Seriously, why does everybody hate her?

She's not a philosopher, nor an economist- she's no mises or adam smith or hayek or freidman or nozick. what does she bring to the table? really, what are her contributions?

lol I don't have to understand Kant because I'm a special russian snowflake

Her whole family is just another reason the Bolsheviks did nothing wrong

this desu!

Nobody takes her seriously in any academic environment, be it literature, philosophy or economics, people who read her are rich college students in need of an excuse to be assholes, mostly, also her writing is bad.

Failure to understand how greed, when paired with voluntary trade and private property, leads to the spontaneous order of the markets and economic prosperity. They feel anger at her contempt for parasites because they themselves are parasites. She exacerbates their self-loathing.

She's the perfect caricature of an autistic libertarian. She genuinely believed that the best world was one where everyone was a selfish entrepreneurial cunt.

She's poor at prose and not much better at philosophy.

Does it mean that people who read her works are silly or bad and hopeless for the mankind?

she's jewish

I also hate it when people sell me things that I want or need.

it takes her 800 pages to get to the rape scene

You can provide people with things without a market honey.

Ah yes, the good ole USSR, where the grain rotted in the silos while the people starved in the streets.

Fun fact: Rand means prostitute in Hindi.

Because her philosophy and books are simply the ravings of a spoiled bourgeois princess that had daddies money taken away by the big bad Bolsheviks.

She's ugly

no one takes her seriously because bioshock embrased ludonarrative dissonance to deconstruct objectivism and blew objectivist philosophy the FUCK out while simulatniously establishing literature as yesterday's meduim and making gaming the true patrician medium

>chilldhoord

Her ethics is okay( although it's debateable if it fails the is/ought thingy). Her critique of determinism is bad. Her misunderstanding of Kant is atrocious. Her metaphysics and epistomology is meh. Her esthetics are actually pretty good. Her politics are pretty shit.

Because she's wrong.

WHAT?

She's just Stirner for idiots

Liars hate people that point out their lies.

uh, no sweetie.

Accurate post.

Just look at her...

Don't ask about this around here....many leftist faggots lurk this place

this.
I made the mistake of reading her before most of the people she critiqued and even then a cursory google search of the people she referenced proved her totally wrong

you don't have to be a leftist to hate Rand.
that being said, marxposters almost make me wish for the sweet release of a /pol/ invasion

better be b8

am I the only one who loves the aesthetics of her novels? Yeah her prose can be annoying but I find it endearing tbqh, I hate her "philosophy" but Fountainhead is a really enjoyable read imo

Let me give you a tip OP

Any author or book that people read to justify ideas they already have rather than to find out what they have to say are probably cranks with nothing valuable and writing full of half truths and fallacies.

Ayn Rand is one good example of this. Another is most anti-semetic screeds such as Culture of Critique, and a lot of modern leftist literature.

They are bad because they are books designed to be "Guides for the Faithful", and not engaging writing in of themselves.

you can say this about anything you read that you agree with though, unless a writer is aiming for Chekhovian ambiguity. I think most people (as in normies who are engrained to hate anti-Semitism from a young age) could benefit from reading Culture of Critique. If it's such a baseless book they should be able to see through that but it'd be good for them to broaden their perspective. But I agree that if stormfags read it they gain nothing and if libertyfags read Rand they gain nothing.

>(as in normies who are engrained to hate anti-Semitism from a young age

Normies are also engrained to believe in gravity and view the earth is round from a young age. Anti-Semitism doesn't need debate. Those looking for a "debate" are always engaged in a Motte and Bailey. They claim outwardly the "safer position" (known as the Bailey) that they just want to "discuss the overrepresentation of jews in blah blah blah" (nevermind the willfull disregard for the fact jews inhabit both sides of the intellectual isle, in pretty equal proportions) . However, as soon as the pressure isn't on, they go back into the Motte, which is discussing "solutions" and joking about genocide amount their compatriots.

CoC is not worth reading for any reason. It was written by MacDonald to resolve his own cognitive dissonance of becoming a white nationalist after he was adopted by the Sam Francis and Occidental crew. Its basic premise, the concept of "Evolutionary Strategy" has no scientific basis and the book drips of MacDonalds own vitriol he desperately tries to hide. To circle back to the discussion at hand, the book is almost exclusively read by those looking for arguments to support the position they already have.

Despite what extremists (on both sides) like to believe, the vast majority of societal axoims in our education system are based on truth. Claims that people should read x book or y book because it goes against whats been "ingrained" are almost always making such a suggestion is horribly bad faith.

>Her ethics is okay
>Her politics are pretty shit
don't your ethical stances inform your political stances?

good post.
>the vast majority of societal axoims in our education system are based on truth
this.

Both are just outgrowths of your aesthetics (so yes-ish)

>Ayn Rand
>author or book that people read to justify ideas they already have
But most people who read Rand don't agree with her, otherwise her ideas would be more popular or she wouldn't be a bestselling author.

the point quoted is incorrect and shouldn’t serve as the conclusion of that posts arguments.

