Objectivism

Reason doesn't exist in the way Rand needs it to for her system to work. People had known this for centuries before Rand, and modern neuroscience completely confirms this and destroys her.

could you give me some proof ?

Proof of what? That people had known reason was bullshit for centuries, or that modern neuroscience proves it? If the former, start with the Greeks;if the latter study the scientific literature on how the brain works.
Bredy sure the burden of proof is on you to prove that reason as Rand envisages it exists tho ;)

Fpbp

Everyone in her ideal society would get away with rape. And they’d use the ‘virtue of selfishness’ to defend their penetration

They couldnt, because taking what you havent earned is greedy and theft. Therefore rape would be not a virtue or you couldnt defend yourself with the virtue of selfishness.

But what does it mean to "earn" something, except make the effort to take it ? Surely Rand isn't advocating that we wait for the state to hand things to us based on a abstract centralized mesure of well-deservedness.

Name one of the greeks that said that there isnt something like reason. Her philosophy is based on the thoughts of logic that Aristotle had.
If you want a proof that reason exists look around you and see what humans have created. An animal has its claws and we as humans have reason ( logic ). Which is mans basic means to his end.

But I have earned the right to rape people due to my masculine energy and square jawed good looks. Such is my understanding

Okay I will explain it to you. See humans have trade and trade is based on mutal agreement. When both people accept what the other has to offer than you habe earned something. No coercion no such thing is allowed.
This is what free trade means. When both sides agree to trade on a free basis.

I said start with the Greeks, not finish with them.
The rest of your argument seems to be the creationist thing that complex phenomena require intelligent design, is this fair? You really need to quarrel with the modern scientific consensus though, because its quite clear on this

You can not earn rights. Rand never proposed that the strong takes all. What you are describing is anarchy and this is far away from Objectivism.
I would recommend you read just a little bit of Atlas Shrugged. There is speech held by Francesco where he talks about value. Maybe give it a read.

Why would I allow Rand to define my Objectivism? I submit to no-one, and Objectivism is what I say it is

>The rest of your argument seems to be the creationist thing that complex phenomena require intelligent design, is this fair?
This isnt what I am talking about. You say there isnt something like reason, right ?
And what I am saying is that without reason, without logic you wouldnt have a PC. It is differnt to a creationist, because humans didnt build a pc with try and error.
Again name one of the greeks that said there isnt something like reason. I would like a source so I can read it for my self and try to understand your point and maybe change my mind.

This is a basic SJW-tactic where you rebrand words. You can redefine words for yourself, but you will miss the general consensus and will create unnecessary missunderstanding.
I dont wont to disscuse your weird way of thinking about Objectivism, I want to talk about how Rand intend it.

>And what I am saying is that without reason, without logic you wouldnt have a PC.
Why not? Why is reason as Rand envisages it necessary for a PC (which was built through trial and error, read a book)? Is it necessary for more complex phenomena like a star or an ocelot or the human brain?
You need to address the large body of scientific research on this topic. The brain just doesn't work the way Rand needs it to for her system to work
Start with the Greeks is a meme on this board which means 'read the Western Canon in order'. Do that, and you'll see what I mean.

I am pretty unhappy, because you arent naming any sources or naming any specific Greeks. As I said Pythagoras, Aristotle, Socrates are on my side of the Arguement.
>PC (which was built through trial and error, read a book)?
You are right I should have been more specific. I meant trial and error like in evolution.

Rand advocates for rational self-interest. It is about the way how people act and how we ought to act. It is in the Human Nature to protect the self ( which is pretty flexible, it could incompase your friends and so on ). Rand wanted to destory the mentality of collectivism and the involuntary sacrifice.