I've been reading her more "philosophical" books like the The Virtue of Selfishness and I don't really understand why nobody takes her seriously in mainstream academics. I don't agree with everything that she says because I find that there a lot of incorrect characterizations in her works (like thinking that altruism = living for others before yourself), but her argument for some kind of voluntary-based system is pretty compelling albeit. Similarly, her objectivist epistemology doesn't seem all that bad. She makes valid point against the analytic-synthetic dichotomy aswell as attacks against kantian idealism.So, do any of you guys have actual refutations of her arguments or answers as to why academia doesn't take her seriously ?
>>25369580Reality is a simulation.
>twitter grifter spacing
>>25369580>why doesn't academia take her seriouslyBecause she's a Jewess arguing for the opposite of what academia wants Jewesses (Susan Sontag, Betty Freiden, etc.)
>>25369580The academics played Bioshock and thought there was nothing left to say about objewctivism.
>>25369580she's not only using but reading words ("selfish" and "altruistic" are the biggest examples but not the only ones, "reason" is another) in an idiosyncratic way, and as a consequence misreading everyone who isn't using those words that way.
>>25369580Once you realize it was a failed self-help cult it makes sense. She was based for shitting on hippies and calling out libtards though.
>>25369580>why nobody takes her seriously in mainstream academicsShe wasn't apart of their tribe and her views but against their postmodern ideal of subjectivity in all things. So she was a outsider arguing against their primary beliefs. It really isn't complicated or difficult to understand why she was rejected by mainstream academics when you remember such things.
>>25369580I have never read her and never will, I reject her on the basis that every single person I met who enjoyed her works was an utterly repusive brainlet who had read little else.
>>25369580bitch is dumb LOL fuck off
>>25371016>>25371020>Not a single argument against what she's saidInteresting!
my verdict on AR is her key beliefs can probably be summed up in a large part to being an unattractive woman.
>>25370022>So she was a outsider arguing against their primary beliefs. It really isn't complicated or difficult to understand why she was rejected by mainstream academics I hate to defend someone like Rand but academia stagnates when it becomes a circle jerk like it is now. Or rather as its always been.
>>25369580Rand has merits but because she's so staunchly anti-communist the idiots who idealize Marx blindly tear her down wholesale. I still think most of her novels are bad in so far as they are shallow propaganda pieces with inhuman characters but at least they're honest.
>>25370007>failed self-help cultWhich is why I only pay attention to Nathaniel Branden. Not only is it hypocritical to treat Rand's words as gospel, it's just boring and stupid to do so. Dogmatic Objectivists are autistic and boring, and even the more moderate The Atlas Society (as opposed to Ayn Rand Institute) is staffed like female daycare and more interested in surface-level nonsense.Sticking with Brandien Objectivism-lite is based.
>>25371100bitch needed an editor and collaborator, but that would be "compromising her values" or something lel
watered-down nietzsche
>>25371659peak midwit stealth-bump
What I wouldn't give to bring her back from the dead just so she could be tried by a tribunal of the People, convicted, and executed by firing squad.
>>25369580Her attacks on Altruism were prophetic and exactly match the mental illness modern white Liberals engage in: hatred of white people which becomes self-hatred, collective guilt for things they had no part in, and hatred of Western civilization despite living in it, leading to self-sacrificing behavior in the name of virtue signaling like freeing criminals, abolishing police, reparations, racial equity, etc.
>>25369580It’s popular to hate on her because she represents Reaganism and right wing centrist/ individualism. Lefties hate her as do the collectivist “fascist” right wingers.
it's weird the seethe she induces (see >>25372349) when she is overall not very influential or even novel
>>25372378She was and is politically influential.
>>25371100>>25372362This. She's an anti-Communist Russian. This makes all the champagne Communists in America seethe madly. She's right, they're wrong, and they can't deal.
>>25372318Okay, she's a midwit nietzsche then. Who am I to argue?
>>25372408who exactly has she influenced?
>>25372443You seriously don't know?
>>25372446thought so
>>25372449So you don't know. I'm not going to write out a list of politicians and state actors just so you can seethe about them as if knowing they were influenced by Rand signals I somehow support them, anon.
>>25372455could have given me three names in the time it took you to write your gay little post
>>25372457You're an idiot if you don't already know. Three names?>Paul Ryan>Alan Greenspan >J.D. VanceBonus: Trump said his favorite book is The Fountainhead. Now go-ahead and do as predicted: seethe about the above as if I support them and/or like Rand, lol.
>>25369580She is refuted by the simple immutable fact that humans are a social species and a single human, left to himself cannot even produce a safety pin from scratch. There is no such thing as individual selfish accomplishment that does not simultaneously translate into social dominance.
