I've always heard people meme on her philosophy and discarding it entirely or people preaching it as the absolute gospel, but is there a reason for why that is apart from pure pseudery ?
I've also heard that there is some post-rand objectivist school of thought iirc but I don't know to which extent it's true.
Lastly, are her books worth it ?

>>24554988 (OP)
So far I've read The Fountainhead and Philosophy Who Needs It, and I definitely see why people might revere her and her work. The Fountainhead is beautiful and funny, legitimately suspenseful but also very grounded in action and reality.
She's clearly an all-or-nothing type of person though, and she lets it out in her nonfiction writing. If I hadn't found her through her art, and just her philosophical writings, I'd see why people think she's cruel and stuck-up. Which maybe she really was, but I also think she's writing for multiple audiences so if you're able to detach the message from the words and figure out who it's meant for, it'll soften some of her black and white thinking.
I think her books are worth it, I'm slowly getting through Atlas Shrugged right now, once I'm finished with her political writings I'm gonna get more of her work ABOUT art and the romantic movement.
I think seeing her as an artist first and foremost helps. She comes at life in an almost inhuman way but to be an artist as a career is to sacrifice a good deal of humanity, not unlike the way successful career men do. But people see she's in defense of capitalism and think she's corporate first, artist second; maybe she was idk, but I get the opposite impression from the works I've read.
She's also limited by only being able to respond to what's right in front of her. So when she goes on and on about how all forms of mysticism suck except Ann Sullivan who miraculously cured Helen Keller through magic, it's a little like... come on Ayn Rand, how are you falling for this con? Don't get pissed at Helen Keller for being a communist get pissed at the person speaking on her behalf lmao

>>24554988 (OP)
Professional bodybuilder Mike Mentzer advised his clients that a strong body begins with a strong mind, and routinely recommended that they read Ayn Rand. She was his favorite.

>>24554988 (OP)
her views on welfare were not nuanced enough and while I used to support her adventurism regarding foreign affairs I no longer hold those views. However, I think she lives rent free in the heads of academics for no good reason honestly.

>>24555224
Academics don’t think about her at all.

>>24555328
They think about her like they think about Freud. They know that science says whether or not the bad person observed something true, they said something society labels silly, so all those dangerous ideas they had can't serious either.

>>24555328
I disagree. Almost every time she's brought up they whine and complain like little babies

>social security is LE BAD
>gets cancer
>can't afford medical treatments
>has to ask social security for help

>>24555375
>>24555362
>it was real in my mind
Which universities are you referring to? Which philosophy departments? Which academics? Where are they publishing all this stuff about Rand?

>>24555377
This is literally the most retarded criticism of her. Its not hypocritical to think something shouldn't exist and to take advantage of it.

>>24555377
>forced by (((them))) to pay for shit your entire life
>finally get opportunity to take advantage of (((them))) and the shit they made you pay for
>do it
pretty logical imho

>>24555430
>>24555477
That's what she said, yeah. Loser's arguments.

>>24555419
I wouldn't know, I don't think about them

>>24554988 (OP)
She was a Jew whose daddy's business got expropriated by the Bolsheviks and it became her entire personality. Simple as.

The actual philosophical objections to her system are straightforward: She just ad hocs her way through every argument and isn't rigorous at all. One of her basic theses is that the law of identity entails causality, because for a thing to be what it is implies immediately that it behaves the way that it does. She also believes humans have free will. So her system straightforwardly implies that either that contrary actions are compatible with a thing's nature, in which case the law of identity fails to explain causality, or that the law of identity does not apply to humans.

A very reasonable question is this: Why would an a priori analytic proposition tell us *anything* about the nature of the external world? Why does she think this in the first place? Her writings usually replace explanation with foot stomping and declaring things in a ceremonious tone. That doesn't mean all of her ideas are bad, but she just never shows any serious scrutiny of her own ideas. She's like a smart high school student. Clever, but very enamored with he first explanation she thinks of, and prone to doubling down and never introducing nuance. The sort of thing Twitch streamers do when debating each other.

