Whats wrong with objectivism /pol/?

File: mickeyfreud.jpg (126KB, 480x608px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 480x608px

>>126990559
>objectivism

>>126990559
Women and womanly men think it's mean.
Also, Rand was a huge hypocrite, for what it's worth.

File: nietche eternal truth.jpg (67KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 850x400px

>>126990559

Don't conflate that angry kike pleb Rand with the prophet Nietzsche.

>>126990713
>just chemicals?
>therefor its God
Nietzsche said nothing of chemicals. He said the fundamental principal was the Will to Power

how was she a hypocrite

>Bastardized nietzschean ethics without any appreciation for the masculine, warrior ethos.

Also, the section of the culture of critique were kevin macdonald goes over jewish intellectual cults.

When does she ever oppose nietzschean concepts of man. If anything, it seems like she would be a fan of the Ubermensch, and what that idea represents.

>>126991935
Too bad she was so illiterate in philosophy that she thought, that he was against individualism. Ayn Rand is a chewing gum philosopher, which is highly attractive for people who know nothing about philosophy (which makes it a somewhat good start for interest in this subject), but her system just doesn't hold against the slightest critical thought.

>>126991113
nigger test post

>>126990559
>nietzsche
>objectivist
jesus fucking christ

>>126991070
>He said the fundamental principal was the Will to Power
He was also wrong, but at least he didn't try to do something as trashy as conflate material success with genuine superiority

File: nazi girl fire rises.jpg (145KB, 638x960px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 638x960px

>>126992702
He's not wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVoCKLyt2uw

>>126993028
He was. He based his philosophy on wierd pre-Darwinian evolutionary concepts that were floating around at the time.

If he'd taken up Darwinism he might have sparked a genuine philosophy, rather than just a "method".

>>126990559
I don't think Nietzche fits this question.

From a brief glance and introduction to Nietzche, who even if you are well seasoned with, it doesn't automatically mean you will interpret him accurately, but Nietzch himself is one of the few that seem to have mastered botht eh objective and subjective, as their is a balance.

So yeah, not sure if his part of the image even fits the question.

File: iamverysmart.jpg (223KB, 1000x1293px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1000x1293px

>>126991113
>>126992474

Sorry for my last post, wanted to see if i was still banned, anyways there's a couple reasons why Rand was shady:

Ayn Rand wrote about a character cheating on their spouse in Atlas Shrugged, and you can really tell she was justifying cheating on her own husband in real life.

Rand lived off social security near the end of her days even though she protested it. Why she became poor, i dont know, probably really horrible business choice when selling her books, beacause when she was alive 2 of her books were in the top ten most favorite books in the US. Thats pretty much it.

However, don't use that to discount Rand or her works, she grew up in the Bolshevik Revolution of Russia, and back then Russian literature was heavily used as political propaganda (Tolstoy, Doestoevsky, Solzenetzyn, etc.) Some of the best writers of all time have come from late 1800s/early 1900s Russia and all wrote political propaganda. Because Rayn grew up and wrote in this time and was hurt by Commies and Anarchists, she used her wit to write great works on Capitalist/Anti-Communist propaganda. Faggots discount her by saying "oh her characters are all see through and you can see all their intents right away, no suttle-ness and lots of Communist/Capitalist strawmen). However she intended all of her characters to be this way, because it was propaganda against the Soviets, and thats how a lot of Russians wrote at that time. IMO she writes fucking beautifully and really knows how to use a metaphor and how to portray how Commies think/act/react. If you look past the lack of suttlety (she wasn't trying to be suttle anyways, it was propaganda). You will really enjoy her.

Dont listen to the leftist kikes on Rand, they just hate her cause they hate Objectivism and they can't even truly articulate what Objectivism really is. Look at Molyneaux's series on Rand and Objectivism, it will give you a good rundown

>>126990713
I doubt Nietzsche believed in objectivism...
Objectivism is why he hated Socrate.
Oh look another Burger who tries to read a book.
I guessed your flag before even looking

dismissing objectivism as an idea that simply doesn't hold water isn't an argument. If anything it highlights a lack of understanding.

File: 1487035367219.png (766KB, 600x2644px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 600x2644px

The deal is that objectivism and libertarianism are fine in societies without mass immigration, coupled with a welfare state.

That's the crisis we on the right, in both Europe and America is facing, leading to a rise in ethnic consciousness for whites worldwide. These immigrants continue to vote overwhelmingly for the gibs and bigger government.

