How come people who criticize Rand always attack her (((person))) or appeal to emotions (muh feelings) instead of coming up with logical arguments? Do people feel exposed after being told that they are egoists instead of the precious, selfless, caring person they think they are? Does Rand shatters their illusions about themselves so hard that they can't help but going into an agressively defensive stance?
The way i see it, there are two kinds of people in this world: The ones who reject reality and themselves and are doomed to live in a state of self induced dissatisfaction and the ones who accept their nature and the universe as it is, therefore recognizing their own limitations and potential, thus leading a productive, happy life.
How come people who criticize Rand always attack her (((person))) or appeal to emotions (muh feelings) instead of...
She was right about everything.
Does Rand shatters their illusions about themselves so hard that they can't help but going into an agressively defensive stance?
Yes.
And checked. She just emotionally rustles their jimmies a bit too much. That's what I noticed over the years.
I wouldn't go that far but she had great ideas and deserves to be more widely read.
There are no emotions at play here. She is a kike, which should always be pointed out when dealing with subversive people, and her ideology is as retarded as communism is. In fact, they are pretty much the same hedonistic materialism based on vain individualism that is utterly toxic and destructive to modern day countries.
fpbp /thread
What are some of her major takes
vain individualism
Being individualist doesn't mean that you shouldn't be part of any form of social community.
fp
Go back, newfag
shee took the utopian socialt idea of rational egoism from chernyshevsky's book "What Is to Be Done?", and turned it upside down, because she didn't understand implications that egoism is a basis of altruistic behavior.
there is nothing to criticize.
In my experience less than 1% of her fans or detractors have read her work.
If you were familiar with Atlas Shrugged COVID was a cakewalk.
It does. Because that is what this kike's ideology is literally about. Putting your own needs above others, believing in nothing and thinking that morality is subjective. This is literally the cancer that kills white communities and modern day society. It's a bunch of idiots who believe that being consumerist animals clamoring for the brand new iphone is peak freedom
(((she's))) the Marx of capitalism
I used to think so, but lately I think she was right about 75% of the time.
always attack her[..] or appeal to emotions (muh feelings) instead of coming up with logical arguments?
You realise how ridiculously retarded the combination of these words are? We attack her appeal to emotions, but are wrong to not come with logical arguments? Nice.
Fouth post best post croat
holy shit what letter do you think four starts with, disgusting ESL poster?
this video for dummies explains it well youtube.com
Cope redditors. After the 2nd it's TPBP
That's not her take. Rand says the individual should be free to do what is good for him. This does not necessarily coincide with what the individual wants, there being a conflict between will and reason, the individual should deny the will and go with reason.
as a Jewess she lacks the morals that make White society function so much better than any other.
I watched The Fountainhead old movie and it was trying to say it was OK for a guy who was paid to design a building to burn it down and kill someone in the process, because the builder's changed some of "his" design without permission.
Jews are all criminally insane.
Even if they broke a contract that means you can sue them, not murder people, and THAT is also part of the Contract, by default. Don't like it? Keep your building plans to yourself then. :)
She also wrote the Screen Play, so it was "true to her vision".
en.wikipedia.org
They should've figured out some equally dumb reason to justify killing her after production and be like "LOL fafo"
HERE
she never went full ancap so no.
Have you even read anything from Ayn Rand? That's PRECISELY what her whole idea is.
Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life.
The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.
You see the absolute degeneracy that prevails the modern world. You see how wrong it is. Yet you think advocating for more of it is a good idea. Her ideals are exactly the same as Marx if someone bothered to read him- a fragmented bunch of people, having nothing in common with each other except the sole purpose of attaining more money for themselves.
All the troons, faggots, leftist degenerates or right wing cuckservatives, that is the problem. All of them care about their own pleasures and well being and nobody believes in anything higher than themselves which in turns causes a fractured and divided nation that simply eats itself because everyone is against the other. You cannot have unity or even prosperity if everyone looks to advance himself at the expense of the other guy.
