What does Sup Forums think of Ayn Rand and objectivism?

What does Sup Forums think of Ayn Rand and objectivism?

Other urls found in this thread:

bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_fed30.htm#Part
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
twitter.com/AnonBabble

people trying to compare it with current situation are just plain imbecile

its a good book, but only that

sage

Objectivism is a great ideology until you realize there are other people in the world.

Good ideas, terrible novel.

still coudn't finish this book. too boring.

The atheism is obviously wrong.

OP didn't ask about the book, but rather, Rand's morality system.

Retarded statement.

Stupid ideology, insufferable characters, but gets points for triggering the fuck out of communists.

I liked it a lot, and I found it very motivating. It does have a lot of parallels to a variety of things in modern society, but unfortunately a lot of Rand's conclusions are flawed because she bases them on an oversimplified premise.

rand's morality doesn't work in the real world, unless you are rich and powerful.
people are too corrupt and most of the time they don't do the "right" thing.

Do you think Altruism (the alternative) is better than Objectivism? By what standards? If you don't think Altruism is the alternative, you don't know aht Objectivism is.

Another sentence that makes no sense... morality isn't a political ideology, it's about what you call wrong and right, what you value and frown upon, what does it mean to say it DOESN'T WORK IN THE REAL WORLD?

Autism codefied into a political ideology. No idea why Sup Forums hates Rand so much.

Ayn Rand will one day be recognized for her contributions to philosophy. For now she remains one of the key figures in the modern liberty movement.

Her novels are great, but her non-fiction is where she shines. Her philosophy is a full system, spanning from metaphysics to aesthetics.

The Objectivist philosophy and the movement of New Intellectuals that is spawning from it are just now getting started.

Another one... Objectivism isn't a political ideology, it's a morality system.

It's objectively retarded, as with any woman's opinion.

objectivism denies human nature by assuming everyone has the same intellect. thinking anyone can archive their dreams only by hard work and virtue is total bullshit. rand thinks that, for example, black people are as smart as asians, so they should be treated as equals.

Ayn Rand and Libertarianism are Jewish ideas invented to separate ppl from the communal wealth they and their ancestors worked for and paid into.

They want to privatize everything so their Jew banker friends can buy it up and redistribute it to their tribe.

Avoid!

Atlas fugged

>objectivism denies human nature by assuming everyone has the same intellect.
Does no such thing, you don't seem to know what Objectivism is and I would advise you not to talk about something you seem ignorant in.

>thinking anyone can archive their dreams only by hard work and virtue is total bullshit
Same issue, you don't seem to understand what you're talking about.

>rand thinks that, for example, black people are as smart as asians, so they should be treated as equals.
Completely unrelated, Objectivism does not presuppose any of this. Also, Rand was writing before the Bell Curve came out, so her position would have to be of skepticism.

there's the rub

>> Rand was writing before the Bell Curve came out,
uhh, so before Laplace and Gauss?

Why would the gentiles lose their inherited wealth through voluntary transactions?

She was good at diagnosing problems but terrible at solving them. John Galt needed some kind of magical motor.

I don't need to read books to justify my selfishness

The Bell Curve used modern scientific tools. There was no study separating only genes before it.

Exactly, people think the reading the book will turn you into a ruthless capitalist. It's just a good book. I liked the fountainhead better.

Objectivism isn't about reading books, it's about countering the 2k+ year tradition of teaching children the only value in life is to sacrifice for others.

Can someone give me a tl;dr of wtf objecttivism is?

What happens when Jews are accused of Nazism? Also Jews generally advocate leftist ideologies so their tribe gets boosted by equity policy.

read the virtue of selfishness, she's very clear about being again racism. and yet racism is part of human nature, because we know people are different.

You're shitting a lot, but not providing alternatives. Jew bankers created the mess the world is in now. What's your solution ?
>InB4 Gaschambers

It is similar to communism in that it only works if everyone does it, which will never happen. So you have to use force which defeats the point.

I like her objectivism, but also think it's criminally misunderstood by proponents and detractors. There's really no reason to ever do anything that doesn't serve yourself. That doesn't mean you can't be charitable, on the contrary, it means your charity is true charity, because you perform it not out of obligation, but out of genuine, selfish desire to do so. Christ is the epitome of objectivity; he did not have to do what he did. He openly and regularly reminds people they did not deserve or were in no way entitled to what he gave them. He did what he did because it was what he wanted.

