ITT: Irrefutable philosophers

...

Yeah, I haven't read enough of her non-fiction or of other objectivist material. I'm reading through Ominous Parallels. I need to read through Peikoff and Nathaniel work. I've mostly just read some essays and her fiction.

>Rationalization is a process not of perceiving reality, but of attempting to make reality fit one’s emotions."
I like that line.

I consider The Virtue of Selfishness and Philosophy: Who Needs It to be her masterworks.
I heavily reccomend them.

Oh, I've already read those. It's a good collection of essays. The one on racism is probably the best. Anything you'd recommend reading?

if you try to refute him he will murder you

Can he refute himself?

Atlas Shrugged >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Fountainhead
I mean we can all agree on that at least

I dunno, the Fountainhead felt more accomplished as a novel. If anything Roark was a damn better representative of her philosophy than John Galt. The first 300 pages of Atlas Shrugged were good, but then everything after that until the speech was a drag. With the Fountainhead, everything was enjoyable from start to finish.

Also, on the topic of Apollonian and Dionysian, it's very apparent in the Fountainhead with Roark and Toohey. There's a lackey of Toohey that tells him to shut up, is mad and emotional, only wants power and have sex, and says that he is the future. I always found that part interesting. I forgot his name but it felt very clear that he was Dionysian incarnate. In Atlas Shrugged.There's also that type of character, when the world is about to go to hell, that takes charge of everything. Only a mad person would take responsibility when everyone no longer has a self esteem. I doubt it was a coincidence.

Well after I've rec'd TVS, PWNI, and CTUI; I say one should round it all out with Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" and Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand".

Jesus fucking Christ you're wrong. Fountainhead sucks.

Oh? How so? I'd love to hear your views on it.

Honestly, the only thing that annoyed me in the Fountainhead was everyone constantly feeling uncomfortable around Roark's indomitable spirit.

And DIM.

amzn.com/0451466640

I agree (not that many >s though jeez) but only on the merit that the Fountainhead didn't have a speech of the same Calibre as John Galt's. If it had it just might edged out Atlas. More of a concise product ya know? Atlas' villians were inferior to Toohey. I remember once saying out loud to myself:
>Jesus Rand this James Taggart fucker is a goddamn cartoon

Toohey was a slimy fuck the entire story. He felt like a proper villain more than a romanticized cartoon villain.
>that part where he wagers his entire career by promoting Roark then goes 'I wouldn't just commit suicide recommending him, that'd be silly' to save himself
His bravado was insane.

The characters in the Fountainhead were abstractions but still felt real. The ones in the Atlas Shrugged were more idealized caricature more than characters. I mean, there's a part where Francisco and Readen have a fight and it's described as Gods shaking the entire world. I get that Ayn Rand loved pulpy movies and novels but that was just ridiculous.

>I mean, there's a part where Francisco and Readen have a fight and it's described as Gods shaking the entire world
I don't remember it being that bad. Can you remember and post it?

I read it years ago but at least that's how I remember it. Might have to check for it.

>trying to find one scene in a 1000+ book
Welp

1000+ page* book

Try 'ctrl+F'ing this archive.org/stream/AtlasShrugged/atlas shrugged_djvu.txt
Surely a unique string of words is still in your memory.

>archive.org/stream/AtlasShrugged/atlas shrugged_djvu.txt
>literally all of Atlas Shrugged
Jesus Christ.

Also why does Rearden slap people so much?

Suppose I'm so poor that I own no property, or a negligible amount of property. Now, any system of property rights does nothing to protect me, but hurts me a shit-ton.

Conversely, imagine I'm rich, but I don't value my own property much, and get a real kick out of stealing. The same thing happens.

Rand is the shortsighted one — there's room for a Hobbesean reading of Stirner, but not for an Anarchist/Communist/anything-other-than-Liberal reading of Rand.
>inb4 ancaps
Ancaps aren't anarchists.

Wrong.

Right.

>Ancaps aren't anarchists.

They're wannabe tyrants

>there's room for a Hobbesean reading of Stirner
No, there isn't. Striner is very clear that private property is a spook and his utopia of nobody caring for property, sharing everything, is the best.

bump

>sharing everything
Trashed at the speed of sound

>Striner is very clear that private property is a spook

Private property is just as spooky or non spooky as anything else.

If you place private property rights above your own personal interest only then does it become a spook. If however you respect and make use of it because it creates a society and system more in line with your interests then its no longer a spook

Please, it becomes a spook whenever I decide it's inconvenient.
>hey you can't steal from me
>lol private property is a spook go fuck yourself
If everything is a spook, then nothing is. That's the main problem with Striner. While I agree with him on that fact that spooks shouldn't stop you from doing anything, and it's a great way to negate any duty to an abstract, it's still inherently shortsighted and nihilistic when pushed to its logical end.

