The most provocative thing you can show a libcuck. Name one thing wrong with her philosophy - you can't

A successful white man

Where is it circular, precisely?

[Hint- it isn't.]

Rand relied on socialized medicine despite her bullshit at the end and died alone in a hospital bed. Sad.

daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ought_From_Is.html

/thread

>Name one thing wrong with her philosophy - you can't.
She's a hypocrite for collecting Social Security in her later years.

A discussion of Rand's work may have been possible years ago on Yea Forums, but that ship has sailed.

Attached: toilet.paper.png (500x691, 150K)

Literally Google "critiques of ayn Rand"
Once you've refuted the 122,000 results, we can talk.

Not true - and yet again we still have no argument against her philosophy - just baseless smears and ad hominem. See a pattern? That is why you should read her books.

the hate she gets is unjustified and childish, is there really a good/solid reason to hate her work? I don't think so

There's thousands of arguments against her philosophy.
"Hurr durr but they're all bullshit" says you.
And the shit thread goes on.
Fuck off.

Hypocrite cunt. Died while fraudulently receiving welfare.

I've heard of her but never read any of her shit. What did she say or do that was hypocritical?

Yeah because academia is a bunch of liberal douchebags.

Attached: 1389027681221.jpg (266x350, 26K)

>The claim here, quite clearly, is that living things other than human beings automatically act for their own survival. That claim is false. A male mantis, for example, mates, even though the final step of the process consists of being eaten by the female.

But the male mantis IS acting in its own interest AS A MANTIS. What Friedman does is conflate STANDARD with PURPOSE - which is, of course, where philosophy went wrong in the 18th c. Why can't Friedman see such an obvious error - is it because he is thick as shit?

Nope - received a tax rebate under her legal name. All tax is theft. Good for Rand for getting some of her money back from the Man. Her estate is still paying taxes even after her death.

She uses her novels to prove the correctness of her philosophy. Fiction is not appropriate proof.

Also she collected social security when she got old enough

Attached: 4L_IEFioX7o.jpg (1280x720, 101K)

>be born in soviet family
>father loses business
>move to america
>write fantasy novels akin to Harry Potter
>become a libertarian idol
If you like Ayn Rand, you are no better than faggots who idolize J.K. Rowling.
Her books are garbage, you would know that if you actually read them.

it's just radical individualism fuck off

>Literally Google "critiques of ayn Rand"
Once you've refuted the 122,000 results, we can talk.

Why do they always ban me when I answer their criticisms - is it because they are usually religious and feel their whole world is under threat?

Her books are fictional fantasy. Atlas Shrugged is a novel about how socialism destroys America and all of the major industrialists build a city in the mountains veiled by a cloaking device and they build motors that are 100% efficient. I'm ashamed to say I thought that book was good when I was 19. If you like Harry Potter, you'll like Ayn Rand.

>If you like Harry Potter, you'll like Ayn Rand.

Nah, fuck that. Thanks user

>If you like Harry Potter, you'll like Ayn Rand

In other words, if you have good taste, you'll like Ayn Rand

How about the fact that she calls her philosophy "Objectivism" and yet never even offers an argument as to the objectivity of it? She essentially says "This is what I see, therefore that's reality" and the moves on.

>She uses her novels to prove the correctness of her philosophy. Fiction is not appropriate proof.

She addressed philosophy directly in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness, Captalism the Unknown Ideal, The Romantic Manfesto, & Philosophy Who Needs It?

The same reason you don't see any serious critique of Dr. Seuss. It's not worth taking seriously. The only reason someone read's Rand is to find justification for their cupidity.

It's because you are critiquing fiction as if it were founded in reality. You can't say "Ayn Rand was wrong because...", because she wrote fiction novels. You're critiquing a world she created and people will come to her defense because they can't separate fiction from reality.

>
If you like Ayn Rand, you are no better than faggots who idolize J.K. Rowling.
Her books are garbage, you would know that if you actually read them.

See the pattern? - no argument. Again.

>if you have good taste
I was thinking more like if you are 15

>How about the fact that she calls her philosophy "Objectivism" and yet never even offers an argument as to the objectivity of it? She essentially says "This is what I see, therefore that's reality" and the moves on.

No she doesn't - see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

>ayn rand no better than J.K. Rowling
somebody is seething lmao

>
The same reason you don't see any serious critique of Dr. Seuss. It's not worth taking seriously. The only reason someone read's Rand is to find justification for their cupidity.

Ad hominem - fallacy of questioning the motive.

Why not just give ONE example where her philosophy is mistaken?

You being given an entire thread worth of argument but if you can't see it right in front of you, it would explain why you are trying to project fiction books onto reality.
If you want to be a libertarian, that's fine. Just know that Ayn Rand made up a story that sounds nice but isn't realistic.

Who has the libertarian copy pasta about waking up to cannons?

Seen it and no she doesn't actually prove anything. She simply assigns her own definitions to some terms and then claims that her definitions prove the objectivity of her philosophy. That's not an argument.

>
>
>
>
>
Op here. how the fuck do i greentext?

Are these fiction - Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness, Captalism the Unknown Ideal, The Romantic Manfesto, & Philosophy Who Needs It?

Her philosophy [top] is not fiction. It is presented by a philosopher. Where did she go wrong?

Objectivism holds up under scrutiny, name any other philosophy that does, however I do believe the name sucks, Selfishness and how your selfishness benefits others in the long run, the economic model of trade in a more thorough understanding. Model of mutual benefits, because her philosophy is Capitalism works: apply it to everything.

It's a beautiful, simple and elegant philosophy, that only speaks in established truths.

Unlike Platon's offspring philosophies, such as Communism... Her arguments hold up in all cases. And I literally mean it.

