Why do left-leaning people hate her so much?

Cuz she’s hotter than them.

...

why she look like hitler?

Why is it fucking stupid?

Interesting story. Thank you.

because she's a jew

I was in a literal communist bookstore this one time and these two older white guys were chilling round a table and shooting the shit. I browsed and they got round to Ayn Rand:

"oh yeah, she took welfare!"

"yeah, yeah. But she was an atheist at least."

This got nodding, sage approval from the other guy. It was funny watching two old men have such a 15-year-old reddit conversation in real life. Understand that I don't defend Rand at all, but merely shit on these old leftists.

Good story, thanks

Look the the crazies who pretend to take her books seriously.

>She's just one of countless shitty writers
Also the single most influential american philosopher of all time whose ideas still make waves in the upper echelons of the neoliberal politico-economic machinery, but ok.

Too hardcore, simply put.

I always find it funny that when the 2008 economic crash happened, Zizek wrote an article saying 'John Galt did this'. He understands that Ayn Rand, beyond whatever people might think of her pulp writing, represents the western capitalistic mythical mentality in its purest form.
The left hate her because she just tells psychopaths to do whatever and there's only so much someone can stop that extreme.

People think that by constantly insulting her writing and dismissing her as worthless, her influence will vanish.

It’s working.

>It's working
lol

She's a Jewish hack.

>t. Alan Greenspan
lmao @ ur life

I'm more far from left than far-left, but I still find her mostly vile. Admittedly, I'm prejudiced because I haven't read her, but it's similar to my disdain for Muslims despite never reading the Koran.

anti-semitism is rampant in the left

yeah, it has nothing to do with philosophy or libertarian discussion and everything to do with power and everything else is an externality. shit is for psychopaths.

Can we meme her to win the Nobel prize next month?

Of course it's about power. Calling Ayn Rand shit is the only thing idiots have to diminish her influence and think does anything.
>lol throw her book far that'll help!

Her philosophy is rather simplistic once you understand that the core is master morality values without having to exploit or use others, just rely on one's self. The issue is that by saying 'go, just be the best you can, stand firm in your conviction', psychopaths and idiots also get that message as avocation to do whatever they want.
She understood the core of capitalism and people hate her for it. And by hating her, they are unable to see what she advocated.

>altruism is ackchyually evil
was ayn rand a postmodernist?

She was a modernist that thought postmodernism was inherently relativist and nihilistic, so no.

Better question is why the right doesn't.

Because the part that isn't conservative, collectivist and racists of the right understand what she stands for.

I doubt Rand even knew what postmodernism is - due to her biography, she simply was an anti-marxist/communist.

She doesn't say altruism is evil, she only says the duty of being altruistic is evil.

but duty is duty, it can't be evil

>left-leaning

Someone telling me it's my duty to kill you for the good of others is evil. Similarly, I wouldn't want some asshat to kill me out of abstract notions of their mind to make other people happy by proxy.

Egotism bordering on psychopathy?

>Someone telling me it's my duty to kill you for the good of others is evil.
well of course, murder is evil

>Similarly, I wouldn't want some asshat to kill me out of abstract notions of their mind to make other people happy by proxy.
doesn't make it much better if they murder you to take your wallet in a completely self-interested way

"Duty" is a word Kant introduced while he completely (and maybe intentionally) misunderstood himself.

Eudaimonic ethics (like Rand's) don't use the term and don't need to use it.
Rand's argument is kind of Feuerbachian: she thinks the duty of altruism was brought up by religious leaders and communists as an instrument of power to rule and suppress people. It's not a "natural duty" or something like that. That's why she calls it evil.

Yes. The only thing she advocated was egotism without breaking the law or infringing on the rights of others.
Inherently, she advocated being a psychopath that doesn't do anything unlawful, which actual psychopaths see it as a green light to do anything, and people blame her for it.

The biggest issue is mostly that she advocated Apollonian values to its extreme and most of her followers, which Nietzsche warned and hated, was that 'rationality' would deny all nature. She is pure rationality and logic to the point of absurdity and it's the reason why most of her fans are either psychopaths that don't care or autists. Or they act so apathetic to others that it's insufferable.
>I'm rich and better than you, why should I care about how you live

>to rule and suppress
and especially exploit
>people

Exploitation is her main argument (just forgot to add it).

