, also turbo-retarded

Jesus, I knew shills had taken Sup Forums over but I didn't know it was this bad.

Objectivism is the first step on the red-pilling process. I don't get the hate. It's just a way to get people thinking for the first time - and if they keep on thinking they'll probably move on to other philosophies. Yeah Ayn Rand fanboys like Zack Snyder are annoying, but that's not her fault.

If you give this book to someone who's "not into politics" and they somehow end up reading it I can assure you they will end up leaning to the right, and I can't see how that's a bad thing.

this this this this this

Everyone that says this book is shit is a shill or hasn't read it. Straight up.

I could have said thus spoke zarathrustra for the lulz.

You have to keep in mind while reading nietzsche some of his books may have been heavily edited by his sister and others during his mental breakdown.

In the end I like his writing style and Nihilism (in b4 durrrrr he was existentialist) are objectively very hard to argue against, but I think they are useless as philosophies. I think you have to build up from that nothing. I do love his aggressive writing style. How many people did he insult in the opening to BGAE? Made me uncomfortable a bit THAT is how you know a good author.

I believe you can't argue against nihilism philosophically. It is the end all. I think that is where you want to stand, but for society and humanity as a whole it is awful.

TPBP

Objectivism is a disease peeper rusted by those too afraid to take the lead when necessary. Only a complete fucking idiot or coward would be Objevtive over everything.

Objectively, it is dehumanizing

This is absolutely true. It's not an easy book to make it all the way through (specifically the John Galt speech). Retards like to make themselves feel better by just calling it trash and convincing themselves that it's actually a GOOD thing that they couldn't make it to the end. It shows a lack of discipline if nothing else.

...

Rand is not an anarcho-capitalist.

This quote does not dispute Rand's central point that one ought to act for his own selfish pleasure. It addresses the question, "how does one satisfy his conscious so that he can derive pleasure from it?"

Not an argument.

Marx appreciated the productive powers of capitalism, but he considered it unsustainable, exploitative, and oppressive. He certainly didn't "love" it.

Man's essential component is his capacity for ratiocination. Only someone who has abased himself to the level of a mere animal would call objectivism-- the philosophy which holds reason as its absolute-- "dehumanizing."

If you'd like to learn about Rand's philosophy without sifting through 1200 pages of narrative, I'd recommend "An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" or the compilation of essays "Philosophy: Who Needs It?"

>Rand is not an anarcho-capitalist.
obviously but that is what libertarianism eventually leads to. Different shades of gray.

>Marx appreciated the productive powers of capitalism, but he considered it unsustainable, exploitative, and oppressive. He certainly didn't "love" it.

He wasn't wrong about that and maybe I was a bit assertive about him "loving" it you are right. He definitely APPRECIATED it and assumed it was what would foster communism. I think the main flaw of his philosophy is the assumption that people will respond without direct incentive, in a real case financial incentive.

Both libertarianism and communism are equally retarded for the same reason.

>people are greedy pieces of shit

>EEEWWW WIIMINZ HAVE COOTIEZ
>

we dont trip here gtfo

Get cancer and die. If any of you nation ruining, knob gobling, beta nigger tier faggots show up to anymore rallies youre going to get the shit beat out of you. This site is as fake and gay as reddit. Eat shit mods. You will die. Sup Forums is a marxist SJW shithole with fag posts from shitty non countries. 02747Ujj

I don't understand it and I don't care enough to understand it.

>replying to me so you can bump you're shitty page 10 thread
kys

It's a shit book, Molymeme. Get a new idol.

>It will lead you right back to Sup Forums. They are right.
Which Sup Forums? It's not one person you know. If you mean NatSoc than you're just a 'tard.

What a tragic waste of quints.

>>>>/stormfront/
>>>>/thefuckout/

cripplechan pls.

Quints?
He got no GET in that post.

What is going on in this thread now?

>Quints
are you retarded

>It's not one person you know.

I'm talking about the diamonds you find when you sift through the garbage.

This place might be polarize to natsoc or whatever but here you find uncensored critical discussion, largely about US politics between the shitposts. Sup Forums has merit, and currently you can see it in US politics. Nationalism is a response to a threat.

Whether you admit or not pol played a role in the last election. If you don't understand that then I don't know how to talk to you.

>This quote does not dispute Rand's central point that one ought to act for his own selfish pleasure. It addresses the question, "how does one satisfy his conscious so that he can derive pleasure from it?"

t. someone who misunderstood the argument

don't feed it