...

If by racism you mean tribalism, then yes, she is, because it is a form of collectivism.

Race realism is not racism, because it isn't to judge based on creed but rather facts.

To judge based on creed is blind allegiance, which is anti-rational which is why Rand was against it.

Exactly I don't need to read Atlas Shrugged to understand that I got to look out for myself first and foremost. Most 2 year olds already practice objectivism when they don't share their toys

Another one.... FUCK MAN

OBJECTIVISM IS A MORALLITY SYSTEM, NOT A POLITICAL SYSTEM. IT MAKES NO SENSE TO SAY IT DOESNT WORK

bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_fed30.htm#Part 5

do you really think that someone like Roark can be successful in this world? just think about it. are people like peter keating, who cheat and deceit others who are successful in life.

Kant's objective morality is, I think, the basis of objectivism.

How do objectivists reconcile war and national struggles?

What the fuck did I just read?
>objectivism denies human nature by assuming everyone has the same intellect.
You clearly have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Sacrificing yourself for others because it's "what you want" is not Objectivism. What matters isn't what you're doing but the intent behind it, and Jesus was sacrificing for the sake of others, not himself. I'm not saying he would be wrong, because the figure had enormous impact on the world, but I don't think people should imitate him, and should live for their own well being.

He’s referring to the book asshat.

I've seen Objectivist leaders after Rand's death being almost literally for "nuking all the muslims", so I guess everything is possible.

why? rand thinks anyone can be rich if they want. it is just about having an objective in life, will, morality, and you can be anything!

I refuse to believe someone in this board doesn't know that book...

Even if Rand believed that, which I don't agree with you she did, it has nothing to do with Objectivism. Objectivism only says what you should personally value, not what you will be able to achieve.

This is the best post in this thread, and the reason that people shit on it. As a morality system, it's absolutely perfect ... but only at the individual level. As a political ideology, it's just as unworkable as marxism because it ignores the human condition in favor of ideological purity.

Randian political activists are as much of failures as marxists for this reason. While marxists believe that the prime movers of society will continue to maximally produce without reward, randians believe that the parasitic consumers won't skullfuck the prime movers to death the instant they don't have the essentials for life available.

So why was Nazi Germany so successful? It recognized both ends of the spectrum: it promoted an environment where prime movers were encouraged to excel, while simultaneously fostering a social climate where people were encouraged to help those less fortunate than them without resorting to punitive taxation or social ostracization for noncompliance. The factors that were crucial for societal progress were encouraged by the government (promoting a higher birth rate, full employment, and self-sufficiency), while indolence was regarded with contempt. The things that moved promoted society were encouraged while the things that were toxic to society were discouraged. I mean ... how hard is that to understand? Is it any surprise that in today's socialist societies we find degeneracy and stagnation wherever social norms that promote a healthy of society are undermined by a welfare culture that is totalitarian in its blind compassion?

This is why the ancap randians are just as delusional as the marxists.

>the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
Yeah, no, you're wrong. Maybe read up on it, and try reading more Rand. In the case of Jesus, he sacrificed for others, but not out of moral obligation, but in pursuit of his own happiness. His desire was to help others, and what he did was in service to his own desires, rather than an artificial moral obligation to others (altruism). in fact, the Jews reviled him for not giving them what they wanted, and instead doing what he had come to do.

You’re wrong that she believed that, or would believe that now, but you are committing a serious fallacy here. Just because you’re fucking up one thing she said doesn’t mean that it’s the position of the philosophical system as a whole.

>>I refuse to believe someone in this board doesn't know that book...
I hope you’re right.

These are all great suggestions but you'd have to find a General Patton reincarnate to do it.

Trump is not that. Though I wish he became the mad man I want to enact half these ideas.

There's no solution in this suggestion about rigged voting and gerrymandering districts. I saw swiss franc there... the post is old as shit. 2011

shit book, could have made her point in a couple of pages.

10/10 the best philosophy out there.

A question for you, what happens if WWII ends in a stalemate and Germany controls most of Europe until the modern day? How does it support its social programs without extreme taxation the long run? What you say works great in the short run, but so does Democratic Socialism.

