Ayn Rand and Objectivism

ayyyyyyyyyy rand

>as a person
Self-righteous, absorbed, obsessed with creating a diametric opposition between East/West, also a yid

>philosophy she created
Here's the thing: objectivism isn't special, by any means. I don't know why alt rights, neo cons and the like get a hard on for it. It's pretty much the opposite of collectivism, anyone could deduce this. But she mixed it with her lens of living in a socialist society and w/ her hard on for the West it basically reinforces a lot of stereotypes. When you realize 90% of her works are written to denigrate communism, the actual philosophy is nowhere to be found. Instead it's just one giant polemic against the USSR

>>1650744
Oh, OP here I forgot to mention, if anybody has any thoughts on her books I would like to hear opinions on those too.

>>1650771
Do you think she was a hypocrite for going on benefits later in life to pay her medical bills or do you believe she was justified in doing so?

>>1650784
Immensely. This is the same person who believed it was immoral to give outside of self-interest, that altruism was an immoral because living for others it not living for yourself (per se). One of her most prominent criticisms is that she paid taxes, and as such "gave" to others not by choice, but necessity. When she went on benefits, people argue that society was giving back to her - but this is the very mentality she opposed. The same way she believed "men should not live for others", she was living her last days off other men. You can't make this shit up if you tried.

>>1650807
A lot of people who follow her teachings say that it was ok because she was 'taking back what she was owed'. I personally think that with her medical bills she probably took out a lot more than she put in to begin with.

>>1650819
Problem with the "owed analogy" is one of objectivism's core tenets is living by and on your own merit. That doesn't necessarily mean self-sustenance; but you should live in a way that is independent of ulterior motive. If you're an objectivist who pays taxes, ideally you would want the tax to inherently benefit you and you alone. But you're already disqualified from the core tenets because a) you're forced to concede to a greater authority, b) you're forced to contribute to the livelihoods of others indirectly, and c) ultimately even if you believe you're doing this for yourself, it affects others unconditionally. There's nothing objectivist in paying taxes. Even if you believe in its use, it's not self-gratifying because there are no immediate benefits. Which is something objectivists and libertarians somewhat share a belief in, but Rand despised libertarians, and the irony is a lot of libertarians are self-identified objectivists.

>a women

Excuse me, the adults are talking.

>>1650848
You have really thought on this sort of thing, the most I have done is gotten a laugh at how a lot of Christians identify as being Objectivist at the same time.

>>1650744
A blathering retard

>>1650872
I never understood that either it's an odd phenomenon. My issue with objectivism is that there's so much to it as a philosophy yet in compilation isn't complete. Objectivists will argue with you till the ends of the earth to claim that you haven't "completely swallowed the philosophy" (as Rand succinctly put every time she was shot down). At this point its such a divided philosophy that you will most likely not find two objectivists who uniformly agree on all objectivist principles (ethics, epistemology, politics - also Rand's beef with Libertarians, that they only swallowed her politics pill but not ethics).

It's an alright philosophy to cry yourself to sleep to, but it has no merit in a real world, long-term, applied national level.

>>1650849
>doesn't know how to spell

>>1650744
The only thing worth taking a second to consider about Rand is where she fails harder, as a writer or as a philosopher.

Obviously flawed, but she touched on a lot of important subjects that we would do well to take to heart; Namely, the idea that people being selfish can still help the group.

Her philosophy in a bigger sense is, in my professional opinion, pretty fucky. Compile that with the fact that her valuable observations are really just basic observations and you've got a wholly unimpressive character.

>>1650744
She was basically right, every large movement devolves into memes and individualism is key to stopping that bullshit.

She wasn't the first to point this out, but the left ignored Stirner and Bukanin so they were wide open and she roasted them good. Coinciding with the madness of the Nazis and Stalin her views helped bring sense to what had happened and reaffirmed true American values which had always espoused individualism.

Of course she became massively spooked herself, later on. She went from being a qt flapper who went from a Stalinist dystopia to New York and Hollywood at the height of the roaring 20s to being a dark mistress who conspires with figures like Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman and enjoys snapping at people and tearing out their most heartfelt beliefs with her icy fingers almost as much as she enjoys young fanboy cock. However that does not invalidate her main points.