All the great ancient societies were built on the belief of the common weal, of the belief of something greater, of the belief that everyone is part of a much bigger structure in which they all, united, advance it make it bigger and more prosperous. It used to be that the rich Romans would throw all their wealth to the citizens and go to fight in the Punic Wars because they beleived in their way of life and the idea of Rome. We don't have that anymore. We have none of it. And it's purely because of self egocentric kikes like Ayn Rand, Karl Marx and similar cancerous "individualistic" ideologies.
she mostly seems just not very bright.
"just do stuff for yourself". Yeah, that is everyone's default they figure out at about 4yrs old. Thx Ayn, WTF would we do without your amazing Jewish wisdom?
As a Jew she is unable to understand WTF anyone would be other.
I can also tell you without checking she'd be of course all for Socialism for herself in rather small minded way, with less self awareness than a Negress welfare queen complaining about Whitey not giving her enough gibs.
The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.
That is not what morality is through objectivism. Morality holds that your life is the most precious value, and that it is your duty as an individual to live your life according to your values in your pursuit of happiness. This doesn't mean go be a hedonistic freak, because typically being a hedonistic freak has insane drawbacks. If you're a womanizer, you're more likely to hurt yourself in the long run because people will grow to distrust you and you're not building good relationships. If you use drugs, you will probably irreversibly harm your brain, thus lowering your capabilities of achieving anything meaningful in your life. If you're a dickhead to your neighbors, you probably will not be able to create a fluorishing atmosphere in your neighborhood that allows you to have tight knit community built around honesty and integrity.
All the troons, faggots, leftist degenerates or right wing cuckservatives, that is the problem.
Aren't these all collectivist groups that believe they're doing better for their common man instead of living their own lives for themselves? Cuckservatives praise tariffs and demagogues and enjoy using government force (regulations), troons think kids should have access to estrogen at 7 y/o through government force, and leftist use coercion to rob you of your bank account and distribute welfare which creates irresponsible societies. They're all sides of the same face. They want to take away the capabilities of men greater than you.
All the great ancient societies were built on the belief of the common
All ancient great societies were built because one man found a group of like minded men, and they used logic and reason and their own selfish desires to achieve things that lesser men could never. It just so happens that a couple times intellectuals came out from hiding and created ground breaking ideas that set the worlds motion.
i've read a lot of what she wrote. i don't agree with everything but she made some valid arguments. john galt was definitely a neet.
promotes individual selfishness to the masses
lives tribal selfishness herself
Perhaps that's why it's problematic?
That is not what morality is through objectivism.
This is literally an Ayn Rand quote, my friend. You're sounding like one of those marxist scum that love to tell you 'well, akcshually, that's not real communism'. The pursuit to your own happiness can be anything that can make you happy, that is lolbertarian logic. If that is drugs, chopping your cock off or donating to whores, that is the pinnacle of existence because it is what makes you happy. That's the whole point of it.
Aren't these all collectivist groups
Precisely the opposite because all of these people I mentioned believe that people can choose what they want to be. If you want to be a tranny? Go ahead, there's nothing wrong with you, you're an individual and can be whatever you like to be. It's a fundamentally selfish brand of individualism. The belief that nobody is accountable to anything or anyone and everyone is free to choose who they want to be. What is their favorite motto 'her body, her choice'. Literally peak lolbertarianism even though I genuinely agree with abortion because it culls niggers and other vermin. As far as them being hypocrites, of course. But so was Ayn Rand. She died on government gibs the very thing she supposedly hated the most.
All ancient great societies were built because one man found a group of like minded men
I mean, that is simply not true at all. They founded those societies because they believed in something greater than themselves. That is why I gave the example of the Roman patricians who gave their wealth in order to go fight in a war. How does risking their life for other people and their nation and nothing to gain count as 'selfish'? Their actions were also not led by logic or reason but by the belief of building something greater than themselves, often times at their own detriment. And that isn't just Rome, it's Athens. They were the exact opposite of selfish
her work insists upon itself
reading books written by women
reading books written by Jews
Choose neither.