CoC makes valid observations about Jewish nepotism and struggle against White aristocracy it just obfuscates literally all of the evils of White bourgeoisie and aristocratic societies. Its incomplete and designed to steer people towards Nazism specifically. A treasure trove rigged from top to bottom with traps and laced with poison so that no matter who touches it, they will be worse off for doing so. The same can be said of Nietzsche, the Bible, Mein Kampf, Capital and other monumental works of thinkers who were unbelievably polemical and critical of society. their one sidedness in no way invalidates their claims nor does it reify and validate the axioms society is predicated upon. People who believe this are dangerous, far more dangerous than anti-Semites and Social Darwinists or Marxists will ever be. Current culture is based on lies about consciousness, race, gender, morality, will and nation-state and cannot be sustained indefinitely.

except they evolve over time? Anti-semitism was the social norm across classes in the west from the Medieval period until the Holocaust

>people shouldn't read controversial things because they'll be misled
I think if you're not a brainlet the inconsistencies in Kapital and Mein Kampf are evident

fugg I missed part of your post nevermind I'm a brainlet in this scenario

some of them are just cynical and looking for an """intellectual""" way to justify their neuroses

>people who wish to suppress polemical works are more dangerous than ideologues
is this what your'e trying to say?
could you expound?

>dude don't disagree with convention lmao

why outhgrowths, why not separate branches? I mean is that the "official" philosophical canon (if that even exists) or is it something you've cooked up by yourself?

Yeah, that's totally it and has nothing to do with an uninteresting method of writing, generic characters or anything.
It's all because we're maximum butthurt over being parasites.

...Right.

Only if they believe her

she and her dumb loverboy greenspan fucked a lot of shit up with their crappy "ideas"

Okay, everyone who hates her, f yourself. If she's so wrong, why don't you go out and expose your clearly "better" viewpoint and sell it to someone besides user on the interwebs. Oh wait, no one cares which is why you're here. People shit post on Ayn Rand because they're trying to seem "intellectual"

She thinks the draft is ok

>Smoking cigarettes is imperative because it is your duty to capitalism to increase consumption
>Indigenous people are savages because they share stuff
>Intellectual properties should precedent over right of first occupancy
>The alpha industrialist is a good cuck
Rand is literally the most ridiculous excuse for a philosopher, probably ever. The terrible double edge of women's lib is that an Ayn Rand can exist and sell oodles of books, while calling herself a philosopher, while proudly claiming to have read Aristotle, and only Aristotle.

Every single on of her arguments are essentially premised on the supposition:
>My intuitive perceptions are objective fact because I am incapable of conceiving how reality could possibly be otherwise than how it initially appears to me.

And the thousand page romance novel where the central protagonist who is supposed to be the most valuable woman on Earth even though she has no children and no material skills, and is literally no more than an uber assertive secretary who does little else besides place orders and stroke egos, fucking a succession of alpha males, each of which politely bows out to the next.. the fact that people can take Atlas Shrugged seriously, it simply does not get any more ludicrous.

The book has a nice font and tactile feel. I read it up to where she crashes the plane into the mountains

>wow you don't like a book why don't you go write your own book
the absolute state of Randfags

I read the Virtue of Selfishness, which at least proposed some good ideas. I'd rather off myself than try to read how she rights fiction though.

No, if you hate her, you like economics. One of her maxims in Atlas Shrugged is that any taxation at all is bad

ANY. AT. ALLLLL.

I would much prefer to read about Walrasian economics, where he ab ovo calculates how efficient controlled monometallism is and its similarities to bimetallism.

people tend to misconstrue her points. Plus, people tend to not delve into her points, so they don't even know what to argue. If one reads her works and analyzes what she said, it will probably make sense. But people a scared of new and unusual ideas. Take, for instance, selfishness is typically thought to be a negative trait, but Rand defines it i such a way that it makes it positive and sensible. Just my opinion.

She makes reds mad.

Someone who can't even go full Striner.

Maybe you and OP should fuck off then

...

so dumb I'm going to /tv/ to see if I can find something this stupid in the next 10 minutes, wish me luck!

everything she has ever written is a snoozefest

>Take, for instance, selfishness is typically thought to be a negative trait, but Rand defines it i such a way that it makes it positive and sensible.
that's literally the title of her book user.
You're not breaking any new ground here.

never tried too. If anything, I was stating the obvious.

self-repyling, I could not in fact find anything dumber than your post man i'm very sorry to tell you this

whole lot of shitposting going on relative to actual discourse.
if Rand is really beneath you, it should be easy to discredit her basic ideas.

>replying to your own "lol idiot" post with a punchline that bad
you have now made more bad posts than the user you're calling out.

doesn't matter, he needed to know, I was just trying to test whether the idiots of this board in their verbosity exceeded the stupidity of /tv/ in aggregate, and they do! the entertainment value or social merit of it is irrelevant, in fact wasting your time and making you frown is more satisfying than any act of solidarity you could offer me. And witticisms, though delightful in rare doses, are usually the sign of evil minds. Boring and straightforward, dutiful and honest is always preferable. :)

If a cringe is a frown, then you sir have succeeded.
collect your prize.