It's awesome but we can't have good discussions on it because Sup Forums and Sup Forums in general are usually just ignorant and make shit up about Rand or Objectivism that's usually the opposite of what was she said or wrote.

It's like being a Buddist and having this board tell me my philosophy thinks I should kill people whenever I want and I believe Buddha was an alien. Like they can't even understand the thing they're criticizing so their criticisms are just cringe and worthless.

Morality system is too much. Just call it a philosophy. That's what a philosophy is, a morality system.

Love that you guys believe that a highly propagandized book compiled by some powerhungry bishops hundreds of years after the fact is the true story of a desert Jew.

babbies first right wing philosophy.

She literally did this with Anthem and other books and normie faggots complain it was too short. So she got more and more in depth than they complained it was too long.

Maybe enjoy reading? It wasn't too long at all, get a longer attention span and better reading comprehension.

>As a political ideology, it's just as unworkable as marxism because it ignores the human condition in favor of ideological purity.

The political part is a government that consists only of law enforcement, courts and the military. The rest is up to private individuals and free markets. That's it. How is that unworkable? I find a lot of people say this system is unworkable or bad without even properly describing said system to pinpoint what the problem they're having.

>This is why the ancap randians are just as delusional as the marxists.

>ancap

And Rand was not an anarchist. This is the exact thing I'm talking about. You're not judging Rand's words on their own, which you've obviously never read, but by your vague association with people you *think* represent her.

1. I'm arguing against Catholic theology; I believe Christ to be an example of objectivism rather than altruism.
2. I'm Mormon, and believe the modern Bible to be corrupted by special interests

A good philosophy for productive people, but leaves you spirituality bereft unless you're a sociopath. I prefer Anton LaVey's idea when he created Satanism which blended Objectivism with a form of atheistic religion to provide for the human psychological need for ceremony and ritual without succumbing to supernaturalist dogma and irrationality.

yeah, but come on

it's about a guy letting the world burn because he doesn't give a shit

it's only hated by Sup Forums because it's written by a woman

Well in that case you’re forgiven, and good for you.

How is it a dead horse? Rand's point about freedom, capitalism, living as an individual and being rationally selfish can't be said enough because those messages are directly opposite of what we get with all media everywhere else. That money is evil, that being productive is being a slave, that other people should take care of you, that you should put other's opinions and feelings above your own in every case...

Rand's message can't be hammered into the human skull enough.

You forgot to mention how the heroine fucks all the heroes one after the other until she finds the one with the biggest dick.

>For now she remains one of the key figures in the modern liberty movement.
"Liberty movement" is an elegant way to put it. The liberty to do what exactly?

Devalue my currency?
Exploit people born with less assets?

Was the rape scene really necessary?

Oh I didn't hear about that one.

Please do elaborate on this. I'm going to shove that down the throat of every Objectivist I talk to.

>forgetting it was written by a woman

Self-gratification that objectivism promotes could never be healthy in our society

Why should I have to pay for law enforcement that benefits others? What if I have my own private security force? Can I opt out of the government law enforcement regime or will I be forced by jackbooted thugs to pay up?

dagny is not a slut.

>Reality exists independent of human consciousness
>We experience reality through our senses
>We can understand reality through logic and thought
>The only logical way to exist is through rational self interest
>The best political and economic system to pursue your self interest is laissez faire capitalism
>People will naturally find their own level of success in society, a form of social Darwinism will be at work
>Art would only exist to present ideas in a creative manner which speaks to the emotions, art with no meaning or which doesn't communicate deeper ideas has no value and should be discarded

Another thing of note is that People like Elon Musk wouldn’t exist if people like Ayn Rand controlled society

kek

Female leads having multiple sex partners was very common in Rand's works, which shouldn't be surprising since she cucked her husband. And I don't mean that in a Sup Forums haha kind of way. She actually told her husband that he younger man that was her sex partner was more intelligent than him so it was for the benefit of humanity that she got to fuck other men.

Its bullshit and is evidence of how r*ssians arent human.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

Its a rational opposition to altruism.
Objectivism is based on reality.
>You need to survive
>The best way to survive is to use reason. In order to use reason, you must be free
>to create and produce is virtuous
>Elon Musk could be a modern Objectivism hero
>to enslave other men by asking to sacrifice for you based on your shortcomings (victim mentality) is anti-virtue (altruism)

I personally like how the axioms are derived from reality and life.

