Ayn Rand

>her
Here's your answer.

Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment illustrates why a collective self-interest (collective as an aggregate of individuals) cannot bring about a universal ethical system.

It's only despised on Korean crochet boards

more like its only liked by the tea party supporters.

fk u cunt

Didn't say I loved it or inherently agreed with it 100%, but to any rational non-manlet it is just one of many somewhat valid perspectives on the self and economics. Pleb.

SHE HAS NO STYLE
SHE HAS NO GRACE
THIS SLAV, HAS A FUNNY FACE

>Her theory is that if everyone was selfish the world would be a better place.
>Yet in the book the rich characters help one another.

That's Stirner's branch of egoism, you retarded faggot. Her "rational egoism" enables people to help each other if it's in their own "egotistical interest" to help that person. She opposes to some sort of "coercive altruism", so to speak.

And for the record, i'm not an objectivist by any means. I believe that, at best, she's just an entry level gatekeeper for people who are too retarded or lazy to read the Greeks and don't understand the concept of "objective truth". I'm just stating the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

Attached: take this into consideration.jpg (1920x1080, 289K)

>That's Stirner's branch of egoism, you retarded faggot. Her "rational egoism" enables people to help each other if it's in their own "egotistical interest" to help that person
But Stirner also said something like that. Loving someone because he wanted to and it pleased him, something of the sort.

>But Stirner also said something like that. Loving someone because he wanted to and it pleased him, something of the sort

Ah, yes you're right, the "Union of egoists" he calls it, or something like that.
Fair enough, user.

Attached: 23638-full.png (796x597, 290K)

I think the union of egoists itself might be different, that's like an agreement of people who all feel like they stand something to gain. I was going on more about being "nice" to someone, you can do it because simply pleases your ego.

i only have a level understanding of philisophy and thats what it mainly comes down to, to me.
Societies across history have tried to lessen evil by encouraging altruism, her belief system turns evil into a positive trait.
Society can handle a few evil individuals but if it becomes the belief system it becomes systematic and society breaks apart.

It really isn't evil to just take care of oneself and dismiss other people's problems if they're not caused directly by you.

>despised
It's not though, it's just ignored. Literally nobody has heard of her at universities

because its stupid as shit
she is retarded if she thinks she'd be anything other than a corpse in her type of society
there is nothing preventing me from murdering the bitch if it helps me get few bucks because of "muh ego" from her dead body in her shitty, mentally demented philosophy
this is ultimately absolute conclusion of all materialism but i digress because im sure i triggered fedoras and ancaps of this board enough already by this single point

Depends on the university. Rightwingers hav raised their kids on this shit

i didnt even read this post and i like it because it sounds like something i would type if i read ayn rand even the format fuck

I'm open to being corrected but I don't think any Philosophy department at any university has Rand on the reading list. I don't get why people think she's so despised and hated. She's a non-entity academically. Who exactly is doing the hating?

Self interest isn't evil. You completely missed the screaming flaw of her philosophy. She thinks industrialists will want to make the best consumer products and services and that people will opt for these in the market but in actuality people opt for the cheapest garbage and industrialists make products to break so theyay be replaced. Ayn Rand had absolutely no understanding of capitalism whatsoever. Evil has nothing to do with it and is a spook that doesn't even exist.

Retard alert

i would say evil exists and would go further and say evil and selfishness are one in the same.
A person who is completely evil (a pychopath) is someone who has lost the capacity to feel altruism at all and is consumed by selfishness.

Read Beyond Good and Evil and Jung's essays on The Shadow

stop melting snowflake

It’s in my self interest to have a society with police and law so that people don’t kill each other.
I’ll refrain from my desire to kill so that I am protected from other people.
Does this make sense to you?

I think people mostly hate her because 1.they didn’t read her and just judge her based on hearsay
2. they dislike her ideals of prideful individualism

I like her philosophy, though it has a lot of flaws. Like the fact she didnt understand that lasseiz faire (sorry for butchering that) capitalism just wouldn’t work because without regulation.

Idiot.

>Ayn Rand is retarded, btfo snowflake

I'm sure there's no motive for his opinion

but ayn rand is a fucking retard ugly bitch who prolly had like 4 friends who hated her and a husband who cheated on her.
she's the right wing stirner appropriated for her gender she fucking sucks massive balls and i'm glad shes dead

Altruism and egoism are not opposed - if you define them a certain way, that is.

What people often call evil and egoism is
often just plain stupidity - acting without taking into account the needs of others is just shooting yourself in the leg. If I act in a blatantly selfish way, I’ll alienate people and make them less likely to cooperate with me. The smart thing for me to do is to find a way to enact my desires without hurting other people (too much, I gotta balance it with not hurting myself either) - I’m minimizing the cost of my desire over the long term. The best form of this is to be “genuinely altruistic” so just act this way without calculating, because people will pick up on that shit and mistrust you (as is in THEIR self interest).