To be brief, it's not viable to say "existence exists" in the way she means it, i.e. objectively, since if existence existed independently of consciousness, it would be an object following and subject to the forms of perception by which we relate to all other objects. This would mean it is an object within the totality of itself, and to say that the totality is a part of itself leads to an infinite regress.

But we've known that existence is an idea since the 14th century, which is why no one takes Rand, or her naive realism, very seriously.

shouldn't have kept replying, thank you for the (You) and CRINGE too

can I get a quick run down on this cat?

I don't hate her. I just think her books are too long and too wordy.

>implying Marx wasn't /pol/
>"It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow’s importunity is also nigger-like."
hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.html

>if existence existed independently of consciousness, it would be an object following and subject to the forms of perception by which we relate to all other objects. This would mean it is an object within the totality of itself, and to say that the totality is a part of itself leads to an infinite regress.
proof of this?

In other words, on the one hand, without us, there would be no concept of the totality, and therefore no concept of a totality of all empirical objects, and on the other hand, with consciousness present, it is apparent that to say existence exists objectively leads to an infinite regress for the above mentioned reason. It's not possible to say in response to the first point that existence is non conceptual, since this would force her into holding the latter point (i.e. that it's directly perceivable) or into saying that it's nothing. Basically, things exist, but existence itself does not.

all /pol/ is racist but not all racists are /pol/

so existence itself is a construct? I want to equate it to knowing the existence of zero but it's a poor parallel.

also, while that may be a fundamental logical flaw, it doesn't seem like a critique of the actual messages she's trying to portray.
she seems to use a more pragmatic approach to philosophy, though I hesitate to call it such when it's more of a tool for orienting oneself towards a goal.
Her ideas seem to be more of a suppression of philosophic understanding in favor of personal drive than a philosophy itself.

She herself admitted that her entire philosophy follows from the axiom "existence exists." If you admit that to be flawed, her entire philosophy must be likewise flawed.

>heehee watch me tie the whole thing to an IRON CLAD AXIOM
>im an objectivist now, you can't disprove that existing exists because A=A and if you deny this you're irrational and i've already presupposed that i'm right so you must be evil, pay attention to me and give me and my followers control over your wealth and access to all your bodies via informed consent and voluntary association
>heehee im so clever

>one axiom is incorrect therefore throw the whole thing out
I reject that. Many of her ideas could still have utility.
also I still don't understand the full proof of the "existence exists" and how that disproves her in entirety, so I won't cede that yet anyway

Right, I said it must be faulty on the basis of the axiom, not that everything she has ever said must be wrong as a result of the incorrect axiom. But if we recognize the fault in the axiom then we can at least pick over the carcass of her philosophy, so to speak, and consume the choice bits of meat, without feeling obliged to resuscitate it.

Let's suppose that existence is the state of having objective reality. If existence exists, this means that the state of having objective reality has objective reality. But if this is the case, the state of having objective reality, itself having objective reality, must also have objective reality (i.e. the existence of existence exists). And so on down the line. One can also criticize her axiom on the basis of the law of non-contradiction, since if the state of having objective reality has objective reality, that would mean that the state is an object in reality, which would further mean that there objects in reality that do not possess the state of having objective reality, since we said the state was a particular object: a contradiction.

To me she's just a moral individualist in the guise of an egoist and anything worthwhile she arrived at was already propounded by Stirner a century before she came on the scene.

I still don't get your point or what it means in relation to her argument. seems needlessly reductionist... but I'm high as shit so I might just have a case of the brainlet.
>stirner
shit, I'm gonna have to read that fucking meme book aren't I. my book list is already way too long.

all of her scruples and standards were thrown from the window when she was asked what she thought about israel

I don't like her politics but daym those A E S T H E T I C S

Yes user. That cat's name is Ron Perlman, the cat. Ron Perlman the cat is a Jewish big tom with a notable mug, and is a rum-tum-tuggy-good actor to (puss in) boot(s). Ron has starred in various works alongside humans such as Alien (1979), Beauty and the Beast (TV adaptation, 80's, Ron's breakout role), a Dracula adaptation, Alien: Resurrection, the Hellboy movies, and the popular "Sons of Anarchy" TV program. Ron Perlman has also meowed in an electro-swing video or three

There is a long-standing Hollywood rumor that Ron was the inspiration for Garfield, but this has never been confirmed. Show business types like to play it cute. It was Ron in heavy makeup opposite Paula Abdul in the Opposites Attract video.

>During his campaign for US President, real estate developer Donald Trump praised the novel, saying he identified with Roark.[135]
lol

I've read both fountainhead and atlas shrugged. Liked fountainhead better, it was shorter and Toohey was a good villain.

Also she is a product of communism, her family got their shit kicked in by the commies and they never recovered from that. That explains her antagonism.

youtube.com/watch?v=KIk5C2qsRH8

>you will never experience being in the Ayn Rand's inner circle

I want to fuck Ayn Rand