>Branden married Barbara Weidman in 1953, with Rand and Rand's husband Frank O'Connor in attendance. Branden would later state the marriage was unwise, and troubled from the beginning. In the context of these troubles, and Rand's reported frustrations in her own marriage, Branden and Rand—who had a passionate philosophic bond—developed amorous feelings for each other and began a love affair in 1954. The affair lasted until the publication of Atlas Shrugged in 1957, after which, according to Branden, Rand became depressed, and the affair, practically speaking, ended.
>Branden reported that in this period Rand began seeking a resumption of their affair; his own marriage, meanwhile, was deteriorating, although he and Barbara were becoming closer as friends. Branden then met and fell in love with a young model, Patrecia Scott (née Gullison). The two began a secret affair in 1964. In the summer of 1965, Nathaniel told Barbara of the affair and the two separated (and subsequently divorced). Despite Rand's romantic involvement with Nathaniel, her close intellectual collaboration with him, and her strong public endorsements of him, both Brandens kept Nathaniel's affair with Patrecia secret from Rand, fearing her reaction. In 1968, four years into the affair, Barbara Branden informed Rand of it. In response, Rand morally condemned the Brandens and dissociated herself from them in an article for her journal, The Objectivist, which, without revealing the existence of her romantic involvement with Branden, accused him of "deliberate deception" and financial misdealings in their business partnership.

Yep, these are the actions of an ethical and rational person who you should base your philosophical identity.

a Nation is a good way to survive. You need a minimal government.
War is ok unless you're initiating it. You can defend yourself, but it is inmoral to initiate the aggression.

I'm not into the cult of Rand but if you observe its limitations and recognize the spirit and reasoning behind objectivism there is much value in incorporating some of its values in your life and worldview. You just have to realize that no one is perfect like the heros in her books. Too many spergs who think they're Howard Roark in the bedroom and Hank Rearden at the office don't know how to use objectivsit principals practically.

>why? rand thinks anyone can be rich if they want. it is just about having an objective in life, will, morality, and you can be anything!
You're describing Disney message.
Rand's says: it is just about having an objective in life, will, morality, and CAPACITY / TALENT
You cannot achieve if you're stupid or lazy.

Sleeping with men that are not her husband is whoredom. I feel bad for John Galt, all that effort in life and his woman has all these telegony and microchimerism problems. What he should do is let one of the other guys have her, and when she gives birth to a daughter, John Galt can have a shot at a pure bride there in time.

Used to think it was reasonable in middle school.

Became an adult and realized it was infantile solipsism.

>but it is immoral to initiate the aggression
So who initiates the aggression? The country who implemented sanctions, destroyed their rival's economy, and turned the rest of the world against the country who's now experiencing societal ruin? Or the county that attacked them for doing so?

See this is the problem with the non violence principle, as many who subscribe to it wouldn't count the former as aggression.

She skipped the Viking.
She's a woman, of course she'll mix woman fantasies in the book. Let her be.You write your' own book where you fuck supermodel after supermodel and at the end all of them ask you to be your harem.
The "woman fantasy" does not detract form the book, it is an important part of the plot, and that's what suspension of disbelief is for.

underrated

That's "The fountainhead". And no, but she like it rough, it's her book, so let her be.

it not only detracts from the book, it is a trojan horse that makes the rest of the book a poison pill

self-gratification is not promoted by objectivism.

I agree it detracts from the book, because I put myself in the shoes of Hank, Francisco, and even John, and felt sick and disgusted at the idea of what Dagny was doing.

I however was able to see past that, because as the other user said, it is her book at the end of the day, and I was able to see her main points despite this cuckery and shit.

Let's be objective. In real life she could have reunited with Francisco. You can admire other people and be faithful to your initial choice at the same time.

Long-winded old hag. Her philosophy sure beats the Soviet-style communism she grew up in, but that's not saying much.

on the contrary, Elon Musk is a randian hero

Great introduction to non-mainstream thought. It's probably the reason I found Sup Forums, although I no longer hold many of the beliefs she advocates.

She's a woman so it's shit.

Good condensed tl;dr