Objectivism

What do you think of the philosophy of objectivism?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8VSBGu7-1rU
youtu.be/mQVrMzWtqgU
youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

A MAN CHOOSES

Like uplifting pop modernism philosophy? Yeah it's fun, great gym motivation. It's unfortunate it was turned around on its head after WW2 by people whose response to their existential crisis was either nihilism, denial or a combination of both.

>weakness positivity
Just couldn't accept it.

bamp.

Don't really know much about it aside from it triggers leftists.

A NIGGER OBEYS

It's purely subjective.

Can anybody please give a TL;DR on objectivism? Thanks

John Galt is pure fantasy

youtube.com/watch?v=8VSBGu7-1rU

Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.

thanks

>Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic

This I like

>that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest)

This I understand if not fully agreeing with

> that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism

This, just no. The inevitable and only conclusion to complete laissez-faire capitalism is a winner-takes-all situation. You've less than a 1 in 7bn chance of being that winner. Compassion and empathy are virtues.

Ayn Rand was based af. Top tier 10/10 youtu.be/mQVrMzWtqgU

>The inevitable and only conclusion to complete laissez-faire capitalism is a winner-takes-all situation.

How so? There will be a free market competition, whoever offers the best product/service wins. I think that's fair.

>Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic

>This I like

Objectivism doesnt really justify that conclusion though, and in my opinion philosophy should at least question our perception of the world and the nature of reality

Thing is, we've had a version of free-marketism since the 80s and the result has been more and more of the real wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. The 'middle classes' are past the point of no return. They no longer exist. Social mobility from working class to properly rich is near impossible. In the idealised free market what is to stop say apple and google deciding to spend some of that 1tn warchest and buying up a nations water? This is what I mean by winner takes all. All things you associate with the free market are essentially good only for shareholders and CEOs

>whoever offers the best product/service wins

The problem here is tied in to automation. The largest established corporations can afford to do everything you can do cheaper and better than you can. The chances of 'making it' are getting smaller and smaller, and continue to do so as the working classes see their savings and investments corroded and more competition (free movement of labour).

Sure, we should be reassessing our conclusions whenever new data becomes available. But whatever way you cut in, scientific method and materialism give us consistently correct answers and offer great predictive abilities.

Philosophy is far from my strong point though. What would be the anti-thesis to objectivity?

>we've had a version of free-marketism since the 80s
Not really?

The USA has had increasing taxes(50% corporate tax), regulations(I think the federal register is at 100k now and it doubles in liberal states, it's nonsense), and increased government spending(QE? Public "Schools"? Obamacare?.)

This is also on top of big tariffs(over 10k) and straight-up employment controls in the form of affirmative action and UBI

People start to accumulate resources and then it ceases to be an equal competition because more resources are an obvious advantage

Eventually one person or group accrues such an overwhelming advantage in resources that its impossible for anyone to overcome it, and effectively seizes power

A juvenile sexual fantasy written by an undersexed ugly troll with a crush on Nietzsche.

Okay? And those resources are spent on increasing the quality of products or the wages of its employers improving the quality of life of the customers/employees/whatever.

So is communism and marxism

>But whatever way you cut in, scientific method and materialism give us consistently correct answers and offer great predictive abilities.

How could you tell if they weren't doing any of those things, though?

I don't have an answer, but I think any serious philosophy should attempt to find one and objectivism doesnt

>unironically believes increased profits=increased wages

It's not that straightforward, because there is something called creative destruction. What happened to those companies that produced in the past things that we now consider obsolete? At the very least they took significant blows from new competitors entering the market with new things (Example: the cassete tape player companies took a blow from the CD player companies, the CD player companies took a blow from the MP3 player companies, and now the MP3 player companies are taking blows from the streaming service companies).

>Okay? And those resources are spent on increasing the quality of products or the wages of its employers improving the quality of life of the customers/employees/whatever.

Why would you do any of those things when its not possible for anyone to compete with you? It wouldnt be in your "rational self-interest"

That's not what's at issue here

I qualified it with 'a version'. The other side of free-markteism, privatization and indeed the spreading of economic liberalism has picked up pace. Both Thatcher and Reagan cut bennies and the state in general. And everyone who has come since has followed suit.

