Objectivism, why is it not the only philosophy in university?

I mean its proven right.

it's not a philosophy

Because the people who want to force leftism on other people outnumber the people who want to force objectivism on other people

> this thread will (((somehow))) reach bump limit

Because philosophy based on a hypocritical kike Stephanie Meyers for the rich is objectively shit.
Even for university.

Wow, I hate Ayn Rand now.

Because the academy is full of post modern cucks who want to circle jerk about how nothing has meaning and it's not their fault they are complete failures. Academic Philosophy has always existed to justify the state.

Or better yet why don't we all become vulgar positivists like Bill Nye or Neil DeGrasse-Tyson?

Its too jewish even for marxists.

>why doesn't a place dedicated to exploring many ideas limit itself to my favourite meme idea?

>university
>dedicated to exploring many ideas

wew

Utilitarianism is the way to go.
If immigrants don't bring anything good,just kick them all.If a nigger committed a crime twice, without hope of behaving better,kill it.

If we need a controlled government as a fascim,just do it.Right now the free of speech is going crazy.Not all the people are the same,there is always a better one.

Because true knowledge is impossible. For instance, it is impossible to determine if the universe is a computer simulation or not. It is impossible to know if the living things around you are sentient or an illusion. It is pretty much impossible to determine if anything is an illusion or not because our way of observing the universe is naturally biased and flawed. Our own senses could theoretically be tricking us, therefore true knowledge, objectivity and scientific realism are naturally flawed notions.

We live in a meaningless universe.

Post the Shadman one

Thank you for your meaningless statement.

someone needs to post where they can find more of those pics, so we all know what website to stay away from

An example I like to use is a story by the daoist philosopher Zhuangzi. The story goes like this: Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was Chou. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.

You're an idiot. Through science we can still understand how things work, objectively. Even if we can't simulate things with 100% accuracy we still understand how it works.

no that would not be good
objectivism better

No.

You're a fucking retard. Please come back when high school is over.

...

oh yes

>why don't they teach just one lens through which to view the world?
It's like looking at the statue of David from only one angle

Whose the fucking retard here? Understanding HOW something works is not everything. For example say: we figured out all natural laws. Well... Why are there natural laws, why are they constant, why do they allow for life? Why is there matter or energy in the first place? Why isn't it just all a big void? All metaphysical questions worth asking. Just because you watched a Discovery Channel documentary by some fag physicist doesn't mean you can understand the universe. Because it is obvious some forces 'beyond' our universe is making these processes work. These are all things science cant figure out because science mostly requires physical data whereas these subject are outside the physical real ergo metaphysical.

Positivist BTFO

fpbp actually

You are still limited by perception

Also science is never truly objective

Positivism is pretty much the most plebian worldview you can have and its pathetic. On par with being a muzzy or a post gnostic christian.

Like corruption in banking or business when regulations are eased, or corporate welfare is increased. Huh, really made me think.

Dumb. if you ever did anything in computers you'd know that the universe is not a simulation. you can't simulate infinity on a computer, as a game designer i can tell you that even when you play games the movement of your character is still segmented, it is not infinitely small steps like we have in our universe which would take an infinite amount of computer power.

object ivism
is just awesome

>Because true knowledge is impossible.
Oh is that true?

what?
we know 1000s of things
are you retarded?
youtube yaron brook
all of you
please I emplore you to jsut lsiten to a few vids
I wish I had had them when I was 10

top kek

We can't simulate the universe on OUR computers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it could not be simulated. Yes the universe is infinite but the information within the universe is not, there is a fixed amount of energy and fixed natural laws to work with. Look I'm not an expert on computers and havent programmed a thing in my life, but don't forget I'm using it as graspable example to show the subjectivity of reality. There are plenty of metaphysical examples to choose from regarding this.

Well I dont know for sure because true knowledge is impossible. So to state that I know that for sure would be paradoxical. But if you don't agree with my arguments that's fine. But I'd implore you to look at other ways to interpret the universe. My current favorite is hermetic occultism.

Why? It's boring and counter productive.

>what is quantum computation
>what is a computer which works on a grander and more fine scale then our comparatively gigantic subatomic particles
>What is the infinite regression of science

Again, I will explain that if we take our universe and take a scale of one meter, then we can move from one side of that scale to the other with steps so small that we will never reach the other side but keep on moving. in a simulated space that is impossible since position is bound by numbers and even a float value is not infinite.

No matter how much computation power you have you still can't have an infinte number system on a computer. this simulated reality meme needs to go

Do you think our legal and moral philosophy should be based around this postmodern vomit?

Again, I'm no expert on this and i'll take your word for it, but its the point thats important not the example. The idea that our senses may be tricking us still stands because it cannot be disproven. Therefore I still think that real objectivity is impossible.

Agreed, it's totally limiting and offers no meaningful interpretation of anything that you can't get without it

>insinuating our universe contain a finite number of items and probabilities
The hell? To actually disagree with even the concept that we might all be inside of Jesus' tamagotchi just makes you wrong. That's like saying mendel's teapot has a 0% chance of existence.