>remember when discussing Ayn Rand was bannable on Veeky Forums?
I miss those days.

Needlessly verbose, like all idiots.

According to Rand
>Duty is the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest.

Kant argued that you shouldn't even care about your happiness and that you should follow the categorical imperative as your duty as to not feel any guilt. Kant understood full well the implications of duty by preaching pure deontology.

Ayn Rand argued that there is no such thing as a 'natural duty' or any kind. You shouldn't care about the well being of others that you have no interest in but also not seek to exploit them for your own gain.

>funny thing is that following the categorical imperative is the exact way to pursue happiness and (which is far more important for Kant) to be able to act freely. Following the categorical imperative means to be following your own free(!) will (instead of your affects and emotions).
That's why I think the term "duty" isn't even necessary here.
The reason, I'm unsure, if he misunderstood himself intentionally or unintentionally is censorship. You can read Kant as the definition of a liberal (in the European not the American sense of the word, which means, as someone whose greatest ideal is freedom) - which didn't exactly fit the political landscape of his time.
For example his anchoring of his ethics on the existance of god isn't necessary at all - they were anchored by their structure alone.
So why does he do all that unnecessary stuff?

ups, first sentence wasn't meant to be a quote

No, the categorical imperative is following abstract notions which must be followed regardless of free will or desires, as a manner of duty. This is why Kant says it's your duty to always tell the truth. He's pure deontology that needs to be followed by everyone collectively. There is no freedom when you impose yourself to duty so that you do not feel any guilt.

>So why does he do all that unnecessary stuff?
Because God is the ultimate absolute and authority. It isn't necessary but it gives greater credence of following the categorical as a means of duty.

Dude, have you ever fucking read Kant? He literally says that the only way to be truly free is to act in accordance with rational duty.

That's exactly how Kant wanted to be read by the people of his time. But he's a genius in hiding stuff. Sometimes he just skips a whole step of his argument playfully just to see if people are able to follow and understand him.

Now, just ask yourself why the basic form of the categorical imperativ is formulated the way it is. Kant never tells you. He says something about "good will" and something about that it's a "synthetic judgement a priori" but he never actually explains said judgement.

>There is no freedom when you impose yourself to duty
What if said duty actually was to be free?

Sounds like bullshit to excuse bullshit.

This

cultural marxism basically

Because she's just Stirner for middle schoolers desu

Frauenkunst: Je besser das Gedicht, desto schlechter das Gesicht.

>She looks like an orc
>Still inferior to basically every male philosopher ever

Ahh yes, the Karltural Marxisms. The cause of all evil in the world. High taxes? Cultural Marxism. Black people demanding fair treatment? Carltural Morxism. Transgendered people existing? Marktural Carxism. Stubben your toe? Cultural Marxism.

>fair treatment
>existing
Top spooked

A lot of people hate here, I'd say a majority of republicans hate her as well.

Hello neocon

Not the user who wrote that but how did you find his response needlessly verbose?

This is something I've noticed too. For example I had an Philosophy professor make an off-hand remark disparaging Ayn Rand in a discussion about Hume, and a few students laughed and hooted and hollered, one even interrupting the lecture to tell a poorly articulated anecdote about how hard Atlas Shrugged was to read and about how evil its message was. This was at UC Berkeley, mind you. I wish I was kidding.

I had a teacher who had studied economics and he gave a course in civic rights. He was unable to explain why a business needs to grow/produce more. But he sure hated Ayn Rand.

Why exactly does a business need to grow/produce more?

youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

Rand is low hanging fruit for both sides of the fence, hence she gets plenty of coverage.

well if we assume that a business doesn't cuts costs inflation will eats its profit/ turn it into losses. Technology advances so new machines are needed. If you just barley get by you wont be able to afford it or if you get a loan to afford it, you wont be able to pay it back since your bottom line is stagnant. There is also the competition , if you don't grow they will and soon enough they will eat into your market share at lower cost since they can buy at a better price.