>conclusion to complete laissez-faire capitalism is a winner-takes-all situation

In order to make more a person must distribute his wealth in some fashion.

And this requires others to have stuff to trade for it.

And saying ti is inevitable is kind of stupid because you know well you just agreed with rand that : that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, but then you form a strange prediction based on well idk wtv you prefer. So yeah shit tier thinking right there buddy.

this pretty much

Rand sucks

>Thing is, we've had a version of free-marketism since the 80s

Dude each year the Fed creates something like 3000 new regulation.

And as long as the Federal reserve exists, there can be no such thing as a free market. No free market in money, no free market at all.

>That's not what's at issue here

No the issue is: not an argument.

Why would anyone not be able to compete with you? Other businesses are still there and will still be improving their products, which means that you'll always need to at least be as good as the 2nd best product in the business.

Likewise, how can you say that results arrived at through scientific analysis of data can be wrong? Just seems an odd game to me to assume we're wrong about everything without good reason. Take gravity for example. We've refined it the past few hundred years and we still don't fully understand it. But as far as the human experience goes at this stage of our evolution, gravity is universal and predictable. Should we ever overcome it, we will do s off the back of the same scientific method we use to describe it.

I suspect that down the line even the things covered by anti-positivism today will be explained eventually in a purely material sense of cause and effect.

Maybe this is why philosophy isn't for me...

My point was about the accumulation of capital. You disagree that it becomes easier to make money when you've already got a shit-ton of it? I'm just playing this process through to its logical conclusion based on the trends we see today.

>whoever offers the best product/service wins
Except Rand inexplicably argued for libertarian minarchism. Government is inherently monopolistic, violently so. That's one reason I'm not an objectivist.

Have to give credit where it's due, I wouldn't be an anclap now if I didn't first get into libertarianism (much as she hated it) through Rand's works.

In the true free market, who would pick second best. Especially if the best was cheaper. Hostile takeovers would abound. I mean once say VW own ever car plant on the planet how can anyone else even hope to compete?

It misses the nuances, but that argument is still true enough to undermine laissez faire capitalism

The best product design in the world means nothing without the ability to distribute and sell it and that is more a matter of resources than brainpower

It's not a "nuance" at all when entire economic sectors are destroyed by innovation.

>Hostile takeovers would abound
Would you buy from Wal-Mart if they just shot some local store owner and burned down his shop in order to make space for a supercenter?

>without the ability to distribute and sell it
That's one of the reasons the concept of investment was invented. If your product is better that the rest, investors (commercial and private) stand to make a lot of money if they help you get set up.

>Would you buy from Wal-Mart if they just shot some local store owner and burned down his shop in order to make space for a supercenter?

If I needed bread and the store they'd just burnt to the ground was the only other one in town, yes.

Sorry, OP, my opinion would be subjective.

...

Why bother buying? Shoot the store manager and steal all the bread you want. Murderers don't get the privilege of having normal business transactions.

The thing is, violence is expensive. Look at what happened with Shkreli and the price of that drug he jacked up. He didn't hurt anyone and just did what he was legally entitled to do, yet he was completely destroyed by the public. Imagine the fallout if he had his security actually kill someone to further his business.

The real world is not some simplistic dystopian novel. Market forces are far more powerful than you seem to think.

Philosophers and theologans have grappled with this question for thousands of years dude, don't go too hard on yourself

Philips, for example, made both CD and cassette players

Apple is basically the only player in mp3 downloads and also runs a widely used streaming service

It doesnt really happen like that

>That's one of the reasons the concept of investment was invented. If your product is better that the rest, investors (commercial and private) stand to make a lot of money if they help you get set up.

Its not hard to imagine someone or one group of people amassing enough resources that they become the only way to secure the level of investment you need to bring a product to market

They would rule the world

It's practically impossible to get a monopoly in a free market system. To have a monopoly you would need to have the best technology, lowest prices and best quality. It would be a win - win situation for you and customers. But the moment you raised your prices too high (because you have monopoly and think that you can do that), the competitors would start knocking on your door.

I'm a subjective idealist.

written by a parasite, for fellow parasites

>He didn't hurt anyone and just did what he was legally entitled to do

Let's not forget he was able to do so because of state protection, too.

It's probably correct but entirely impractical.