>>1651108

Aye, Rand and Stirner are pretty gud in my opinions.

>>1650764
top kek

>>1651108
Do you mean every large movement today or many years ago? Please elaborate on things devolving into memes back during her time or before since I am not really sure on what you mean exactly.

>>1650849
>can't spell
>no women only adults lul
Back to /pol/

>>1650744
She's accessible and provides pat answers to life's complexities which makes her popular with introspective post-adolescents.

File: 2367342507_d92a7687b6.jpg (69KB, 500x260px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x260px

>The soviets touched me in my private property places, so i swore to never share again! Waaa
Also, she named herself after a fucking typewriter.
>>1650976
>but she touched on a lot of important subjects that we would do well to take to heart; Namely, the idea that people being selfish can still help the group.
So did Smith, and did a much better job at it.

>>1650771
>be Ayn Rand
>hate USSR
>write a book about a society ruled by a small group of men who are above the law and rest of people

sounds like she was just upset she was not living a ruling class aristocratic life

Neutral towards her, but the supposed hypocrisy people like to criticize about her is a pretty stupid thing to do.

>>1650784
She was justified to do as she pleased. It's using the environment to your advantage. Also, it's not like you can't use an iPhone while being a commie, or use public transport if you are an anarcho primtivist, evading taxes if you are an anarcho capitalist, etc.

File: port-donnant-belle-ile.jpg!Large.jpg (125KB, 745x600px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 745x600px

>>1650744
>as a person
had no qualms about openly cucking her own husband and then parading that fact around in front of him like she was practicing some sort of transcendent love with her followers. When her 2nd in command Nathaniel Branden (who was cheating on his wife with Ayn Rand) picked up a third younger cutie on the side, Ayn Rand couldn't handle not being the center of every one's universe and pitched one of the most legendary bitch-fits of the 20th century, then basically throttled her baby philosophy in its crib by getting rid of all the actual talent, retired when she realized that she actually sucks at what she does and couldn't keep the ARI going, and spent the remainder of her years living off the government she made her career denouncing.

>the philosophy that she created?
Pedantic punditry lacking substance or insight. Fedora atheism plus extreme selfishness plus far right wing economics; that's her philosophy on one foot.

>What does /his/ think of her as a person and the philosophy that she created?

It's essentially the idiotic inversion of Marxism, which, unfortunately, is still completely retarded. Where Marxism insists that society is all about the collective, Objectivism insists that society is all about the individual. Both philosophies are completely nonsensical and can never produce a stable society or economy, as in society and the economy, you have both individual and collective needs, and separating them, trying to erase one in favor of the other has never worked.

I'm still baffled by the number of right wingers who still worship her as some kind of infallible prophet. Particularly in America she's seen as some kind of Oracle of the market place, and to this day, lots of economists still use the model of rational self interest as some kind of perfect model for human behavior, despite that it has been repeatedly debunked

I think she was resentful, arrogant and hypocritical. Her books literally are about the state or the establishment "oppressing" the elite.

As a philosophy, I don't see how objectivism brings anything new to the world, utilitarianism already covered many of its points. It was all just an excuse to bash the USSR. It was just a bitter break up.

As a person she was a horrible human being but most people misunderstad her philosophy.

When she talks about doing something in your self-interest, she means doing what YOU yourself value the most in doing. That includes charity etc.

Free market is great and desirable, but not infallible. Government is inevitable.

Also, she's a woman, no wonder she wrote about selfishness. I believe in a balance between individualism when it is called for, and collectivism in terms of the collective ethnic population working as one identity.
Objectivism is good when applied to reasoning. Not much else that comes to mind.
She's also a kike. Don't know why neo-cons adore her as much as they do.

>>1650744
spooky spook

>>1651139
Aye?
>>1651600
When a movement grows large enough the leadership becomes detached from ordinary members and aims to increase the power of the group as opposed to achieving the purported goals of the group. The original goals become propaganda to ensare people and attract new members. For example they claim to be fighting for the people when really the state has become synonymous with "the people".

Memes mean a self-perpetuating idea but on 4chan it has also come to mean idea that lacks substance, kind of like stirner's "spooks".