It had too many big words >:(

Businesses don't need to grow/produce more. In fact, it's better if they don't. Models of sustainability need to replace models of infinite growth.

Where was the argument in there?

there is nothing stupid about freedom. unmolested trade is optimal the the goals you want.

i consider it a form of limited restitution for suffering the twisted reality the state burdens us with

no she just has a better understanding of economics

more money is better, that's why utility functions are upwards sloping

>Zizek
>argument
kek

I'm left as fuck and i don't hate her, I disagree with her. i don't know her as a person and her ideas seem morally justified, I just don't agree with her.

I'm not a leftist and I don't even care about her political and economic views, just read Anthem. It's an average dystopia story, not that bad till she's literally going "MEMEMEMEME I'm going to live only for myself fuck everyone I won't even really love this qt girl who ran away with me EGOEGOEGOEGOEGO". So embarrassing I lost all sympathy to the protagonist. Same vibes I got from first chapter of Atlas Shrugged and dropped it.

>In fact, it's better if they don't. Models of sustainability need to replace models of infinite growth.
empty words. what would an economy based on sustainability look like? Who would enforce it? You?

Do people actually hate her, when ever I, a left-leaner, see people discuss her shes usually dismissed as a silly jokes. I don't think anyone sees her as dangerous

>Ayn Rand
>single most influential american philosopher of all time
LMFAO the absolute state of this board
>left-leaning
>implying that's the only kind of people that hate her
Nice meme. She's considered a shit typhilosopher (i should say shitty sci-fi writer, since the vast majority of intellectuals don't even consider her a proper philosopher) from every philosopher and economist (or any intellectual, really) worth his salt from left to right.

They were right

Daily reminder AR literally put a curse on a guy's dick

Because her system is just capitalism. It might be even worse than capitalism

???

her system is simply unmolested trade

Slave morality [via judeo-cuckstian values]

>altruism is inherently good bro!
"No!"

name a single american philosopher whose ideas had more influence on people
pro-tip: by "people" I don't mean the fucking academia

>the architects of neoliberalism (aka peak Americanism) weren't avid Ayn Rand readers
Influence != Quality

capitalism is just free trade

>thinks formal currency can exist in the absence of the state

kek, no wonder people don't take ancaps seriously

salt, gold certificate notes, bitcoin

Are you saying that philosophical objectivism is influenced "the people"? Fucking lol. Again, if with "philosophy" you mean "DUDE EGOISM LMAO" that's hardly her own idea (see: Stirner).
Also
>name a single american philosopher whose ideas had more influence on people
Emerson? James? Thoreau? There's plenty of actual philosophers who had way more influence on the common american zeitgeist than this ugly hack.
>pro-tip: by "people" I don't mean the fucking academia
Fuck, I should have read the rest of your post before respoding.

>How about Quine?
>hurr he's an academic he doesn't count

Nice impossible demand you've set up there fucking idiot. Also:
>Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Rand developed and promoted her Objectivist philosophy through her nonfiction works and by giving talks to students at institutions such as Yale, Princeton, Columbia,[83] Harvard, and MIT.[84]

>is
*has

What about counterfeits?

>Again, if with "philosophy" you mean "DUDE EGOISM LMAO" that's hardly her own idea (see: Stirner).
And yet people besides Veeky Forums autists know who Rand is and read her books, while the same can't be said of Stirner :^)

No, they read the Austrians, not this ugly hack. (Although i can imagine her being popular between a bunch of them).

>Emerson? James? Thoreau?
Wrong. Objectivism (not Stirner's egoism) is way more well-known and influential than any of those

Kek. Do you really think Quine has had more widespread influence than Rand? How many people read and understood his work? 3 thousand people? Maybe 10 thousand?
Objectivism was a minor cultural phenomenon in the 60s and 70s.

>And yet people besides Veeky Forums autists know who Rand is and read her books
Yes, other autists.

>i heard about Rand via Veeky Forums autists, therefore only Veeky Forums autists (and other autists) know about her
Dude, ask any boomers or older people you know. Objectivism was a huge meme for a while. I'm not saying it isn't stupid, by the way; it's just that denying its influence is fucking pants on head retarded