>Its not hard to imagine
It is. What you're describing is so improbable that it's hardly worth considering. At no point is human history has this come even close to happening, and it doesn't seem to be any more likely in the future.

A tiny addendum to Aristotelian philosophy wrapped up in a bloated, poorly written package.

Utterly retarded. There is no such thing as objective thought.

Since the dawn of man, Armies, Churches, Thinkers, and Inventors have pondered reality, created words, made up gods, ways to live, thought up time. You are debating things no man can/has figure out, what have you even discovered? It's a dead horse, you're on the internet asking other people what they think, what does this say about your ability to think for yourself?

>proper moral purpose

SPOOKED

I'm an objectivist, but I like to challenge my positions and listen to different points of view.

Thats not true. There is no "winner takes all" because someone who wins at real estate development isnt going to come in and steal your car repair business.

I'd say advanced manufacturing would be the exception here simply cause of the start-up money required.

You honestly think so? Maybe not buy out but incorporation would certainly be an option.

>whoever offers the best product/service wins. I think that's fair

Yes, and then they keep winning because they can afford to crush or buy out anyone smaller than them. They can set the standards of living for workers in an entire industry. They can capture regulatory bodies. Once you control everything, you are not bound by ordinary market restrictions. You have the capital to take losses for years in order to drive people out of the market. It's perfectly fair at the outset, and then decidedly unfair after that.

>Would you buy from Wal-Mart if they just shot some local store owner and burned down his shop in order to make space for a supercenter?

If Wal-Mart owned the local printing press too, how would I ever know about that?

>Wow really makes u think

What's the difference between libertarianism and objectivism?

>What you're describing is so improbable that it's hardly worth considering. At no point is human history has this come even close to happening


inb4 no true scotsman

The main thing that confused me about objectivism (and AS in general) is that the book consistently contradicted itself.

Throughout the novel, Rand argued against the State taking goods at the barrel of a gun. She also railed against those that seize goods for "moral" purposes.

Yet, at the same time, she argues that the highest objective of man is his own interests (morality of selfishness). If that's the case, then the actions taken by the State and those moochers was entirely consistent with her philosophy; they were also acting in their self-interest.

So in the end, while stating that the only responsibility a person has is to themselves, she also implicitly says that people also have a responsibility to each other, to honor a set of rights/privileges generally based in a Western Capitalist system (property rights, etc), even if it means sacrificing your self-interest.

It's a bit of a contradiction.

Interesting... very interesting.

>proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest),

This is basically what I think too. We are all selfish and only make choices that we think make us happy.

>the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism,

This is what I disagree with. Through proper social engineering, you can manipulate humans to believe anything (current education system). Hence, you can basically "tell" them what would make them happy. Perfect NatSoc propaganda would make them fight for the white race, commie education would... and so on. And then, they act by their social engineering.

Only very few individuals could break out of this conditioning on their own.

You have an extremely misinformed view of economics and finance. Wealth does not tend to accumulate but very easily dissipate. Whether you look at the Forbes Rich List or any studies done in the area, it is shown time and time again that it is very difficult to maintain inter-generational wealth.

>playing this process through to its logical conclusion based on the trends we see today
>logical conclusion
No. At least explain yourself a little bit instead of making retarded assumptions to reach impossible conclusions...

>In the true free market, who would pick second best.
Holy fuck, are you mentally retarded? There are many different subjective factors - not just some """best""" product. This is literally a non-argument.

>I mean once say VW own ever car plant on the planet how can anyone else even hope to compete?
-Anti trust laws
-If they are price gouging, a competitor can step in and undercut
-etc...
What's your level of education?

The fucking NSA, the most highly funded data intelligence organization on the planet, couldn't keep their secrets. What makes you think a retail company could?

It hasn't. Are you really suggesting there has been any firm in history that has controlled all the capital?

underrated comment

>anti-trust laws

Did you even read the thread, or did you just see some buzzword and got excited that you could spout some pseudo intellectual nonsense?

If the world is not objective, solipsism is the next logical step. However, I would definitely not want to be such a dick to myself.

