Ayn rand

i get that people like peterson and rand aren't rigorous like other academics, but that doesn't mean people like peterson and rand are necessarily wrong. I don't see many contradictions in her writings. I think her main failure is that she isn't self critical enough and accepts certain things as true without much thought, but again, that doesn't make it a trash philosophy undeserving of consideration. The people who say she isn't a real philosopher dont even want to consider her philosophy

Who would want to consider something like that. Free will is an illusion anyway so capitalism's "meritocracy" is just as retarded as divine right. Taking like a million steps back, there's private heritage.

Her "philosophy" is founded on the most glaring example of a worthless proposition ever conceived. An actual, straightforward tautology, not even a transitive syllogism. And her writing style is "intransigently" terrible.

It's the reason why I don't think her philosophy is very good. My main point is that some people don't consider her philosopher real. Having a tautology doesn't mean it's incorrect, yet people derive such conclusions anyway. many other philosophies contain tautologies as well, but they do not face the same attacks as objectivism does

>many other philosophies contain tautologies as well
I agree with you here, but do you have any examples?

There's a difference between "containing" and "being founded on." To say "existence exists" makes no sense at all. If she means existence itself exists, the concept actually exists, then existence would be a particular object within itself, which is impossible. If she means that existence as a concept has meaning, she may as well say "existence is existence." It's like she's trying to convince solipsist strawmen, or something. They're the only ones who ever thought existence doesn't exist, and it's a worthless position because you can found nothing on it. Which is probably why one can found nothing on hers.

She's a capitalist. You can pretty much expect her works and philosophy to be trashed by anyone who doesn't like capitalism or otherwise individualist values.
In particular, people do not enjoy being confronted with themselves and the concept of personal consequence. It's easier to believe in anything else and deride those that would ask you to look in the mirror.

>personal consequence
This is laughable considering she relied on social security checks in her old age. If a champion of anti-collectivism can't resist suckling the teat of welfare, then obviously there is something wrong with the philosophy.

Attached: YuiChewQuick.gif (600x440, 1.72M)

shes a fucking joke

explain

her ideology doesn't stand up to critical thinking

She is the "Do as I say, and not as I do" type of philosopher. See

Let's not forget her other deathless insight, that reality is what is real

Based but stop watching anime.

She is stalinist, machiavellian punk ass bitch, nothing new.

Rand’s philosophy is just shitty corporate-wanking objectivism

>free will is an illusion
Opinion instantly discarded

She interjects into philosophy without engaging in any dialogue with other philosophers. Alot of philosophy can be understood as a reaction and debate between differing viewpoints, Kant is responding to the Empiricists and Rationalists, Hegel responds to Kant, Marx responds to Hegel etc. Whereas Ayn Rand doesn't have much understanding of philosophy before her and doesn't engage with them in any meaningful capacity.

In addition, Ayn Rand ignores and breezes over some very important parts of philosophy that have been contended over without acknowledging them. Her idea of "objectivism" is extremely controversial, as since the beginning of philosophy there has been a debate about what can be known, is reality objective or subjective, how do we come to know this etc. and she just brushes by it without any sort of commentary or input.

Why should she have to engage with other philosophers in her works? Your criticism seems to be that she has committed some social faux pa by not announcing her arrival by thanking everyone in attendance for being here. It is beside the point. She is either right or she isn't.

Because she constantly misrepresents them in her writing. If you are going to criticise Kant, you need to at least be accurate rather than attacking a strawman as Rand does. If you are supposedly basing everything on Aristotle, it would help to at least appear to have read Aristotle.
Otherwise you look stupid, which is why people say Rand is stupid

Not my criticisms, just the ones thrown around generally.
It is not a social faux pas but a very serious academic issue. You can't dismiss questions that can can possibly nullify your argument because you don't want to answer them.
>She is either right or she isn't.
This is an extremely bad way of looking at philosophy. I do not recommend having this mindset when reading any text, let alone philosophical text. Gregory Sadler talks about this in one of his PoS videos, I think it's the first one. You won't get anything out of philosophy is view one idea as right or one as wrong. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (thinkers forming the bedrock of Western philosophical tradition) have been BTFO'd many times, and yet they are still extremely important to modern thought.

>Why should objectivism need prove that it's more true than any other philosophy?
The absolute state of Rand defenders.

Attached: 1451513086560.jpg (205x246, 11K)

>more true
It is either true or it isn't. There is no gradation. And it proves that it is true when compared with the works of others, as has been done plenty of times. There is no absolute need for Rand to constantly make references to others when laying out her system. The system is either consistent or it isn't. No one is stopping you, once you understand her arguments, from comparing them with others to see how it holds up and the fact you would discount her simply because you want others to do that work for you is not anyone's problem but your own.

