How right or wrong is her philosophy?

How right or wrong is her philosophy?

Is she the personification or contemporary capitalist America? What would be the complete opposite to her views?

Below me will be replies mentioning how Ayn Rand isn't philosophy.

>What would be the complete opposite to her views?
Something actually good.

What is she then?

She at least got one thing right. That the woman a man chooses to mate within embodies the moral character of that man.

Russians can literally never not fuck up, even when they leave Russia.

An ugly jewess.

Completely wrong. Her political system is based on her ethical system, and her ethical system is purely axiomatic and rooted in her own volition and desires, like all ethical systems are. She presents her system as objective because it connects in some way to nature, little realizing that any ethical system can connect itself to nature, and that furthermore one cannot desire an imperative from a state of affairs. All value-judgments are dependent upon the wills of certain agents.

In short her political system rests on a flawed foundation of moral objectivity, when the reality of things is in fact moral relativism.

Okay desu. But explain to me, how come philosophers are triggered by Ayn Rand, but not by most other philosophers? Are there any other pseudo-philosophers that do that? Why only Ayn Rand?

In all honestly it seems to be pure ideology and so on and so on.

Well her philosophical contribution is mostly systematizing. She combines Aristotelian ethics and epistemology with libertarianism to create Objectivsm. So if I had to guess, part of the reason they get so assmad is because she acts like she created the Gospel just because she stapled together some old western works into a lifestyle.

But the main reason, I think, is because many modern academics are socialist kikes who think stealing is charity, and therefore are offended by her morality of 'selfishness' and independence.

I mean why would they make such a big deal out of it if it wasn't good philosophy any way? Why not ignore it? I think you are right desu that academics, rightfully or not, feel it is in direct conflict with their own beliefs and thus act accordingly.

Because academics are in the business of overreacting, just look at social justice. These people act like everyone is deeply interested in hearing their opinion, so they rise in a chorus every time something disagrees with their stomachs. Much less Rand who, while not much of a philosopher in regards to creating in original ideas, deeply offends their notions of mass enslavement to collectivist ideals in the name of 'morality'.

I don't think that can fully explain it. Nietzsche is about as anti-socialist as they come and he's given his due.

I think it's more that Rand is a shitty author and her ideas are underdeveloped.

Nietzche gets a free pass because he's relatively obscure, older, and foreign.

Ayn Rand has a decent-sized cult following, so they rage. If there was a Nietzche society forming a moderately sized minority in American politics, they'd flip their shit too. Same reason they don't flip their shit over say, Jack Donovan. Normies don't know who the fuck they even are.

But if it is shit and underdeveloped, why not ignore it? Surely there must have been other shitty and underdeveloped works around? What's so special about Ayn Rand? I sincerely do not understand.

Her books are 1000 pages too long and are too boring.

I barely made it through Nietzsche, but her... I gave up around page 300.

>What's so special about Ayn Rand?

That's a question for her followers. Ayn Rand met some criticism in her time and was largely ignored after that. Her cult following that has endured since her death however has kept her relevant.

Really I don't see too many tirades against Rand unless someone repeatedly brings her up or, and this happens pretty frequently, claims she is the greatest philosopher to ever live.

>Nietzche gets a free pass because he's relatively obscure
He's a lot more famous than rand.
You might be thinking of his younger brother that had a narrower target audience, Niche :^)

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is the most popular philosophical book of all time. He's not obscure at all. Stirner is old, obscure, and foreign. Nietzsche has changed the face of philosophy forever. You can't just ignore him unless you're dealing with abstract models of logic and math, which to be fair a great deal of anglo academic philosophy does.

It's provocative and essentially an accessible (dumbed-down) amalgamated [x] for dummies, where [x] is actual good thought initially presented by actual good thinkers.

You sure about that? Purely in terms of name recognition to normies, not philosophers, but average joes, you think more people know about Nietzsche than Rand in the US?

Pretty sure as says, she has a vocal fanclub and her books make rounds among Republicans every few election cycles, Nietzsche is kinda of niche [also fuck you I will never ever forget this joke now].

I hate she puts so much importance in individuality and gets heralded around by Libertarians and the far right as if her writing was worth more than pile of dog shit, considering it was all theoretical. Preaching semantics about a laissez-faire market just as a Jew would.

What do you have against individuality?

>and gets heralded around by Libertarians and the far right

That's true, I forgot about how even Alan Greenspan was a fucking objectivist.

>Nietzsche
>boring

>Is she the personification or contemporary capitalist America?
Lol no, that would imply the US government doesn't play an active role in industry.

Like the old saying goes, "you give them an inch, they'll take a mile."
It's gotten to the point where an individual feels themselves above the majority. Gay people feel their agendas should be pushed, rather than aid homeless vets. Men believe thy should be able to use a women's restroom because they FEEL like a woman. There was a point in time where the word "liberty" meant something. Now it's nothing but oppression Olympics to see who can be the most individualistic of individuals. Now it's a shame to be a straight, white male.

What these liberal leaders fail to realize is if you give into the mob, you become the mob.

>Gay people feel their agendas should be pushed, rather than aid homeless vets.
can they not do both? Why are you posting on Veeky Forums instead of helping homeless vets?

...

>Why are you posting on Veeky Forums instead of helping homeless vets?
I worked in the Peace Corps for four years after serving two tours in the Navy. I volunteer with homeless vets every weekend and offer them jobs, or help them find jobs.

>Is she the personification or contemporary capitalist America?
why the fuck would anyone ever think this. Are you an idiot OP?

So you leeched off the US government for years, and then afterward you perform a massive act of nepotism by helping similar leeches get placed in positions they're no more qualified for than your average civilian? Crazy, how the world works (or doesn't).

Her attempt at "solving" Hume's is-ought gap is one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen.

No. I help them find jobs they're qualified for. So if someone worked as a mechanic in the Army, help find them a job as a mechanic. Veteran Affairs are less than useless, so I help people who need it. I've never taken from the government any more than I've given. I never got paid to go to Africa, or El Salvador. I did. It because I like helping people.

Big name capitalists and capitalist thinkers cite her as an influence no?

>Max "twiner her on an airliner" Striner versus Ayn "my philosophy is bland" Rand

You're just gay and butthurt at him, right? You're making no sense.

...

/thread

Any philsophy that asserts free will is automatic shit tier.

I use it as a litmus test to see whether I should bother with a philosopher, desu.

Her political/societal views are a joke too, fetishizing industrial workers and inventors as if all rich people just sit in their house building machinery all day. In reality, the fat cats of capitalism are people who memed their way into fortune without ever doing anything of worth. Case in point, Steve Jobs.

>In reality, the fat cats of capitalism are people who memed their way into fortune without ever doing anything of worth. Case in point, Steve Jobs.

But that would be your opinion as a consumer. Many other consumers obviously disagree.

Unless you want to be like Rand and assert that your opinions are objective.