>>24554988 (OP)
A resentful and hateful loser, a trickster and swindler who ended her pathetic life living of and in the public institutions wich she "hated" so much. She HATED america, and her "vision" empowered the worst people in america, destroying this once great nation, from the inside out.
In her last days she didn't walked out to the streets, out of that welfare system on that she spat on; Oh no, she stood in our state institutions, warm, well fed and being served and cared of, when she spent her whole life poisoning the soul of a nation, about self-hate and unbounded greed.
Here's the result a nation in shambles, with a cancerous heart. She should be happy in hell, at least in the few moments when she's not screaming in pain while burning in the lake of fire.

>>24554988 (OP)
same type of the rationality cult that Swift dunked on and that the silicon valley types are larping as, mainstream (Friedman) and niche glowie (Zizians)

>>24556353
lol * 2
Hilarious how she fell in "love" (which of course in her view was transactional only) with a married man from her small circle of devotees and then summoned him to her place and gave him a lecture about how cheating on his wife and getting off with her would be the only rational and objectively right thing to do. He refused and she berated him for being a weakling and not seeing the truth and was seething about thim until the very end. Incels always pretend that no female incels exist but she is a perfect example. Only retards and sociopaths buy into her shit.

>>24555419
Not referring to universities, referring to individual academics. You must be blind and deaf.

>>24554988 (OP)
No one ITT has actually refuted her. That should tell you how rock solid she is.

The typical brownoid >>24555224 gotcha is to call her a hypocrite for taking welfare... as though that were an argument. Laughable.

>>24554988 (OP)
rand is an absolutist, so if you take her seriously, you must either buy into her system wholesale or disregard her entirely.

>>24556593
rand doesn't have a meaningful response to hume's is-ought distinction. she just blindly asserts that her values are absolute.

>>24556596
Because there is no distinction. Hume just had a personal axe to grind with revealed religion. That's pretty much it.

>>24556596
Hume is a bad joke.

>>24556599
>>24556600
i see /lit/ doesn't have a meaningful response, either

>>24556603
Humans derive ought from is constantly and it works perfectly fine. We observe that jumping off cliffs kills people (is), therefore we ought not jump off cliffs (ought). We see that cooperation builds thriving societies (is), so we ought to cooperate (ought). Evolution literally wired us to make these connections. I wonder why Rand never bothered to put it into writing... probably because Hume is a joke and the fact you think this semantic trick is some kind of grand philosophical quandary is frankly embarrassing for you.

>>24556593
>No one ITT has actually refuted her
There's nothing to refute, she was full of shit. What's to refute about a piece of old dry shit on the sidewalk? You throw it on the trash bin and that's it, you don't "refute" it LMAO!

>>24556578
This is perfect. Every time this loser evil cunt comes out, I'm gonna reply with this cap

>>24556616
if you understood hume's argument, you'd notice that both of your examples have implicit "ought" premises. in the former case, that one ought not die; in the latter, that one ought to invest in society as a whole. these are both assumptions that i happen to agree with, but they still require an argument and can't be glossed over.

I like objectivism.
While I don't agree with everything, I agree with enough of it that describing myself as a objectivity wouldn't be a inaccurate descriptor.

However I have mixed feeling about Ayn Rand herself.
Mainly her fiction/narrative writing isn't very good. She is a great essayist and a decent philosopher. Her non-fiction non-narrative stuff is quite good. But god damn is she clearly autistic, which comes through to the extreme in her attempts at story telling. She doesn't really get people. Ideas, objects, mechanical devices she is fine, but people there is a struggle.
Also the cult of personality around her in some circles at the time, mostly due to her being the only female in the libertarian space of note, was fucking cringe.

>>24554988 (OP)

She portrays herself as a philosopher but her opinions on Plato are retarded. Meanwhile she bases her entire philosophy on (her misreading) of Aristotle - Plato's student. And she also hates Alexander the Great - Aristotle's student.

Her writing is so awful that you really have to be aesthetically deaf to read the whole of Atlas Shrugged.

