Who is the hard-provably best philosopher who has ever lived and why is it Ayn Rand?

Who is the hard-provably best philosopher who has ever lived and why is it Ayn Rand?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=U6gV1MUSXMg
assets.realclear.com/files/2017/10/698_Trump.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Its Miguel Serrano.

Also post Rand pics

Not if the flag you are posting with means anything he isn't.

She's a start, that's for sure

I would start with Socrates, though

Heidegger is a great modern philosopher who was an actual Nazi.

Why not Heidegger?

That's not Bowden.

>Jew

>implying

Rand is considered a joke by everyone besides 13 year olds accidently running across her work while googling how to escape the tyranny of their parent's rules

>woman
In the trash

She had a lot of good ideas but a lot of shaky ones too. I think a lot of it was due to an (albeit understandable) overreaction to the threat of Communism.

Aristotle needs to hold first place is contextual significance is anything to go by. Nietzsche close second and Rand after that.

Rand's philosophy is just Aristotle updated slightly for the modern day and stapled together with Capitalism. This means that

1. Anyone who immediately rejects her out of hand is also rejecting Aristotle out of hand, and therefore a faggot.

2. She's a bit of an autist. She clearly sought foundations for her thinking, reliable axioms. The problem is that this led her to very stupid notions where she tried to define her preferences into objectivity.

Overall she's decent, but there are better philosophers.

“It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.”

(((Rand)))

>Rand's philosophy is a form of Virtue Ethics

WEW LAD

fuck this Jew bitch

reminder she was in an "open relationship" aka slept around on her husband while he knew about it

The dreaded, horrible secret that academic philosophers face (and why they do not even allow the notion of Objectivism as a philosophy) is that Objectism is not -a- Philosophy but THE Philosophy. Hers holds the particular distinction of being the first ever formulated META-Philosophy. And psudeo-intellectuals the world over are perpetually butthurt over this incontrovertible fact. Yes fact, I do not exaggerate. Including it among their other disparate half formed, half actualized "philosophies", they find it eats everything it comes into contact with. This disrupts their vested interest in keeping a fanciful salad-esque collection of philosophies to catalog away and do nothing objectively meritous with it on their own terms. Despite what these sorts of people would have to say it isn't Ayn Rand but academia as it stands that is "the joke".

It literally is?

>a female jewish cult leader

The whole neocon thing, of which Alisa Rosenbaum was a forerunner, is about opposition specifically to Communism post-Lenin. Even though Rosenbaum's family suffered some loss of property under Lenin, she herself benefited from the Bolsheviks' opening of universities to female students and she did not emigrate until the year after Lenin died.

The fuck are you talking about. Meta theories have been the rule since before Plato, and it was only until Nietzsche that they were brought under hard scrutiny

fucking based

...

She completely fucking demolished Nietzsche though.
youtube.com/watch?v=U6gV1MUSXMg

Why don't you ask her why her followers are all Jews who invariably undermine anything that is good for white people or hurts Jews but can't be bothered to be outraged or attack anything that harms whites or helps Jews. You would think on a pure probabilistic basis, it wouldn't be more than 50/50. They are a bunch of smug, lazy Jewish supremacists. What is hilarious is how totally hysterical they are over Donald Trump, despite him not being objectively worse than any other Republican candidate in terms of their own free market ideals. Usually they just sneer at Republicans because Objectivists are mostly closet Democrats, but with Trump, the fangs are out, and they get really nasty. Their movement is a cynical joke.

>her followers are all Jews who invariably undermine anything that is good for white people
Rothbard was heavily influenced by her, and he was basically Hoppe's mentor.

This whole post is a complete lie.
>Objectivists
>Closet democrats
Kill yourself

>Dude, like dude, Why i should help people, like why should i help them hahaha, like why should help the weak lololololoo.
>T.Ayn Rad
>Die in medicare in posterity

You kill yourself, fucktard. They are closet Democrats. Their intellectuals are on record as voting for John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

and why do virtually no philosophers have this opinipn

Funny how you didn't deny that they are all Jewish though.

What is a old shrilled up kike too obsessed with money and her job then to have children

What kind of women don't have children Sup Forums?

It's just funny how practically everyone but le removal man for libertarian philosophers and those who have influenced the ideology are kikes

How is "they're Jewish" an argument? Also see my previous post.