This is literally an Ayn Rand quote
you are quoting out of context.
"But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.."
media.lanecc.edu
Rand's writings are very much against hedonism.
I just don't have the attention span to read through her long winded sexual fantasies masquerading as critique.
That is literally an ayn rand quote
Yes, that you took out of context with the rest of your post. Likewise, you mention libertarian, when she herself loathed libertarians and the hippies in the movement. Likewise, she doesn't advocate for chopping your cock off, she advocates for doing what is in your moral self-interest. Does that mean everyone should go and chop their dick off? No, but if you have a sincere rational thought process as to why you should chop your dick off, and have you determined that not having a dick is of greater self value to you than it is to have one, then have at it. It turns out most people want to have their dicks, because they value having one versus not having a necro-vagina. The same way most people prefer not drinking or smoking, so they don't drink or smoke.
Precisely the opposite
But they're not, they're exactly on the dot. They don't believe people can do whatever they want, Christcucks want Christ to be everywhere, conversatives want to define America as a White Christian nation, they unitlaterlly want everyone to collectivize under one uniform banner, because the idea is that they will create the highest likelihood for success in their minds. She also didn't die on government gibs, she received her social security that she paid into and was entitled to. That's not government gibs, she was very well off by the time of her death.
She also doesn't believe that nobody is accountable, in fact, quite the opposite, if you choose to engage with other individuals as an individual, you are explicitly accountable for your participation in the relationship. If you commit fraud as a womanizer to get in womens pants constantly, then you are accountable for the lack of trust people will have in you.
I mean, that is simply not true
That simply is true. Do you just think there was this collective bottle that romans just reached into to create aqueducts? No, it was individuals, it's always individuals. Even today it is.
who tf is Ayn Rand ? Is it this lady in OPs pic ? In my mother tongue 'Rand' means prostitute lmao no cap...
Read fountainhead and it was zzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZZ
the philosophy is cool but shes a shit writer. libcucks dont argue with facts, go look at any critique of the books. "durr she called indigenous people savages than 1 time"
How come goyim won't engage with my pilpul?!
The eternal complaint of the kike.
I like her ideology and I agree with her sentiment but god damn was atlas shrugged boring as fuck. I tried to get into it but gave up after a few chapters.
fuck off faggot
What's so great about Ayn Rand? As far as I know, she wrote some book named Atlas Shrugged and now libertarians love her
Give me one of her great ideas
Rand says the individual should be free to do what is good for him. This does not necessarily coincide with what the individual wants, there being a conflict between will and reason, the individual should deny the will and go with reason.
In other words, do what you think is right if its practical. Is that it? Is this some great deep philosophical take that I should be gob smacked by?
The problem with this whole statement is that it is hypocritical in of itself. What constitutes an 'irrational whim' in her mind? What is the 'happiness proper to man'? These are meaningless statements. If the goal is that each should live life how he wants to, then placing rules on what you can be and you can't is a contradiction.
No, but if you have a sincere rational thought process as to why you should chop your dick off
And therein lies the problem. I might have a sincere rational thought of murdering and stealing, that doesn't make it right, just as chopping your cock off because you're mentally ill doesn't.
They don't believe people can do whatever they want
But they do. Conservatives believe anyone can be Christian. Conservatives believe anyone can be a faggot. Conservatives even believe that people are free to be trannies so long as they are not in women's sports. Conservatives believe people anyone can be an immigrant so long as it's done... LEGALLY.
