>>75850 But this was actually a common trope back then in art, you see a lot of anti-capitalist art back then with dollar signs literally being worshiped in place of god.
Then again capitalism was different back then, and people with economic and political theories were actually terrified of the real possibility of state controlled markets because of bolsheviks back then.
>>76073 People exaggerate things they like all the time. I think people just need to understand the context of early 20th century philosophies and economic arguments, they were formulated often as a reaction of Marx and the CCCP. Almost no one currently thinks a fully state run economy is a good thing. (A government with a market that can exercise unilateral power to out compete other nations on the other hand...). Things like Austrian economics are a relic of the past, and honestly not that well formulated.
When you say "her philosophy" do you mean her "her philosophy" or "the ludicrous caricature of her philosophy that libkeks like to circulate so they feel good about themselves?"
Honestly I hate the bitch, but the the shit people say about her is so embarrassingly uninformed.
"Salon told me that Ayn Rand thinks we should all should slit each other's throats and everything is about money!" "Huffington Post told me she wants everyone to be selfish and that poor people have it coming!"
Jesus Christ, does Paul Krugman have priority access to all your higher cognition? Gas yourselves please.
Her fatal flaw is being a libertarian and a disgusting lack of understanding of Marxist philosophy. Basically she is a weak mind who enjoys being classkeked and sucking off the rich. (i.e. “govt. coercion bad. coercion by bourgeois good”). Not to mention the woman who railed against social services spent the remainder of her scumbag days “leeching” (as she might say) of said system. Also, no such thing as a free market. Also Rand rejects the notion of libido domini and explicitly states that man’s highest achievement is to self-serve and produce for themselves a philosophy/lifestyle that best suits their personal habits/world view etc. I find that this sort of logic forgoes fundamental social interaction of human nature (another contradiction in her assertions on the nature of that as well). Basically, save yourself the time and don’t read Atlas Shrugged, it’s a waste of life to read such drivel.
I remember i gave an older friend of mine (82) one of her books which i never read but bought when i was 16, I can only hope he didn't read through it.His opinion of me would have been lowered to the grave
Not even the smartest people on earth are as rational as the her charters, Dagny and Rarden are just not realistic. She also pushes the boundary of those James Taggart, it's almost absurd in some sense.
Hard to disagree, she has some good points but in the end people are too emotional to be so strictly rational.
The way Rand uses the term, charitable actions *are* supposed to be selfish in that they procure either social capital or benefit the actor directly by giving him fuzzy feelings. The point is, no one would give to charity if it makes them feel like shit.
What Objectivists object to is the despondent kind of altruism where people sulk like faggots until they get what they want.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
>>77205 Might have been an objectivist, but you cannot deny that the way she constructed the story was highly in line with with libertarian fiscal beliefs. Not to mention her spouting about everyman for himself is perhaps the greatest tenant of libertarian mode of thought. Say what you like, but she’s simply a massive hypocrite.
>>77241 kek. Implying CCCP was not corrupted by Leninist interpretation of Marxism, poorly executed etc. Clearly you misunderstand Marxism and its application in the CCCP. It was shit because they did not follow Marxism, Bolsheviks were absolutely moronic, etc. Not to mention, if we want to play the “lived under ‘communism’” card (because it isn’t Marxism, as you imply), please enlighten me on how to counter the countless people who enjoyed the prosperity. I’d like to clarify I’m not a tankie, and think the whole notion of “lived under communism, here is my opinion” is non-sequitur in most cases.
A friend and I visited Italy a few years back, toured a lot of the great museums. Along the way, we had a bit of an aesthetic disagreement. I actually thought that Bernini's David was better than the famous Michelangelo's sculpture of the same.
In the end, we agreed on most of the particulars. Michelangelo's is more impressive, powerful, imposing, but Bernini's is more human and complicated. We agreed to disagree on our opinions as to which was the better statue.
According to Rand though, there is ONE objective truth in all matters, and if people disagree, it is because one or both imperfectly grasp this objective truth. Therefore, you cannot have an aesthetic disagreement where one person might value imposition and another values humanistic facial expression. One of us is right, and the other of us is wrong.
If you don't think a moral system like that is retarded, there isn't much hope for you.
>>77916 I’ve read, nice ad hominem anon. She’s a scumbag because she very clearly detested social services, but masked and justified her usage of them by saying it served her self-interest. Basically she wanted to absolve herself of her flawed logic. Maybe she should’ve used all the proceeds from volk like you who shilled out for her shitty content.
>>78028 Basically I think she used her philosophy to justify her contrarian actions and betrayal of said ideology she spouted. She consistently claims to be objectivist, yet spews libertarianism. She claims to detest x and because of “muh self-interest” she justifies her taking advantage of x (i.e. the social services I previously mentioned.)
>>78228 But it’s a backwards consistency. It’s circular logic. She lacks sufficient causality and basis to justify her actions. Seldom will you find a philosopher who so easily betrays their system with their cowardice. Rand was a self-interested classkek.
>>78230 You’re a genius. Re: If she was so convinced of her ideology why didn’t she consider dying for it. How can you seriously consider a life time of espousing bullshit against social systems and then be okay. > hurr muh self-interest. Fuck off, anon.
i have never seen a problem with basic safety net social services just the leaches who live off them for life. why cant all the unemployed people just become work battalions like in China ect? that being said wasnt Ayn Rnad a hypocrite and deluded for thinking that Fascist corporatism meant freedom?
...the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.
>>76667 Its not very well worded but I sort of agree with her. I haven't read any of her work but altruism for the sake of altruism can be and often is very destructive. There are genuine logical reasons to help other people's survival. And sometimes there are none. If you help someone that shouldn't be helped then you've done something wrong. I dont really know what she was on about other than what I've heard but it seems to be an extreme from of amorality that's short sighted and flawed but at its heart still a good ideology.
>>75962 I don't get this stupid shit. What the fuck is true altruism. how to be an autistic empirical faggot take a word that has meaning and a working usage add a word in front of it and make it an unsatisfiable definition. damage language.
>>75764 The less fortunate need the help of the more fortunate because charity functions as a safety net for society.
Leaving aside the debate of whether charity should be enforced (taxation and social spending) vs voluntarily (donating 100 bucks a month to UNICEF or something), the fact of the matter is that it keeps the bottom of our society from falling out.
Do you really want American poor shitting in the streets and spreading cholera? Because without assistance from their economical betters, that's the end result.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.