Any compeling arguments against the Ayn Rand's discourse

>>8396446
>swnsytdwsgybf

How the fuck do you argue against a 'discourse'?

>>8396446
Not really because it wasn't well argued to begin with

>>8396446
Her basic premise is that man's singular purpose in life is to live. If you disagree with this premise the entire rest of her philosophical structure falls apart. Not only that, but she uses a very specific definition of "live" that most people disagree with. She's just another example of an analytic philosopher setting the specific premises and definitions they need to arrive at the conclusion they already believe in.

>>8397278
>analytic philosopher setting the specific premises and definitions they need to arrive at the conclusion they already believe in

You say this like continentals haven't been doing the same since Plato

>>8396446
The disabled and elderly are screwed in her world.

She actually mocks the poor when roarks church to the human spirit is turns into an orphanage i believe.

She made it out of self interest.

>>8397317
Plato uses dialectic to exhaust a proposed negative thesis, quite thoroughly in some cases.
Aristotle brackets axioms so they lead to his predetermined conclusion.

Two methods which everyone who followed borrowed from.

>>8397278
>She's just another example of an analytic philosopher setting the specific premises and definitions they need to arrive at the conclusion they already believe in.
lolno.

>>8396446
It artificially separates people into categories and assumes no overlap: basically, her idea is that people are self-reliant at all times or useless, which is idiotic bullshit, particularly in societies like the U.S. that allow insane anti-worker laws and allow hospital bills to be the top reason for bankruptcy. Of course that didn't stop her taking state welfare when her own life was on the line.

File: 1470794611975.jpg (247KB, 790x894px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 790x894px

>>8396446
Objectivism is stupid, some things people do are entirely selfless like raise children.

>>8397474
they raise children for the emotional reward
its like no selfless deed is truly selfless if you feel good about doing it, that feeling is your reward

>>8397488

If you were not moved to action by the prospect of 'feeling good' then why impute that as a motivation post factum?

>>8397176
that would make it easier to argue against you nigger

File: altright.jpg (93KB, 800x577px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x577px

>>8397536
parents that dont love their children tend not to be good parents, whether they're objectivist or not.
i know parents that are very catholic and very shitty parents nonetheless since they don't love their kids. they have no patience for them and no temper to guide them. my aunt for example once told her kids to ask my mom to take care of them instead. im a mexican btw, family is catholic.
personal experience defines my thinking, but that's the best base for my thinking.

>>8398274
edit: my point is that love and the satisfaction of loving is the deciding motivator of parents. without love, parents only parent because of the social pressure.

>>8397474
>the biological imperative to procreate is selfless
kekky