She kinda dodged the morality question of her philosophy. Getting good at a job you love doesn't make you a good person automatically. Roman Polansky, much?
Beyond moral failings, I've few other issues with objectivism. I will admit that it's hilarious seeing people get red in the face or just make shit up to deal with her arguments, though. The only real reason I ended up reading her works.
Of course, I'm not an ideologue, so I'm not really interested philosophically in her views to go reading her non-fiction works. The Fountainhead might've been pretty poorly paced in the latter half, but Howard Roark was pretty entertaining for an autistic savant chad husbando who raped a bitch to teach her value herself. Atlas Shrugged didn't have as many "holy shit, we're doing this?" moments, but it was better paced (and a better book) and at least knew what it was going to be from the very beginning.

If you actually read all of those, which i doubt you have, you are doing philosophy/economics wrong. Nothing wrong with immersing yourself with one theory, but if you aren't willing to do the same with other theories, you're simply left with being got by a demagogue. If you want more substantive feedback you need to go to /his/.

anyone past their mid twenties still influenced by her writings cannot be taken seriously.

Please give me an example where Ayn Rand "simply assigns her own definitions to some terms and then claims that her definitions prove the objectivity of her philosophy."

She said the rules ought to be changed. She did not say that people shouldn't play by the rules.

horrible fucking writer,
makes edgy teens feel edgy
john galt was a faggot

Grew up under Soviet Communism. Escapes and comes to West. Sees more food on grocery shelves than ever thought possible and attributes it to wealthy men. Writes books about monochromatic, single-minded greed seekers who have shitty lives in order to get massively rich. Becomes Avant guard, black turtleneck wearing, cocktail drinker who has shitty relationships and money.

>apply the philosophy of the totally free, unrestrained market to literally everything
>claim it holds up in all cases
>doesn't even hold up in the case of economics
Capitalism certainly works, but it doesn't work for everyone. Somalia might be the closest country to actually applying Ayn Rand's principles, maybe you should go there to see how close they are to their utopian society.

"Objectivism holds up under scrutiny, name any other philosophy that does, however I do believe the name sucks, Selfishness and how your selfishness benefits others in the long run, the economic model of trade in a more thorough understanding. Model of mutual benefits, because her philosophy is Capitalism works: apply it to everything.

It's a beautiful, simple and elegant philosophy, that only speaks in established truths.
Unlike Platon's offspring philosophies, such as Communism... Her arguments hold up in all cases. And I literally mean it."

She preferred the term "Existentialism" but it had already been claimed - hence Objectivism.

Humans are a social species. Her philosophy would cause societal collapse if enough people adopted it.

"Getting good at a job you love doesn't make you a good person automatically."

She never said it did.

>
learn
>
to
>
greentext

"Capitalism certainly works, but it doesn't work for everyone. Somalia might be the closest country to actually applying Ayn Rand's principles, maybe you should go there to see how close they are to their utopian society."

She defines capitalism in Cap. the Unknown Ideal - it ain't Somalia.

"Humans are a social species. Her philosophy would cause societal collapse if enough people adopted it."

Termites are a social species - hot take, brother, we ain't termites.

Easy. Same thing that's wrong with communism & socialism: her philosophy fails to account for certain immutable aspects of human nature.

Communism and socialism fail because each individual wants societal recognition for their own achievements and hard work (generally in the form of wealth and reputation). And you just won't convince most people that there's anything wrong with that.

Objectivism fails because we do have altruistic impulses, and do derive joy from helping others. And its a hard sell that all altruism is evil

This is what made me move away from the philosophy, as a die-hard in my early- mid-20s (used to buy copies of Anthem in bulk as give them out as a good, quick-read intro).

Still think there are important ideas in there and reading the majors (Atlas, Fountainhead) is critical to a well-rounded philosophical education as Marx and all the other big names.

>greentext

Thank you.

Is she a dictionary, now? Russia could be capitalist if I wrote a book defining "Capitalism" as "Communism, but named capitalism"

Not even a counter-argument here.

>Objectivism fails because we do have altruistic impulses, and do derive joy from helping others. And its a hard sell that all altruism is evil

Altruism has ZERO to do with helping others. Altruism means taking some unchosen OTHER as your moral standard and purpose in life. If that isn't evil I cannot imagine what is.

>recognised as a pathology by the American Psychiatric Association
Fixed

>Is she a dictionary, now? Russia could be capitalist if I wrote a book defining "Capitalism" as "Communism, but named capitalism"

She referenced the definition given in the Encyclopedia Britannica - and pointed out its crucial - but mistaken - assumption.
[Whose surplus value?}

Wrong! She died at her house and she didn't depend on any welfare to live according to her associates. She took welfare because she paid taxes, meaning she in part paid in order to have welfare.

Why not take it if it cost you money?

>Not even a counter-argument here.

"Social species" is NOT the defining characteristic of man, obvs.

t. butthurt commie

Sounds like she was a hypocrite to me. Before you get triggered im a william f Buckley conservative that voted for drumpf.

>Name one thing wrong with her philosophy

she wrote it

Attached: 4-Sperm-Whale.jpg (2700x1800, 1.17M)

Atlas shrugged is an abject pile of dogshit but it does crystallise her philosophy. In it she criticises skillless people who nevertheless have power handed to them. Power taken from skilled creators whose talents were in her view divine, by people who were not involved in the production of wealth and assets.

Which is exactly what we have now only it's a ruling elite and corporate hegemony who are siphoning wealth off the production and skill of endentured servants. Endentured because of landlordism which through market manipulation and illegal cooperation takes the lion's share of wages.

If Rand was born in the 90s she'd probably develop on side with the left because of all that.