>>25369580
>>25372459bunch of literal whos
>>25372473>a social species and a single human, left to himself cannot even produce a safety pin from scratchShe doesn't argue such. It's more that certain people possess the capabilities required to organize a mine or a factory and should be rewarded accordingly. This reward isn't at the expense of what you'd label workers just because they're the ones shoveling dirt or sitting on the factory line.>There is no such thing as individual selfish accomplishmentShe doesn't say there is. It's more like certain people deserve to dominate others what she labels as "collectivism" comes at the expense of meritocracy.
>>25372484It's hilarious you had no idea how influential she is, anon.
>>25372492none of those matter though
>>25372495They do, you know they do, and you're too dumb to bait.
>>25372498they don't thoughthere is no genuine objectivist thrust in the right, it's an ideological dead end
>>25372459>>Paul Ryannuh uh he told some polish boomers that his favorite book was the summa theologiae which he also didnt read just like he didnt read atlas shrugged or the cat in the hat
>>25372489>and should be rewarded accordingly. I would've had no issue with this if it wasn't the mines and factory organisers themselves deciding what this "accordingly" even is. >meritocracyQuintessential middle class mindset
>>25372500Oh, so you're going to grasp at straws over what counts as "influence", lol. You really are a dumb one. >>25372506>nuh uhHe bought multiple copies of Atlas Shrugged for his staff, retard. If you don't like him there's Ron Paul and his son Rand. Dozens of tech moguls including people like Steve Jobs and Peter Thiel. Also, one of the people Trump tried to appoint as secretary of labor during his fist term named one of his companies after a character in The Fountainhead.
>>25372510>I would've had no issue with this if it wasn't the mines and factory organisers themselves deciding what this "accordingly" even is.That's kind of her point. >Quintessential middle class mindsetWhat else do you call it when someone talented is able to apply their skills so as to enrich themselves?
>>25372519>Ron Paul and his son Rand.and their legacy?like I said you're seething about something that doesn't matter
>>25372524You're the one who keeps (You)ing me because you're embarrassed you didn't know about Rand's influence on right-wing politicians, retard. Anyway, you were wrong and you know you were wrong. Cope all you want but don't expect anynore (You)s, brainlet.
>>25372519>He bought multiple co[okies] for his staffaw how sweet, im sure him and his staff loved browsing them
>still wants my attentionDidn't read. Sorry you don't have any friends to talk to, anon.
>>25371659watered down Nietzsche? That's too soft on her. She's a caricature of Nietzsche One might not agree with Nietzsche but his literary talent is undeniable and his rants are always delightful to read. He was a prodigy thas was able to point at something laying back in human culture. He opened new horizons in human studies: how human civilizations and history works (Spengler), biopolitics and how power works (Foucault), existentialism (Camus and others), etcThe novels of this bitch feel like wattpad fanfics. I can picture her fingering herself while se wrote about those strong corpo daddies. And all the fuss about her feels like paid lobbyism by american corporations
>>25372459>>J.D. Vancelmao
>>25371016this is a good point>>25371049lol bitch sucks why the fuck would i argue about it?
>>25372459tiny cheeto dick has never read a book and you know it.
>>25369580She's jewish.
>>25371659>t. Doesn't understand Rand nor Nietzsche.
>>25372473>Humans are a social animal.>No man is an island.>Individualism is a war of all against all.>I am very smart.Why do retards have such a difficult time defining individualism?
She had a Big Wide Pussy and it had a strange Impact on the World. That’s probably Why there’s Disagreement.
>>25372613Engaging in social activity is not a choice. It's a necessity
>>25372613build your own fucking roads, asshat.
>>25372647>>25372667>Impotent seething.All you've done is prove my point. Do you honestly believe that advocates of capitalism don't believe in the division of labor and comparative advantage?
>>25372684>Do you honestly believe that advocates of capitalism don't believe in the division of labor and comparative advantage?Kinda irrelevant? I am simply pointing out why Rand is wrong about her individualistic assessment of reality. Capitalism itself is a social activity. And by it's very nature not driven by any "individual prowess"
>>25372691>Kinda irrelevant?It's relevant for rebutting your baseless strawmen of individualism.>I am simply pointing out why Rand is wrong about her individualistic assessment of reality.Asserting unoriginal retarded truisms doesn't prove anything.>Capitalism itself is a social activity.No one denies this.>And by it's very nature not driven by any "individual prowess"Except for all the individual innovators of course.
>>25372704Lol retard. No wonder fans of objectivism and libertarianism are perma-midwits with no real world experience
>>25371659Rand is watered down Aristotle or if you wanted to backtrace it even further she’s watered down Heraclitus (strife/ discord as the perfect harmony). She is directly inspired by Aristotle I know though I’m not sure if Heraclitus’ fragments influenced her directly. Pure harmony and innovation coming from men fighting each for himself and being in disunity is directly traced backwards via Aristotle.