Are you going to make a valid point, or just bitch and moan like a retarded leftist? It's like you can't refute my point so you chuck a hissy-fit lmao

>people should be free to follow their self-interest to the fullest extent
>which for most people means having more of their rightfully earned resources to direct toward their career, enterprise, family, community, nation, causes they care for
>LOL SO YOU WANT EVERYONE TO BE A SELFISH ASSHOLE HUH YOU"RE DUMB

>Realizes industry and regulatory capture are incredibly common
>*Moves the goalpost*
>"ALL the capital"

Fuck, here we go....

Objectivist here. AMA.

Keep it civil. No ad homs.

> Wealth does not tend to accumulate but very easily dissipate

Look at the rich list's total values year on year. More and more in fewer and fewer hands. Income disparity is getting worse and worse.

>No. At least explain yourself a little bit instead of making retarded assumptions to reach impossible conclusions...

You want me to talk you through the process by which the rich get richer? No. Look it up.

>Holy fuck, are you mentally retarded? There are many different subjective factors - not just some """best""" product. This is literally a non-argument.

See the image here The trend is towards consolidation. Removing government rules will only accelerate this because the companies at mthje top of their game are so far ahead in terms of investment potential.

>-Anti trust laws

This would be a government device. Something the free-marketeers ITT argue against.

>4 post in
>'retarded leftist'

Good going lad. Maybe you need to go back to bed.

You got it

How do you justify your belief in objective knowledge?

According to objectivism it's immoral to sacrifice yourself to other people and to sacrifice other people to yourself. It's immoral to take away the unearned. That's why Ayn Rand used the term "rational self-interest".

Posting Objectivist characters.

>How do you justify your belief in objective knowledge?
Because the only method to gauge reality is reason, conclusions can be termed valid only if they are approached through reason, and not anyother "supernatural" means. Once you eliminate most variables, you can be sure that your conclusion is true. That's it.

fuck no.

...

Also, defining a proper context is the most important step.

...

No, Just stop.

despite the anime hate, this is true

...

...

None of these are objectivists. Even Andrew Ryan from Bioshock is not an Objectivist.

This is bullshit, and only true for a narrow definition of 'media'.

With the internet there are vastly more media publishers today then there were in 1983,. What that graph is pointing to is 'old media', and it's a dying industry.

Of course there are going to be fewer players in newspaper and broadcast TV because they are dying industries that are consolidating to survive.

>Because the only method to gauge reality is reason

That is what I am asking you to justify, not a justification

...

Do the same with car manufacturers. Telecoms. Pharmaceuticals.

I work in a HF and used to work IB... What you're saying is absolute trash. Anyone who works in finance or economics would just laugh at your propositions and their reasoning.

>The trend is towards consolidation
Because it is an industry in fucking decline

>This would be a government device. Something the free-marketeers ITT argue against.
That black and white thinking...

You're an idiot, Muhammed. Go back to flipping burgers and leave the intellectual stuff to people with brains ;)

>something isn't true
>"lol calling it false is a fallacy"

Because the word is what it is. There is no other world beyond our perception, reality is reality. Reality comes before consciousness. And the "other methods" are all false. There is no method other than reason. The only way to reject reason and accept other "methods" is to curl up and die. ESP and religious methods and stuff are all nonsense.

Its about market share, aka what people are actually consuming, not the number of companies in business

6 companies have 90% of that

>objectivists together in a room

youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs

So?

All industries do this. An industry pops up, it goes through it's 'wild west' period, and a boom of players enters the market. Then the market becomes established, economies of scale are taken advantage of, and the industry consolidates down to smaller number of successful players.

Take car manufacturers for instance. Yes, there used to be dozens upon dozens of domestic manufacturers, but cars were prohibitively expensive, unreliable, and inefficient. As the industry advanced, those who couldn't keep up, went by the roadside. You can lament that 'superior' companies like duesenberg went under, but they couldn't adapt to market conditions, and it doesn't matter if your product is superior if it doesn't offer value for money.

Just because there aren't hundreds of car manufacturers, doesn't mean that it's a problem. Cars are far better and far cheaper than when there was more competition.

>The only way to reject reason and accept other "methods" is to curl up and die

Other philosophers have questioned the nature of reality and the powers of their own reason to discern it, and come up with answers so that is not true

If you can't even engage with those questions you have a gaping hole in your philosophy

Her metaphysics and epistemology are solid, some of her conclusions are not so great due to some errors made along the way.

Any form of *-ism is degenerate and false.