I’ve written about Objectivism before, but someone started a new forum and I had to refute it again, on /philosophy/ /atheism/ (2) and now on /objectivism/ Objectivism is basically to “lolbertarianism” what communism what is to socialists: an embarrassment. It’s totally illogical, and relies on blindly following Ayn Rand, and “lazy fairy” economics.
Whenever they tell you to read a book just reply:
I used to think Objectivism is basically to “lolbertarianism” what communism what is to socialists: an embarrassment. I stand mistaken, because you’ve shown arguing with Objectivists is always irrational. I mean, all would be revealed in bright light if I just read her bible instead of weighing her axioms. How silly of me to trust my own critical thinking, when I haven’t even been taught how to think critically by Ayn Rand. I’ve been an uncritical fool ever since I visited /atheism/ but I will give your philosophy a chance because I like when people use the word rational.
And “voluntary capitalism” sounds so cool too! Oh…I shouldn’t use exclamation marks, because that’s not being rational. Damn….wait, I shouldn’t swear either, but I’m sure that gets easier with the right mental training. Learning this philosophy must have been hard work for you too. But it pleases me that only the most rational people in society will lead the dumb people.
Common rebuttals they give are:
>It’s not a “Psuedo-Religion”.
>If the words don’t make sense to you, it is not my problem.
>Read a book first.
>You’ve been posting stupid questions that clearly show your lack of understanding.
>You don’t even know what it means, and are just going by what I said.
I had already heard Ayn Rand was a silly contrarian bitch, but I’ve learned the true meaning of “Objectionism” from you. Tell me more about ubertardism. If she wanted to free us from falling into the evil Communist trap, why does all the art look so Communist?
See I might be wrong here but my problem with objectivity is that it assumes that person can be selfless, or selfless for personal gain, or just non-abstracted selfishness. As far as I can tell, there is only selfishness. So she saying what ought to be, when it already is fundamental to human nature. I can not think of one action I could do that would not be selfish at it’s core. Like self sacrifice to great cause, is it selfless, or do you get more pleasure, or perceived reward from being used as fuel?
>That’s why I actually find Stirner’s philosophy better.
PRINCIPLES OF OBJECTIVISM:
Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.
For the New Intellectual
The Virtue of Selfishness
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
The Romantic Manifesto
The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
Philosophy: Who Needs It
The Fountainhead, 1949, Ayn Rand, Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal‘
The Ominous Parallels
The DIM Hypothesis : Why the Light of the West are Going Out
Online audio podcast with Yaron Brook
Hunger For Atlantis
>The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism.
Bullshit. There’s no ideal system. Everything has benefits and drawbacks, many of which depend on the culture of the people under its influence.
>It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.
Pure rhetorical nonsense. Fuck off this board with your pseudo-religion.
>It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.
In a laissez-faire system, what is to stop someone from doing any of these things? Do you not know what laissez-faire means?
>The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights;
This is merely defining the what. The how is the important part, and the part where people tend to disagree.
>it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders.
So it’s powerless to prevent the kind of actions you describe above.
>no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force
>no man may initiate the use of physical force against others
Except the state only retaliates, meaning it cannot prevent this, only respond to it after the fact.
Objectivists are a special kind of retarded.
This is beyond full retard.
Ü B E R T A R D
>I have said that academics are trying as hard as they can not to give any regard to objectivism
Have you played around with a few ideas in your head as to why that would be, barring the innate maliciousness of academics to ‘the truth’ or its perfect synonym — objectivism?
Academics don’t have infinite time and interest to splurge on anything they feel like, mostly they’ll have to deal with things that are somewhat relevant, somewhat popular, somewhat part of the “canon” and “the dialogue” and so on. Frankly, objectivism is a pretty minor footnote in philosophy, a lot of noise and barely any signal, to that end you can expect people to tackle it out of “morbid curiosity” like they would the philosophy and metaphysics of Scientology but will refuse to take it seriously, because how could you?
Have you been to /objectivism/ ? Either it’s entirely populated by parodists or the typical objectivist is always the same insufferable, pigheaded dolt and internet-critter that makes satire pointless.
Oh and please don’t attempt to conflate Objectivism with other ‘objectivisms’ that are entirely unrelated to this cult, it’s just short of philosophical vandalism and terrorism.