>>25372459>Trump said his favorite book is The FountainheadYeah, and my favorite book is In Search of Lost Time, written in the original French. I've totally read it and am not claiming this for clout.It's always hilarious to hear about Christians and/or Republicans who like Rand and consider themselves Objectivists.
>>25372562Trump is a very stable genius and you know it.
>>25372613>Humans are a social animal.I'm not.
She doesn't really make any arguments beyond stating her opinion.
>>25373022She's constantly making arguments all throughout her work and public appearances.
>>25372716>Anon gives very straightforward refutation of impotent seething>Replies 'Lol retard'Don't be such a faggot. He's trying to tell you that, as previously stated by another Anon, engaging in social activity is actually a choice and not a necessity at all. Its true that all people engage in social activity, but that doesn't mean you have to all the time or in everything you do, like for example, becoming an individual innovator, or working on self-improvement in a singular manner.Personally, I'm so disgusted with all the faggots and browns in our society that I can't be assed to get out of bed for anything even vaguely social or collectivist. If people want me to contribute, they need to engineer a society with less browns and faggots in it.>Inb4 you'll be alone!I know, that's the point. I like it this way, so society can either sell me on better incentives or kiss the darkest parts of my ass. Here's your (You).
>>25373636>appeals and propositions = arguments
>I don't really understand why nobody takes her seriously in mainstream academics.For a start, large parts of objectivism are just a dressed up argument from incredulity.
>>25371659Actually no, she hated Nietzsche due to his lack of reason.
>>25373690I think it's more likely you don't like where her arguments lead but are too stupid and lazy to formulate alternatives and knock them down. The fact Rand triggers you into such a state should be a lesson to you regarding her continued popularity despite her obvious faults and the fact she has been dead for almost half a century.
>>25373814>I think it's more likely you don't like where her arguments leadShe didn't like where her arguments lead, lmao. She survived off the charity of others.
>>25373835Yeah, she made poor life decisions and accepted welfare thus seemingly negating key aspects of her own philosophy. Her adherents tried to cover this up because they're a weird cult and couldn't handle their leader being a hypocrite. However, saying "she doesn't make arguments" is just retard tier.
>>25373835Just because she was, in the end, unable to live up to all of her ideals, doesn't mean her ideals aren't worth trying to live up to. You're succumbing to a logical fallacy known as "the perfect as the enemy of the good".
>>25373957NTA. It's kind of a red flag and reading into it further reveals Randianism as a cult of ideology peddling self-help. It's similar to Scientology in that way but wasn't as successful. That doesn't mean that none of the things she says ring true or all of the advice you take from it is wrong but it means that a lot of people are dupped into internalizing her particular set of beliefs at the expense of losing their own critical facilities. That's probably where calling people who followed her "Randroids" came from.
>>25373965Don't judge a movement by the worst of its adherents. Robots/hylics will latch on to anything and pervert it through the lens of their own diminished mental faculties. Rand held reason in high virtue; just because those without critical faculties missed that point, doesn't mean she's wrong.
>>25373814
>>25373967>Don't judge a movement by the worst of its adherentsThat's a fair way to judge a movement, anon. This is why you shouldn't associate with things like ARI or take Peikoff seriously. Sure, some of the things they say are incredibly based but underneath there's a cult of ideology an awful lot of people who treat Rand as a philosopher and not merely a talking head who wrote a few entertaining books fall into. >>25373982It's obvious you're an idiot and will just quibble over what constitutes an argument when you're given an example, anon. Sorry but you're just not worth the time.
Objectivism is a goy cult to turn atomization into a religion for the modern capitalist era, allowing Jews to predate on goyim more easily. She supported Israel.
>Even if it were proved—which it is not—that the incidence of men of potentially superior brain power is greater among the members of certain races than among the members of others, it would still tell us nothing about any given individual and it would be irrelevant to one’s judgment of him. A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race—and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin. It is hard to say which is the more outrageous injustice: the claim of Southern racists that a Negro genius should be treated as an inferior because his race has “produced” some brutes—or the claim of a German brute to the status of a superior because his race has “produced” Goethe, Schiller and Brahms.>These are not two different claims, of course, but two applications of the same basic premise. The question of whether one alleges the superiority or the inferiority of any given race is irrelevant; racism has only one psychological root: the racist’s sense of his own inferiority.>Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge—for an automatic evaluation of men’s characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment—and, above all, a quest for an automatic self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem).Stuff like the above is why chuds hate Rand and leftoids, pretty much modern libtards, can't understand her.