File: download.jpg (13KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 225x225px

>>126993795

>suttle-ness
It's subtle-ness.

You may continue on your way. This was just a warning.

File: fagenabler.jpg (38KB, 297x288px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 297x288px

>>126993848
This, I bet the leaf hasn't even read any of her works, maybe Anthem cause its a short read, but I digress. People see Obectivism as "dood greedy kikes who only work for themselves and live to profit xDDD How Dumb amirite? Im so fucking philosophic"

Her characters have much more depth, >>126992346 and >>126993815 are most likely just repeating opinions of those they heard. Yes, Ayn Rand equates material wealth to genuine superiority in a way, but they are grossly oversimplifying it. Rand states that dedication, intelligence, and the will and passion to learn and conquer in any field is what leads superior people to have material wealth.

Basically: Britbong who speaks about authors he nothing who deserves terror attacks on his cuntry and your typical leafs making shit posts again. Notice how I didn't mention Nietzsche, i have the sense to know i dont know enough about the guy or his works to comment, a quality these two fags (and probably kikes) dont have.

Ayn Rand died on welfare alone, and Nietzsche died being taken care of by his sister after a life of inceldom.

They both had the sexual market value of expired generic mayo.

>>126990559
Objectivism these days is about saying. Because there is no god, there is no reason to believe it.
Socrate said about the gods of his time: "because they are not perfect beings, they can't be gods, a god would be "rational", he would be virutous" *Something along these lines, something quit similar to our modern objectivists* And that's one of the point Nietzsche brought up to dismiss Socrate as a rotten precursor of christianism.
Either way from this we can affirm that the objectivism of Socrate is not the same as the objectivism of Nietzsche, and the same would apply with Aryn Rand.
>OP is a fucking pleb again.
>They rot everything they touch
Burn all your books of Nietzsche please.

>>126992346
Well said anon.

Nietzsche objectivism comes from looking at nature and saying well they all thrive for more. From the flower to the bird to the fish. And that's an objective observation.
For Ayn Rand. Sure we are selfish but she seem to fail to understand that we formed societies out of selfishness. To increase our own chances of survival. Yes we are selfish but if that's the whole point of your philosophy it doesn't say much, try applying Ayn Rand philosophy without the nanny state. You can't. What is objectivism^

>>126990559
A woman invented it.

File: just.jpg (44KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 612x612px

>>126996275
>>126990559
If anyone thinks Nietzsche was an objectivist GTFO and read his books before talking.

For example: I know of Ayn Rand and her ideas second hand but would never talk about her ideas until I read her books because second hand sources are 90% nonsense.

Objectivism is still stuck on the subject/object dichotomy, or rather the true/false one, which Nietzsche was already above.

>Soldiers and their leaders have always a far better relationship with one another than workmen and their employers. At present at least, all militarily established civilisation still stands high above all so called industrial civilisation; the latter, in its present form, is in general the meanest mode of existence that has ever been. It is simply the law of necessity that operates here: people want to live, and have to sell themselves; but they despise him who exploits their necessity and purchases the workman. It is curious that the subjection to powerful, fear inspiring, and even dreadful individuals, to tyrants and leaders of armies, is not at all felt so painfully as the subjection to such undistinguished and uninteresting persons as the captains of industry; in the employer the workman usually sees merely a crafty, blood sucking dog of a man who speculates on all misery and the employers name, form, character, and reputation are altogether indifferent to them. It is probable that the manufacturers and great magnates of commerce have hitherto lacked too much all those forms and attributes of a superior kind, which alone make persons interesting; if they had had the nobility of the nobly born in their looks and bearing, there would perhaps have been no socialism in the masses of the people. For these are really ready for slavery of every kind, provided that the superior class above them constantly shows itself legitimately superior, and born to command by its noble presence! The commonest man feels that nobility is not to be improvised, and that it is his part to honour it as the fruit of long periods of time. But the absence of the higher presence, and the notorious vulgarity of manufacturers with red, fat hands, gives him the idea that only accident and luck has elevated the one above the other. Well then so he reasons with himself - let us try accident and luck! Our turn to throw the dice! And thus socialism is born.

>>126990559
>Whats wrong with objectivism /pol/
Subjectivism is wrong. Especially moral.

File: jeb bush underman.png (70KB, 291x205px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 291x205px

>>126993362
Weird pre-darwinism is your response? What a Last Man you are