She also doesn't believe that nobody is accountable, in fact, quite the opposite
Just because she was retarded doesn't absolve her retarded ideology. Her placing arbitary rules on what is allowed and what isn't goes contrary to the core of lolbertarian ideology. That is that everyone is free to choose who they want to be and that morals are objectiv
Do you just think there was this collective bottle that romans just reached into to create aqueducts? No
Problem is you don't understand what collectivism and individualism are. Collectivism is the belief that people band together in a shared common goal to achieve something greater. Individualism is the belief that your own morals and well being supercedes everyone else's. Obviously there are varying degrees to both but that is what they are in their core sense. Rome, or any great ancient or medieval society, were built on the former, not the latter.
she said india should be nuked to glass.
That's also retarded though. I like their wildlife and ancient temples. The best way to reduce the Indian population is to spread feminism there
instead of coming up with logical arguments?
she died poor and miserable, why would i listen to life advice from a loser?
i read the whole thing.
the philosophy is sound, what makes the book shit is her girl boss self insert. Her getting wet for boss men who take what they want is great and all but not interesting. Also the girlboss captain of industry shit is gay. In fact the captain of industry stuff is part of the problem because it implies that the best and most effective thing about capitalism are CEOs. Real people understand that CEOs are the parasite class.
She was right about everything.
Except for her support for the state of Israel. Look, I get that she was a Jew (at least ethnically or whatever) so she had some bias towards Israel, but still that bias was there and it made her a hypocrite because it contradicted much of what she purported to believe. Israel is a state, so why should it be given a special treatment that she wouldn't give to any other state?
If the retarded cunt made an argument other than "being a cunt is swell" please state it here and I will refute it. All she ever did was tell rich people that they are swell and that they should give her money for telling retards that the rich are swell.
Marxism is the prevailing school of “thought” in most western universities. Every Ayn Rand book takes the concept of marxism and thoroughly, publicly and irrefutably buttfucks it. They can’t let Rand become popular because her works are the antithesis to all left wing ideology
Every Ayn Rand book takes the concept of marxism and thoroughly, publicly and irrefutably buttfucks it
Ayn Rand was a Marxist in the real sense of the word.
Marxism is the prevailing school of “thought” in most western universities.
You are retarded.
No he's correct
Murdering and stealing
You're once again, just making shit up. Her morality doesn't advocate for harming others, that is why law and order are establisehd and the only useful utility of government function.
But they do.
No, they don't. The exact whiplash you see right now on the right are people distinctly trying to categorize groups into a collective banner. Likewise, they also support theft with taxation, and they also want communism for jobs instead of allowing people to freely trade with who they deem fit. Conservatives are just as collectivist as the others.
Just because she was retarded.
I understand you're giving up and you have no idea what you're talking about.
Problem is you don't understand what collectivism and individuals are
Yes, I do.You believe in entitlement. I.E. If you are born a roman, you are entitled to everything that the great Romans before you made, despite being of nominal importance. You believe that Romans or other great societies aren't compromised of individuals, but rather a demagogue society in which every Roman is the best, and they created this mystical ball that no one can touch called "Romanism" and it encapsulated the spirit. But it's not Roman spirit, it's individuals who saw better men than they were, and the philosophically thought about the world around them. There may have been an ideological model of a successful person, and people may have saught after it. But it was not a great roman spirit, it was great Roman individuals.
But we don't all attack her ad hominem... let's divorce Objectivism from Ayn Rand for a moment, its ethics are off because they're purportedly based on what humans need to survive, but they omit the tribal predation phenomenon seen in the West against members of the European Aryan race ironically moreso against the individualists who have shut out the issue entirely than the (rationally) racist and xenophobic who at least have their guards up. The Objectivist answer is to simply double down and decry the alien predators among us for not being individualistic, presumably until we have been bred out of existence, terrible system for helping us to survive as it advertises itself to be.
muh free trade
found the kike who thinks that parasite (((merchants))) and (((bankers))) deserve all that they have
You're once again, just making shit up
How? I am following my life pleasures and basing my morals on what makes me happy which is objectivism. I also never said she advocated that, just like Marx didn't advocate for the murder of millions of people, but the end result of her ideology is precisely that. In a sense, Ted Bundy was a peak objectivist.