Another thing is, that a truly selfless action is impossible - whatever you do, you made the judgement to do it because you wanted to. If you sacrifice yourself for another, you did it because YOU valued their life over your own. You’re acting out your own values. Selfish. This is literally unavoidable - I’ve been thinking about this for years and I never figured out a way around it. But prove me wrong if you can.

Okay so based on this, the question of selfishness/altruism is really just about which ones of your values you choose to enact. The ones which benefit only yourself (and cost you, because of hurting other people), or self sacrificial ones (generally the better way to go but it can go too far).

So I’d say that evil is in the extremes - the violent psychopath is evil (from my perspective) because he hurts me (or the structure of society in which I live) by his selfishness - so I’ll selfishly eradicate him. And the extreme collectivist is evil, because he would impose such extreme altruism on me that it would prevent me from enacting my desires at all (not to mention that his motivation is also just a selfish will to power). I’ve always found it curious that people who accuse others of selfishness miss the fact that if they themselves were truly selfless, they would gladly submit to the selfish person. There would be accord between them.

So yeah - the idea of evil and altruism are spooks, but useful ones. Rather, they are valuable games we play with each other, each of us out of self interest, in order... to have some kind of order.

Oh and another thing, psychopaths don’t “lose the “feeling” of altruism”, they just lack empathy and are very impulsive. It’s a brain disorder.

In yours it might be, but it may not be in individuals who would be "superior" to you in randian worldview that'd thrive only on chaos - therefore if these people could get away with murder for few coins they'd do it as it is in their interest to do so under that purely egoistic/materialisitic worldview - there is no reason for me to explain why is this retarded and why females would be in this dimension EXTREMELY fucked ( which might be extremely based ) which is why I said the bitch would be a fucking corpse in no time in her wet dream society
Does this make sense to you?
>inb4 NAP NAP NAP
egoism doesn't concern itself with frivilous false moral paradigms that would constrain ambition which would also apply for those super rich "chads" from her works

>psychopaths
nice meme
like the entire of dogshit psychology

Have you ever read anything be her? There is literally a character in atlas shrugged who is by his nature a “philosopher” but instead acts as a “policeman”. There is a whole part of the John galt rant about how violence itself is evil and can be only used in self defense.

I think a big part of rands philosophy that people miss is “you can never have anything unearned”. She believed that dishonesty and senseless aggression would always hurt the individual who did them in the end. This is where she was wrong btw, at least in economics. She believed there is no reason for people not to cooperate in a civilized manner, because that’s what is most selfishly beneficial to rational individuals as she conceived of them.
Read the damn book, it’s not perfect, but there is a bunch of good stuff.
Anything else m8? I hope you can have an open mind about this.

the fountainhead is based you can all fuck off

I see.
Do you believe in logic and facts? I’m not trying to be Ben Shapiro here, but I was assuming that we are both implicitly in agreement that things like the scientific method are true. If we don’t even have common ground on that, it’s a waste of time to talk at all.

That being said, I can imagine why you’d be critical of psychology as a field - it has issues. But I can’t imagine why you’d just disregard it offhand in favor of your own imagination. Well, you could be an idiot. But I’m still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

>I’m not trying to be Ben Shapiro here
my friend. you are a dead human being i dont even know why you are typing at all.
psychology is basically white shamanism open your eyes and listen with your ears, if you dare.

So I should reject a whole scientific field based on... not an argument, but your word? Now who’s playing the shaman here?
Seriously dude, can you make an argument? I’m open to it. My body is ready.

>nother thing is, that a truly selfless action is impossible - whatever you do, you made the judgement to do it because you wanted to. If you sacrifice yourself for another, you did it because YOU valued their life over your own. You’re acting out your own values. Selfish. This is literally unavoidable - I’ve been thinking about this for years and I never figured out a way around it. But prove me wrong if you can.
Accidents bro

One of the main characters in the fountainhead is that kind of scrupleless capitalists; he's a media mogul that prints whatever gets people talking. In the end he's undone by his own work in a sort of live by the sword die by the sword kind of way. In a cosmic sense I think she's right

Exactly.

>my body is ready
lmao.
listen psychology is not a "science" seriously are you fucking retarded did somebody rape your asshole as a kid so hard that your brain ceased to maintain proper nerval function?
PROVE TO ME that psychology is a "science" aka repeatable tests with consistent findings and not at BEST a social science and in reality a speculation.
the burden is on yourself, don't try to push it onto anyone else you worthless dogshit cunt.

She starts out ok but adds retarded premises and ruins the whole thing.

>There is an objective reality
Yes, there is.
>Human beings have access to objective reality
No, they don't.

There. That's the whole twist. Everything after that point falls apart - forget egoism, forget self-interest. Human beings do not have unfiltered access to capital T Truth and have no capacity to use such a concept to guide them in life. The irony of objectivism is that it relies entirely on gut feeling - what you believe to be your self-interest is not based on any objective measure of reality.

her philosophy is fine, it's just the fact she can't write to save her life
>dude check out this love story in which I randomly insert essays about my philosophy lol

Because she’s not a philosopher. They stick her in English classes. And in high school.
A non entity to the lefty and centrist schools yeah.