Lawrence Krauss has been BTFO by philosophers and physicists alike numerous times by now which is why he can get an audience only on Bro Rogaine show

>insinuating our universe contain a finite number of items and probabilities
Meant to say
>insinuating our universe doesn't contain a finite number of items and probabilities

Are you familiar with the Doors

>I mean its proven right
Kek. Objectivists believe in free will, which has been proven wrong.

Nothing necessarily has to be based on it. I see morals as a product of culture and an entirely different subject than the nature of reality. Peoples moral decisions will be based on parenting and general social upbringing not philosophy. Thats only the case for people who give a shit about philosophy. As to your question of law and politics: I dont see how it it is applicable in any useful way, doesn't mean it's a flawed idea though. If anything, it is a lesson in humility and being able to question your own judgement and that of others.

again see

>doesn't understand the non-normative nature of prescriptive claims
Surely you b8

the idea that are senses may be tricking us cannot be disproven, BUT it cannot be proven either.
Since absence of evidence is the only possible evidence for absence we can simply conclude that untill we find evidence to the fact that what we see isn't real we can dismiss that idea.

Don't worry I'm sure every statement will hold the same value of true under any circumstances.

>being this uneducate-
>wait that flag

Another day of subversion in the life of Schlomo

It's funny how you're aware that you're making a contradictory statement yet run with it anyways.

...

OUT

Sure, that's practically true. I dont go around questioning if everything is an illusion or not. But thats simply not the point. The point is that because you cannot even prove that the reality you observe is 'correct', that the idea of objectivity or positivism as a philosophy is worthless. Because at it's very core, the observation of things through your senses is inherently flawed. Doesnt mean this all isn't real, but just the fact that its impossible to know debunks positivism.

Objectivism makes Ayn Rand the smartest, greatest female human that ever lived.

Women used be thought of as shallow and unable of coming up with unique ideas or thoughts independent of male influence.
That held true until Ayn Rand came along, and created a philosophy predicated on one feeling women do have, and that is selfishness.
Women are incredibly egoistic, self-serving creatures that were designed to devote themselves to their genetic material, however the care they're capable of giving also makes them more valuable to society than men, which breeds their selfish, ego-centrist attitude towards other humans.

All great philosophers are male, because men aren't motivated solely by their own existence, but think of themselves as servants to higher purpose (be it god, nation, gommunism, etc. etc.), and that makes Ayn Rand unique, she was the only woman capable of moving her mind outwards into society and creating a philosophy predicated on the mentality she shares with other members of her biological sex group.

Yeah it's almost like the broad infinity that is the universe has no obligation to fit into a rational narrative discourse constructed from language by angsty teens on a Andalusian stationary collecting forum.

Really is quite shocking that things start to get a little paradoxical when discussing matters that occur outside of our notions of reality! We as humans are after all the height of God's Creation, surely if it doesn't make sense to our bio-electro-chemical computational function set then it's nonsense?

>You're a fucking idiot m8

because a philosophy that empowers the individual does nothing for those that have harnessed university as a means of social indoctrination and control

Good work there with misrepresented stats, Schlomo. What else did the Rabbi teach you?

Maybe next you'll open a law case? Think the only thing you're capable of opening is a bagel stand friend

It's only contradicting when saying you know something for sure while upholding the view that true knowledge is inherently impossible. I haven't said I know anything for sure, I've just argued, nothing contradictory about it. Which you would realize if you would've tried to understand what I've said. All I'm saying is that because our senses MAY be flawed, it is impossible to derive 'true knowledge'.

I agree with the spirit of your post but it's not "why", it's "what". Science moved away from explaining things in terms of their underlying causes and shifted to prizing predictive power over physical interpretation. "Theories" are just the skeletal remains of the Naturphilosophie without any recourse to underlying essences. Science is the "how" and metaphysics is the "what". "Why" still remains a stupid question

There is no other way to represent that statistic.
true knowledge can be derived even from the vary basic "I think therefor I am", you know you exist 100% because you can think.

She's just another dupe of the intergalactic matriarchy, which has advanced to such a late stage of capitalism that they have de-sexed themselves into androgynous beings ("the greys") motivated purely by the drive for capital acquisition.

They genetically engineered us as sort of living sperm bank so they could continue to propagate their species after they exterminated their own males (The logical conclusion of the suppression of the male primitive-socialist nature under capitalist feminism. )

Ayn Rand is their tool that hopes to advance the notions of feminine morality to the point that our society can advance to the intergalactic feminist stage of capitalist development.

I think the why questions are interesting to think about, they're fun thought experiments. Not that stupid to ask those things imo, just not very productive.