You're not reading what any of us are saying.
read

so are Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Hume, for example

Yes and let's not forget about that great mind Wittgenstein, and his eternal insight: "The world is all that is the case"

I read them and non of them care to address her actual system. It is just complaints tangential to her actual philosophical system. I don't care what Rand thought about others. Show me, within the self-contained system which she set out, where there is a contradiction. I don't care what she thought about Kant, it makes no difference to her system as her system makes no reference to Kant and lives or dies totally divorced from anything Kant or anyone else, except Aristotle, said

Then do what you said
>No one is stopping you, once you understand her arguments, from comparing them with others to see how it holds up and the fact you would discount her simply because you want others to do that work for you is not anyone's problem but your own.

I'm not going to fucking babysit you. I told you why she isn't taken seriously. You do the rest. Now fuck off.

There is a difference between real philosophy and talking about something. Since it is easy to fart ideas from the top of your head it is expected for you to read first the works of others and then present your idea in a way it stands on a relatively objective grid. If you let go of rules and regulations in philosophy you will not have a field of study and the mess would be so big that it will discourage people to contribute anything meaningful to the field because they will need to read through endless shit to get to something worthwhile to discuss.

Lol, he can't do it.

cause her works are just fanfics she wrote while waiting for her welfare checks to arrive

Any textual evidence?

People are just brainwashed slave moralists who are brought up with the whole "being selfish is bad" shtick. Cognitive dissonance of the highest order. People go nuts over this

Attached: nietzsche.jpg (700x1035, 177K)

This all good and fine if you reason for reading philosophy is not to ascertain to truth but as some kind of therapy.

No it is the lowest form of life that's why even virus have its characteristics. Morality is the highest ground and without it you will be a pathetic creature of misery just like Nietzsche was

Sure dude.

Attached: napoleon.jpg (728x424, 49K)

Both of you are misrepresenting Nietzche.

and you're spelling his name wrong

>Show me, within the self-contained system which she set out, where there is a contradiction
The Lord of the Rings doesn't contradict itself, do you think this is some achievement?

Considering its length and genre, yeah.

Pleb
tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Mistakes_and_inconsistencies_in_Tolkien's_works

I think Nietzsche's stand on the "christian slave morality" is a bit wrong tho.
Many of the values in Christianity were already present in other pagan and hellenic cultures before the romans came in. Christianity spread so well in europe because it was manly a mutilated judaism to fit most pagan livestyles and traditions in europe. His making of the christian boogeyman isnt so much a product of salve morality.
Specially coming from a man who wanted to marry the crazy bitch Lou Salome and got rejected 2 times. And then procedes to write books shitting on marriage and women lol. If anything his views were the ones born out of slave morality.
Nietzsche makes so very good and clever insights but he is still a human being and there are too many people that take him as a sort of messiah of modernity imo.

Attached: 1534080705693.jpg (400x534, 56K)

She pisses off redditors. You know, the only people so far up their own asses to actually call themselves philosophers.

Attached: 3P2tRcv (2).jpg (500x587, 30K)

Ah, what a shame.

Free will isn't an illusion, it's a human construction just like causality. Just because it isn't an inherent truth doesn't make it an illusion. It's true to some, and unnecessary to the framework of others.

But other than that I agree with everything you've said, yeah.

You got me. Guess my point is wrong.

A wizard did it. The pleb is you

I see the shitpost brigade is awake; real good job derailing the thread into Nietzsche and strawmen.
>Why should objectivism need to prove it is true and that other philosophies are untrue?
There, I fixed the criticism for you.
Not entertaining traditional lines of inquiry from previous and current philosophers in original writings is a form of unfalsifiability and obfuscation. Nearly every philosophy can appear internally consistent, but truths mined from other branches can reveal whether or not they're just piles of shit.

Attached: 1497768198479.jpg (400x800, 54K)

>Thread starts about a shitty philosopher
>gets derailed into better topics

do you unironically think philosophers follow their writings? LoLmaoing @ ur lyfe

I have been enlightened by this post. I shall quit beating the dead horse, please carry on.

Attached: RikoYou.png (1024x550, 182K)

disgusting

Attached: cl4ii.jpg (300x540, 25K)

What, have you not read Rand? She shits on Kant all the time for removing reason from philosophy, which is an absolutely ludicrous claim. She called him the most evil man to have ever lived.

he was but what she says is stupid

He also said that anyone who understands his arguments recognizes them as tautologies, and discards them. Besides, that was in the Tractatus. He revised his philosophy.