This is why whenever you see people say that Ayn Rand was for property rights, Stirnerfag go
>huuuuuur private property is a spook, Ayn Rand is the spookiest of spooks
because they know damn well they don't care about private property until they're the ones getting fucked by an army of idiots coming to steal your shit. Ayn Rand understands that property rights don't exist to stop you from robbing people, they exist to stop other people from robbing you.

Stirner's "spook" is similar to Rand's "anti-concept"; just less concrete.

It's over 1000 pages. Hardly "digestible to the common man"

Fiction's digestibility is never determined by it's length alone. A story that can entrall you is what keeps the layman interested in discovering something he hasn't thought of before.

Could I have more information on the anti-concept?

>one of the most read and bought books in fiction
>hardly digestible to the common man

You people seem capable of recommending a comprehensive reading order of Rand's fiction and non-fiction.
Did Rand really plagiarise We or did they just have similar ideas stemming from similar backgrounds?

>saw the communists destroy her home and her way of life
>did she plagiarized a book?

Ah, but doesn't cannibalizing the ideas of other authors fit right in to both of their philosophies?

imo for fiction
Anthem -> Fountainhead -> Atlas Shrugged -> We the living

I haven't read enough of her non-fiction to judge but I guess check out everything she has?

aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-works/nonfiction.html

>irrefutable
>he believes a human being can speaks the truth.

An approximation of the truth, without any contradictions, is as close as there is to the truth.
And if a contradiction is raised, then it must be confronted until it becomes part of the truth.

>Anthem -> Fountainhead -> Atlas Shrugged -> We the living
Why?

Anthem is shorter and a early version of her philosophy. It is the end point where collectivist have truly won with a hint of hope. It gives you insight of the kind of hell she feared would happen.

The Fountainhead is the core of what she believes without the baggage of her politics. It is the forewarning of Anthem and is, in my opinion, her strongest novel. The duality between Roark and Toohey is the thematic core of her career.

Atlas Shrugged is the end point of her philosophy, when collectivist are about to conquer the earth and her philosophy manifests itself, quite literally, and stands up for all of humanity. It is much more political and every character is an romantic avatar. It's preferable to not just start with Atlas Shrugged or else you'll think that's all she is.

We the living is an autobiography of sorts and speaks more to the emotions Ayn Rand felt before moving to America. It loops back with Anthem. It is very pulpy but that's just the kind of work Ayn Rand liked to write.

>Just purposefully in a style that is digestible to the common man.

Can I use this excuse when my writing is shit? Or does it only work for female jews?

Ancaps are definitely anarchist
Hoping to be a tyrant doesn't make anyone less anarchist

You can make that excuse when you're popular.

Sure.
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anti-concepts.html
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anti-conceptual_mentality.html

Also good, Some things she coined:
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/stolen_concept,_fallacy_of.html
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/package-dealing,_fallacy_of.html
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rands_razor.html

>Roark and Toohey
I have something you may not know and will like;
Did you know that Toohey is not actually meant to represent Altruism as a foil to Roark's Egoism but rather the *traditional* view of Egoism to Roark's (meaning Rand's) true Egoism?
Peikoff talked about it once after recounting a conversation he with Rand and it blew my mind. Seems so obvious in hindsight.

>Did you know that Toohey is not actually meant to represent Altruism as a foil to Roark's Egoism but rather the *traditional* view of Egoism to Roark's (meaning Rand's) true Egoism?
That can't be right. He's entirely selfless, a saint, a collectivist, tells others not to care about one's self, to always laugh at one's self and achievement, etc. How are those 'traditional' views of egoism?

I honestly don't see it.

Perhaps with Gail Wynand, which is the more traditional view, with him being a Nietzschean and without any foundations or standards.

That's sound reasoning, thanks.

What do you think is Toohey's motivation to destroy friend?

...

He doesn't seek to destroy, only control, to have power. He says it plainly to Peter Keating. He wants to rule, like the slave morality parasite he is. He wants to be the master yet has no strength or values of his own to promote himself. His motivation is simple envy and disgust of his own lack of strength.

youtu.be/6O6uacXDAHg?t=5m35s

Toohey sits. Roark stands.
Toohey is what would happen if Kant and any collectivist understood what they preached.

The core of everything is power. Everyone wants power, will to power as Nietzsche would say, but true strength is to turn away from power. Master morality without having to rely on slaves or others. Even Nietzsche's Ubermensch would use the herd for his own content. And that's why Roark is better than Gail.