>>24556622
You're such a moron. When we see "jumping kills" our survival instinct generates a genuine imperative... not "one ought not die" but an actual physical compulsion to avoid death. These aren't chosen preferences but biological drives that constitute our evaluative framework. The "ought" emerges from how evolution structured our brains to respond to facts.

Moreover animals prove the ought emerges directly from biological facts. They exhibit moral-like behaviors (protecting young, reciprocal altruism, fairness etc) without abstract reasoning. This shows normative force exists pre-linguistically in the biological facts themselves. Like I said, Hume is a laughingstock, his own method should have revealed oughts arent metaphysical abstractions. Some empiricist lol

>>24556620
>There's nothing to refute, she was full of shit. What's to refute about a piece of old dry shit on the sidewalk? You throw it on the trash bin and that's it, you don't "refute" it LMAO!
Not an argument

>>24556630
>"was" fucking cringe
Still is. Cringe as fuck. When total illiterate douches try to sell you that pathetic cunt's "book", just because it is propaganda for their criminal mindset: "No rules, just fuck everyone and let me scam and lie my way up to the "top"".. (((philosophy)))
>>24556656
She's a piece of shit, she knew it then, and everyone knows it now. But being a piece of shit has become a "new religion" in these last decades.

>>24556666
>When we see "jumping kills" our survival instinct generates a genuine imperative
does this mean that i should rape every person i see, because my breeding instinct generates a genuine imperative? if not, why are only certain instincts grounds for moral imperatives?

>>24556673
You dont have a breeding instinct because you're an incel loser, so I wouldn't worry about that.

>>24556682
i see we've devolved into ad homs. on behalf of hume, i accept your concession.

>>24556672
Your borderline hysterical overly emotional reaction to what could be a civil discussion are doing yourself no favors.

What is the point of reacting like this?
Are you emotionally unstable?
Mentally ill?
Calm down dude.

>>24556684
The same process that created aggression also created empathy. The "ought" emerges from the total integrated system, not cherry-picked drives. Rape violates multiple evolved imperatives (empathy, reciprocity, group cohesion) that outweigh reproductive impulses.

I suppose it's fair for one clown to accept an accolade on behalf of another clown. Hereby I knight you sir incel, of the illiterate province of (you). Your first mission is to read Aristotle.

>>24556701
>The "ought" emerges from the total integrated system, not cherry-picked drives. Rape violates multiple evolved imperatives (empathy, reciprocity, group cohesion) that outweigh reproductive impulses.
i see, there's a distinction between systemic drives and non-systemic drives. can you offer a formula for distinguishing the two cases?

>>24556487
Taylor Swift?

>>24556578
Do you even know what incel means?

https://youtu.be/2uHSv1asFvU?si=FMrhUbxDwQM1G5iw

this is all you need to know about this jew

>>24556717
Zizek also supports israel, what do you think about him?

>>24556699
What do you mean? I'm free, free to express myself about some criminal loser cunt. It gives me pleasure when a bad person gets what it deserves, (she in this case). She ended her days with the MIGHTY -STATE- of AMERICA deep inside HER "heart", lol. And she surely took it with a smile, the cynical bitch. She didn't dared to boss around the public nurses that tended her in her last days.
So forgive me for being an AMERICAN in love with AMERICA, and the AMERICAN DREAM. Wich this hateful bitch hated. I hate foreign agents working against my nation, my home. And that disgusting bitch did a great deal of harm to America and the american heart.
She will not be forgiven by the american people, for her hate to our nation and our way of life.

>>24556718
take a wild guess.

>>24556730
You are utterly and hopelessly unhinged.

>>24556701
The criminalization of rape also bottlenecks the population. You can't have it both ways. The real elephant in the room is realizing 1) the source of so-called "racism" is competion for scarce sexual resources and 2) women were not meant to be more than walking incubators. Giving them sentience and rights was a general mistake and now we have career women who end up with empty egg cartons and and underclass of resentful men who otherwise would be husbands and fathers.

>>24554988 (OP)
pretty inconsistent worldview