So you’re advocating they talk about one more irrelevant thing? How impractical. And gender studies and feminism are popular subjects so it’s natural to spend time to debate them. Their practitioners aren’t as smug either. It is stupid how Objectivists preach unrestrained selfishness is always good for the whole of society according to sophistry, INSTEAD of resting their case on game theory which would negate Objectivism.
>So you’re advocating they talk about one more irrelevant thing? How impractical.
I’m advocating they don’t selectively talk about irrelevant shit, so they either add Objectivism to the curriculum, or they stop talking about gender bullshit and the correlation between penis-size and happiness in a relationship.
>And gender studies and feminism are popular subjects so it’s natural to spend time to debate them.
One of my professors did actually debate these things, and he was afraid of losing his pension claims over it. Most other academics are just engaging in a circlejerk about it, just like they do over the holocaust.
>Their practitioners aren’t as smug either.
Have you ever talked to an actual feminist?
>It is stupid how Objectivists preach unrestrained selfishness is always good for the whole of society according to sophistry,
I’m not an objectivist, but I do agree with them that the altruism preached by leftists is simply abhorrent.
>INSTEAD of resting their case on game theory which would negate Objectivism.
Not exactly, as reality is not modelled after the prisoners dilemma.
Game theory is bigger than the prisoner’s dillemna, which is just one situation in a situation with NO repeating rounds. Tit for tat strategies (try cooperation first, but then respond the way others treat you) work better for the individual and the whole over multiple rounds of interaction. Objectivism refuses to accept cooperation or self-sacrifice can be in the best interests of everyone.
I took a class titled “gender and politics” which was taught by a male former family law lawyer, and I learned a lot. Basically he talked about past/current divorce law was and is, how marriage and property was and is, how the suffrage movement developed and led to the later waves in Feminism, and why the ERA failed. You’re not giving the subject due credit.
I’ve read a few chapters of Atlas Shrugged before I put it down to read real economics. It was a joke: from the start the author took the rhetoric to the extreme, past socialism and into communism. She would insert the most ridiculous and weak arguments in the mouth of Taggart, the president of a company, as strawmen to be casually dismissed. Arguments no self-respecting president would realistically ever use if he were serious about running a company on the verge of collapse.
Like he claimed its important to build a railroad through Mexico to help poor people even if its not profitable, even if the company is on the verge of bankruptcy. Obviously no president would do such a thing unless their finances were sufficiently in order to afford philanthropy.
I get the appeal of reading an epic that romanticizes entrepreneurship, but if you want to safely remain aware its still a fantasy in the end just read Spice and Wolf. Holo is more attractive to envision than Ayn Rand’s bitchy protagonist too.
You’ve read a few chapters, I’ve read the entire thing. Yeah, the book was shit, but your critique of objectivism based on game theory is still unfounded.
I don’t have to waste my time reading the whole thing to recognize garbage. I sincerely doubt it is compatible with game theory based on the one-sided diatribes I’ve read. I know how the story goes, and youe robber looks to have played “Robin Hood” or more accurately captain harlock because of his own values, not because they would be necessarily better for any society outside of the farcical fictional world of total rule by the “looters” which Ayn Rand created.
When the world is in peril, this looks like a job for Captain Harlock.
What a great adventure story, but don’t tell me you’re basing your life on this.
I’m not reading anymore fucking garbage, here is a quote from the web. The onus is on you to prove why this isn’t trash.
>Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Well, I’m the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich – or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich.” (184.108.40.206-97)
So a guy is stealing relief ships sent from the US to the people’s states of Europe, so rich fucks can have gold bars. He is portrayed as a hero because he gives rich fucks a portion of their taxes back in the form of plunder. His tactics are like Lenin, and if he had given it to anyone other else, Ayn Rand would have objected.
If it wasn’t called “taxes repaid,” Ayn Rand would have objected. If the “capital” (loot) came from ships were sent from another country to Europe her philosophy would be less tenable, even if the recipient of the loot still deserved or required it it. Her philosophy offers no guidance in an even slightly greyer world.
The pirate’s reward is a lifestyle of adventure according to his principles, not the gold he does not care about. I hardly see this as the self-sacrifice you make it out to be.
Captain Harlock is similar except he literally blows up space ships from planets mined by robots, rather than to let more luxuries reach the hands of an inebriated lazy generation. He too lives in a world where he believes everyone is wrong except me, and the universe bends over backwards to justify his every to justify his every action.
>go to /philosophy/ for the first time
>first thread is about ayn rand
>there are people taking her seriously
not a good first impression