a collective banner
There are always 'groups'. Even Ayn Rand was a part of a group. That is a consequence of us being social animals. But the basic gist of modern society is based on individualism and the pursuit of each own's happiness. What do leftists and conservatives believe? They believe that every man should be allowed to choose what he wants to be. That is literally what Ayn Rand centered her ideology around for. This in turn has created the hellhole culture that we now live in because nobody has any concept of loyalty towards anything but their own self
You believe that Romans or other great societies aren't compromised of individuals, but rather a demagogue society in which every Roman is the best
But that is quite literally what the Romans believed though. They collectively believed they were superior to everyone and that each Roman citizen is worth the lives of everyone else's. That is why whenever a single Roman citizen was threatened by an outside nation, even a single one, the whole Rome would bear down on that nation and destroy it. The Romans believed that Rome is eternal and that themselves are servants to that idea. From the lowliest of the low, to the highest of the high, they all expressed that same ideal. Sacrificing themselves for Rome was considered the greatest accomplishment and they didn't no fancy fairy tale religion to do it. It's simply that they held their society and their way of life sacred. This is why despite Hannibal ravaging Italy for 20 years he could never break them. Nobody placed their own needs above the others and they were all united.
There's nothing objective about her arguments, paradoxically.
Her entire grift was to say that the wealthy were the smart people that deserved everything they got because they worked for it and everyone that wasn't in that group were lazy parasites that didn't put enough of that hard work which doesn't make sense because meritocracy is an utopia. In reality upbringing and connections play a crucial role in how far you can get in life.
Rand did not realize that a free market becomes unfree almost immediately without anti-trust laws. Or rather, she realized it but denied that it was happening.
not everything but she was right about a lot. abortion and atheism are retarded hills to die on. people shit on her because she was a self hating jew and only barely toed the line. she says shit like 'communists' and 'socialists' and all the antagonists in her books were extremely, extremely jewish while 100% of the good guys were euro as fuck in demeanor, drive, intelligence, and with maybe one exception for a fucking spaniard, physically even though he was literally described as white. however she falls in line completely like every other 'individualism' and 'meritocracy' preacher like JBP and the like by building their career on 'racism is evil, it's all about ideology and culture' etc because as soon as the subject of Israel comes up it's ALL thrown out the window and 'it's fine when they do it' applies. people zero in on her taking social security - which is literally people taking back a fraction of their money they were forced to give the government, interest free - but the Israel thing is a better point of criticism by far, except they don't focus on that because jews.
and she routinely criticized pure consumption because it interfered with her obsession with production and reason. and at the end of atlas shrugged, the unthinking consumerist, non productive masses were left to the destruction of civilization without any understanding because they just kept themselves consumed with distractions and refused to produce. it's an idealization, sure, but it was also the fucking 60s and shit was looking great for American capitalism at that time for the average post war people. she was extremely, extremely early noticing her own peoples' communist rhetoric and political shit sneaking in but she, being a jew, didn't call it what it was so no one made the connections. she had a shot to name them and blew it and that's what I hold against her
Marxism is the prevailing school of “thought” in most western universities
How do you know this?
How?
Because that's not her morality, read the rest of that post lol. You're advocating for Max Stirner ideology. The end result of her phlosophy is prospering (See the Enlightenment and the first 120 years of America).
There are always groups
Yes, people can choose to voluntarily be apart of groups. However, just because you are a part of a group does not mean that the group itself is an entity that should be capable of using force, coercion, or other means to get their way. Likewise, it doesn't absolve the group from judgement from others.
But that's what the romans believed
But that doesn't change the facts or the context, society moves forward because of great individuals and thinkers. Not because of some collective belief in something. We don't get global delivery of goods because the collective magically conjured it up, it's because Jeff Bezos makes it.
Cringe
Lolberts are scum