>To actually disagree with even the concept that we might all be inside of Jesus' tamagotchi just makes you wrong.
if you're just insisting that some bizarre scenarios aren't logically impossible and therefore have >0% probability, that doesn't necessarily make the simulation scenario possible, since it may be logically impossible

Uhm, no? Ever heard of doubt? Let me show you this:
>the idea that are senses may be tricking us cannot be disproven, BUT it cannot be proven either.
and some wizardry
>the idea that our senses are telling us about reality cannot be disproven, BUT it cannot be proven either.

>untill we find evidence to the fact that what we see isn't real
Did you know your body is comprised 99% of empty space? And that the 1% that does constitute "stuff" is in a constant state of quantum/electron flux that exists as multiple possibilities ultimately condensed into one by light and spooky observers?
>Hurrdurr schizo
look up the double slit experiment and go read about quantum computing.

Maybe then we'll be able to have a non-adolescent, less fedora-tipping tier/babby's first logical positivism oriented debate?

>vary basic "I think therefor I am", you know you exist 100% because you can think.
>he presupposes that it is the "I" that does the thinking

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Back to the high school with you, dumb Shlomo.

>"I think therefor I am"
pretty much the only example of what you can know for sure besides when questioning you cannot question whether you are questioning something or not.

Sure, it's like a sandbox game. If you don't value anything and have no goals, it's meaningless.
But don't kill yourself just yet finnbro, there's plenty of meaning in life you just have to stop drinking so much and find some qt and protect your homeland from invaders. It's your legacy, treasure it, fight for it, uphold it. Don't listen to (((nihilists))).

what kind of faggy sweeping statement 'true knowledge is simpossible'
this is kantian stupidity
the universe is knowable
logic wins
a is a
we know for example free markets create massive wealth
all the powers of cronyism caused by stae fight thsi truth
how can a government controlled school do anything but say more gov spending?
canada can over take usa 1 way
freer markets
I challaenge canada to implement flibe.com atomic thorium mini safe reactor
show up the usa

>"I think therefor I am",
I bet you believe in free will too

>he presupposes that it is the "I" that does the thinking
what's wrong with this?

whats with all the ayn rand threads lately? there were several threads last week where objectivism and rand's writing got utterly BTFO. go look in the archives

the fuk it has

>proven

there is no moral right to force others to do stuff aside from leaving your property alone

>non-normative nature of prescriptive claims
aren't "normative" and "prescriptive" basically synonyms?

Prove that your thoughts are an actual product of yourself, and that you are not merely a container for them.

IQ doesnt exist

People confuse the "why" with the "what". When you ask something like "why is there matter and energy" what you should really be asking is "WHAT is matter and energy" because physics doesn't offer an answer to that kind of question. People too often mistake physics for ontology when that's just not how science is practiced. I blame continental philosophy and reddit atheism for convincing people that physics somehow supplanted metaphysics and their failure to recognize the distinction between mathematical formalism and the myriad physical interpretations it may entail.

can you prove the universe is infinite?

the virtue of selfishness aka not telling others what to do and being interested in your own happiness
not creating political stuff that enslaves people
yep
best ever
unregualted capitalism
we would be 1000x richer now if we did it
or even jsut kept to 1800s level of governmetn spending

You are obviously completely clueless when it comes to philosophy. Please try to write a comprehensive reply because you are making yourself look dumber every post you make. I hope you're trolling mate.

>t. 22 y/o phil + psych major

Cogito Ergo Sum was actually Descarte's response to the incredible sum total of doubt which he, through his meditations, had cast upon his own beliefs.

If you actually read any fucking Descartes instead of just posturing words you would know that he comes to realize that existence is the ONE and ONLY certainty - the end. No other true knowledge. nothing to be derived or inferred from this. We simply "are".

and his only solution to this cataclysmic absence of knowledge or 'truth; was to suppose the existence of God in order to derive a first order of value from which to extend things like "truth" and "knowledge" into the world.

You are SUCH an edgelord and need to spend more time outside of your echo-chamber.

which god?
whats andul?
Im polytheistic objectivist
nuke israel

does one of those not allow the cogito?

there fore lower gov spending to 0 or as near as can, thus making univeristy into productive think tank which would purge jerkoffs who beleive in commnuism quickly

I guess you're right user, 'what' is more accurate.

yid BTFO

Prove the existence of free will.

I wouldn't blame all of continental philosophy, mainly just 20th century french idiots and their vulgar readings of people like Marx and Hegel

kant was a jerkoff same as marx

a is a

lower gov spending 99%

Prescriptive = Claims involving "should"
Normative Force = Whether or not and to what extent any claim- prescriptive or descriptive - should exert an influence on our behaviour, thought or rationality.

Shit is very confusing tbqh

>existence is the ONE and ONLY certainty
but descartes infers his existence from the existence of his thinking, so are you saying he infers a certainy from a non-certainty? and what about the status of the inferential rule he uses?

nice larp

>If you actually read any fucking Descartes instead of just posturing words you would know that he comes to realize that existence is the ONE and ONLY certainty - the end. No other true knowledge. nothing to be derived or inferred from this. We simply "are".

Listen to this user, he is right.

Hey faggot