>>25373661>engaging in social activity is actually a choice and not a necessity at all. Since this is so fundamentally incorrect in and of itself, I am not even going to bother with the rest of your post. Anyone with any kind of actual lived experience knows this. Which is precisely why the most strict adherents of objectivism and libertarianism are found among the demographic of white sheltered suburban teenage boys who have yet to have any real world experience.
>>25373661Kek.>>25374184>Since this is so fundamentally incorrect in and of itself, I am not even going to bother You sound like a fag so I stopped reading there. NTA btw. He won.
>>25374189There are less pathetic ways to samefag. Btw nice job proving my point about objectivists being mentally immature teenagers for me.
>>25374214>samefagNope. Stopped reading there. He won. You lost. I hope he comes back, sees you seething, and gets a smile out of it.
>>25374218I accept your pathetic concession. Loser :)
>>25374230My concession is that the Randtard beat you in a debate wherein you looked like a total faggot. Keep seething.
>>25373870>forced to pay into program>take entitlements from program afterwardThis isn't the own anti-Randians think it is.
>>25374310What actually happened is Rand developed lung cancer after writing essays about how awesome smoking is and her husband started showing signs of dementia. This was right after she had tied up a bunch of money into developing her cult; when Branden walked it fucked her financially. So, a social worker told her she needed to apply for Social Security/Medicaid but she wouldn't because she knew doing so went against her philosophy. Over a long period the social worker wore her down and she agreed. Rand hid the fact she had done so by using an alias (I think it was "Anne" and her husband's last name) and for years ARI denied it had ever happened. However, someone was writing a book and interviewed the woman who had signed Rand up. This woman freely told the writer everything and ARI had a meltdown threatening to sue (they had given the writer access to their archives because they thought the book would promote Rand). ARI still denied everything about it but the writer went and got documentation proving Rand was receiving Social Security. So, ARI then redacted everything they had written before denying Rand had received Social Security/Medicaid and started saying "actually, Rand was merely taking back what the government stole from her through taxes". This, however, doesn't negate the fact Rand needed access to the social safety net as the her legal firm, had to be actively convinced to accept access to the social safety net, tried to hide she had done so, and ARI spent over a decade claiming the opposite until the interview and hard evidence came up. Sorry, but the "he's just getting her money back" is a retarded excuse when you know the actual story of what went down, lol.
>>25374335>I think it was "Anne" and her husband's last nameIt was "Anne Connor". Besides "Anne" dropped the O' too.
>>25369580She's an antichrist jewess and her opinions are retarded.
>>253743711 outta 3 aint bad
>>25373957>Just because she was, in the end, unable to live up to all of her ideals, doesn't mean her ideals aren't worth trying to live up toHer ideals do not profess to make the world better for others and were literally not survivable for herself.Yes, her failure does mean her ideals aren't worth trying to live up to. Objectivism describes both means and ends and purports to link the two, but fails to do so in practice for even the ur-Objectivist.Unless you're claiming she took charity for some irrational ends, but then you run into the issue of basing your defense of the rationality of Ayn Rand on her behaving irrationally. Also, [citation needed].Also, that defense just breaks down as>real Objectivism hasn't been triedlmao
>>25374310>This isn't the own anti-Randians think it is.I was actually referring to her family paying her way to America and then relatives hosting her once she got here, and then getting help from them to move to Hollywood which started her whole career.Rand's entire career wouldn't exist without charity from people that owed her nothing.
Huemer destroys her epistemological claims and dogwalks her ethics.I’m too lazy to go in depth but her epistemology isn’t one, she’s not describing what makes a claim true, she’s doing pop psychology on how concepts form in our head… only to then try to apply on real epistemology and claim she discovered something new. Her rejection of analytic-synthetic dichotomy rests on her misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the issue, furthered by her inability to understand that concept formation and epistemology operate on two different levels and can’t be reconciled without extra layers.As for ethical egoism, the fundamental issue is that it either :1. Treats self interest in the commonly defined sense of being egoist and not thinking about others, in which case it is empirically false (as doing good for others often results in good for us)2. Treats self-interest in an overarching sense, in which case it collapses into a meaningless tautology (you ought to do what is good, what is good is what you think is good)As for her claim on capitalism, it’s essentially a modal error. She tries to pass a contingent claim (capitalism is most rational under XYZ condition), for a necessary claim (capitalism is ALWAYS good). She handwaves at a meager understanding of this with her survivalist ethics but doesnt understand it herself
>>25369580Her views would be problematic for her coethnics to adopt en masse. Thus they counter-signal her.The gloss her works as being "fuck the tribe, do shit for yourself!"In actuality, Rand is VERY FEMALE in her philosophy, and is probably the pinnacle of female thought, despite her being a big bitch."If you're a high-value/intelligent woman, you should find an intelligent, domineering, man and stick to him no matter what."
>>25375099>stick to him no matter whatEven if, as in The Fountainhead, he rapes you.