Because the argument is racism is bad. Ayn Rand is against racism.

Meritocratic Jews vs Nepotistic Kikes
Learn the difference
>inb4 hurr both sides, 17D underwater skydiving

>Ayn Rand
you make me fucking sick

So here is an Objectivist dripping spittle over Trump.
assets.realclear.com/files/2017/10/698_Trump.pdf

Tell me again how my "whole post is a complete lie"?

>Uses the word "bourgeoisie"
Into the fucking trash

You're either a collectivist or an individual crushed by another collective. Collectivism isn't going anywhere.

>since Plato
Nigga please. Through the allusions which appear in the dialogues, it is apparent both Plato and Socrates are drawing on much older ideas and thinkers of the Ionian Enlightenment, who in turn weren't the first either

I don't even understand what you are saying. Are you arguing that Objectivists are meritocratic Jews? Don't make us laugh. Ayn Rand herself may have been, but her movement is most definitely not.

Objectivism most certainly been pushed off the scene because Commies recognised it as the literal bar-none unexaggeratingly biggest threat they have ever encountered.
My concern is only among Her and her best adherents. Did you know James O'eefe is an Objectivist?

And don't you dare count Paul Ryan amount our number.

>implying I take Rand's word as gospel
I already mentioned how I have some problems with her philosophy. Namely I find the whole collectivism/individualism thing to be a false dichotomy, having in-group preference doesn't necessarily mean you have to view every individual within the out-group as an enemy. You can dislike Jews as a collective but still respect and admire the works of some old Russian Jewish lady.

>problems
Which ones user? I consider her nigh-flawless and have consumed everything she ever produced. Let me try and square some if I am able.

I am sympathetic but Objectivism and all libertarian movements are dead. Liberty can't survive the displacement of white people with foreign people and hostile minorities. Tribalism is the inevitable end game in every country around the world, and there is really no stopping it at this point.

Kant

Mostly, like I said, her autistic attachment to individualism. I'd consider myself to be mostly individualistic as I don't like collectivism, but when other groups begin to collectivize some form of collectivism may be necessary purely as a self-defense mechanism.

I do respect and admire her works, but ask yourself why her followers are basically all Jewish. That only happens because this ethnic group pushes out non co-ethnics. They are complete hypocrites. They say one thing and do another.

Objectivist literally have to fund chairs ...pay colleges and universities to teach her 3rd rate philosophy (and 4th rate novel writing).

Her theories and arguments are embarrassing. The kind of stuff a freshman thinks is intellectual; by senior year grow out of and can demolish easily.

>her followers are basically all Jewish
What? Proof? I thought they were mostly white AnCaps/libertarians.

Collectivism holds that a man is part of something greater than himself. She's a collectivist kike, but apparently it doesn't count for Jews

Individualism for thee, not for me

Thanks for posting this. Jews seem to have no concept of collective identity for any goyim and are totally blind to their own collective consciousness

Context matters. Additionally bourgeoisie is not a purely Marxist word. It was used by everyone to describe aristocracy even the aristocracy themselves. Bourgeoisie values is the term people would use. Even Hitler.

>unironically thinks ayn rand is the greatest philosopher of all time
What are high schools like these days?

When did she ever advocate for Jews to have a collective identity?

The Randies are extraordinarily anti Stoicicm. And not fairly, they misquote the Stoics all the time.

Randies fear virtuous behavior and men because they are crypto Jews peddling immorality.

You can see Rand's Jewishness seizure whenever she was asked about Israel.

Did not create a future for white children.

No, they're not white. Every single intellectual in that movement is Jewish. If you want to say that anyone who vaguely appreciates Ayn Rand is a follower, it would obviously be less Jewish, but by their own estimation, there are only a few thousand followers.

>Stating basic, obvious common sense knowledge
>Best philosopher ever

Kek

That is not Collectivism friend, the very concept of a group does not automatically imply Collectivism. Rand decryed racism but only because it's use as epistemological shortcuts by weak men. She was observably a race realist. The thinking that she would never align with a notion such as white interest other preservationism is inaccurate.

"The mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.
We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival."

>aristocracy
not quite. Evola was a true aristocrat himself, here he uses it in reference to the middling class which had emerged from modernity.

Sorry, you're right. What I should have said is anyone not of the lower classes.