What I had meant is that Toohey is motivated by feelings of inferiority and takes visceral pleasure in destroying men of ability.
I can't for the life of me remember what video Peikoff talked about Toohey as a "traditional" Egoist in.
Anyway here's a transcript of an interview by Rand that sheds light on the matter;
youtube.com/watch?v=Px0Fg9rBsMc
"The procedure of my thought was that if we take the ideal man as the center—that is really the theme of the story, that is Roark—then in relation to him I shall say other types in this way. Roark is the man who could be the ideal man and was. Wynand is the man who wasn’t but could have been. Keating was the man who wasn’t and didn’t know it. Toohey is the man who was not the ideal man and knew it. That was the definition for myself as to why I take these four as the key figures.”

I still find it ironic and funny that the Fountainhead was rejected by publishers for being so radical and then became popular by its own merits through word of mouth.

But the themes is still ultimately about individualism and collectivism, with Roark and Toohey knowing what they are, knowing that they are idealized representation of the dualistic ideals.

>became popular by its own merits through word of mouth
Lel, I remember seeing that Rand documentary and as soon as they said that I remember saying "Get fucked" out loud.

>But the themes is still ultimately about individualism and collectivism
Right, but rather than internally opperating by Altruism as I first thought after reading it; Peikoff and Rand established that she actually wrote Toohey as internally opperating by faux-egoism (of the old sort) that merely employs altruism and Roark by true (her) egoism.

>Toohey as internally operating by faux-egoism
I still can't see it. I do remember in the backstory chapter of Toohey's childhood of people praising him for being selfless as how one should live morally, but nowhere does that suggest that's what it meant to be an egotist. I don't see how he's any sort of egotist, even a false one.

Maybe it's the manner he false portrayed himself, to be for the people, that seemed egotistical but I still don't see it.

Regardless, I still view Roark and Toohey as the foundation of her philosophy and everything she stood against. I also remembered the one that called out Toohey, it was Gus Webb. At one part, during the end of the book, he overpowers Toohey and says 'I'm the future', and Toohey agrees.
I still view Gus Webb as the manifestation of the Dionysian, and Roark as Apollonian. Toohey, despite his many faults and desire for power, still valued his intelligence and powers of manipulating others. He gains a small amount of happiness. Gus Webb just wants control and remain mad and emotional.

>Gus Webb is a fictional forerunner of the New Left of the 1960s. Whereas the Old Left of the 1930s, represented by Toohey, was a movement of cultured, highly educated intellectuals, the New Left scorned theory and intellect, opting instead for political activism. At a political level, Webb's character represents a prediction by Rand: Because Marxism stands for totalitarian dictatorship and suppression of the freethinking mind, it must necessarily lose all vestiges of cultured intellectuality. It must degenerate into a movement of unbathed, drug-addicted activists who physically occupy classrooms and shut down the educational process. In the character of Gus Webb, Ayn Rand predicted the existence and nature of the New Left twenty-five years before it appeared on the American cultural scene in the late 1960s.

Anarchism is the abolition of hierarchies.
The accumulation of wealth creates a hierarchy.
Any political system that allows for indefinite accumulation of wealth is not anarchist.
Ancapitalism allows for indefinite accumulation of wealth.
Ancapitalism is not anarchist.

>I still can't see it.
I wouldn't have either; it was Rand herself that that said it. Peikoff concured.

It's anarchism itself that is unworkable shit; not just ancapism champ.

Does the fact that ones true motives are hidden from both oneself and other actually matter? What's the great evil in acting on emotions? And isn't the real problem the fact that we're forced to manipulate and bastardize reason in order to act on honest desires? Certainly, some people can suppress their desires in favor of pure reason, but it's an unreasonable expectations of the majority.

Ah well, doesn't matter. It's still individualism versus collectivism.

Pretty much. The problem with anarchism is that it seeks to destroy hierarchies, yet those exist in all of nature in group oriented animals, including human civilizations. So to destroy or suppress hierarchies is to go against both civilization and nature.

And the problem with ancap is that there is no central monopoly of force that enforces social contracts. You'd sign a deal with someone and they have no incentive to keep it. That's why Ayn Rand argued for a limited government rather than completely removing them. I personally think that it's naive and that a strong transparent government with a strong separation of power is the only method.

There will always be hierarchies in any form of existence with multiple people, complete abolition of hierarchies is impossible, especially in the long run

>Ah well, doesn't matter. It's still individualism versus collectivism
True. I just thought you'd fascinated by the distinction.

>I personally think that it's naive and that a strong transparent government with a strong separation of power is the only method.
This. LfCap>AnCap because Minarchism>Anarchism and in turn because Objective Law>Polycentric Law

If Ayn was fey she'd be Unseelie Court, truly hideous.

I don't know what this post means

Reminder that Rand having "shit prose" is a meme. youtube.com/watch?v=eMbufMLv1XE

I don't think what people call 'shit prose' is the romanticism, specifically the idealized avatar aspect in Atlas Shrugged and pulpy elements like in other novels.

I've checked both the art of fiction and the art of nonfiction books. They're good tools. It's very obvious that her pulpy style of writing was deliberate and her prose was clear.