Why is Ayn Rand's philosophy dismissed by academics?

And yet the only societies that ever experienced collapse in history are communistic ones.

(You)

It's pro-capitalist apologetics.

>Fallen Fallen is Babylon

Are you retarded?

Because it's stupid, illogical and is just wild mental gymnastics to excuse people for being selfish that wouldn't have gotten as much attention as it did if the Cold War wasn't on.

Still the GOAT video game

>id bet my life 99% have never read him
>His philosophy stinks- the whole idea of spooks is unironically a spook by his own logic
You certainly didn't read him, by your comment. But don't project your ignorance on others.

Because more than a philosophy, it's a string of dogmas with no real justification behind them. There's even nothing objective whatsoever about it, in spite of the absurd pretense of calling it objectivism.

I mean, I studied philosophy at kings but yeah, cool

as secular as descartes self evident mind-body duality, funded by the church

Your titles are meaningless. The average college student is about as educated as the average high school student by the time they're both 30 anyway. If we have to go by authority fallacies, just look at all the 20th century philosophers that didn't like Stirner, but admitted to be utterly helpless in denying his philosophy. I'd say they're worth more than you.
Tell me how the idea of spooks is spooky, since you're so smart and learned.

Because academia is only possible with a civilization, something implementing Ayn Rand's philosophy would end

>wild mental gymnastics to excuse people for being selfish
Actually, the thing is, strangely, it ain't selfish enough.
As you can see in the first reply and her work, she's all about "fuck everyone else, nigga, you look out for number one only", "your compassion and fairness are just weapons for the enemy to use against you, etc.", but when it comes to fucking people over for your own gain, she and her characters react like it's some sort of weird blasphemy of the highest order.

I don't know, I consider her and Marx similarly dogmatic albeit on opposite sides of the spectrum

yet Marx gets time in the limelight because liberlols

Think about it, they're similarly stupid, but one speaks of prosperity for the masses, and the other prosperity for the talented and lucky. Is it really surprising that one is gonna have much more popular acclaim than the other?

Because it's dogshit from a fiction writer. It has no backing in real theory and is just liked by Westerners who like the idea that unions and collective action are not good strategies to win.

She didn't even write about real life examples, she didn't observe anything and write it down, she didn't actually read Marx (or at least show any knowledge of) or any other relevant philosopher who disagreed with her fictional fantasyland

>Cambridge
>Average college student

?!?!

Also if you've read Marx and Hess' little essay on him you'd know why it's junk.

Clearly Cambridge's standards (if you're even really a Cambridge student, not that I care) have gone down a lot if all you can do is avoid answering, and even worse namedrop Marx, whose answer to Stirner (if you can even call that string of personal attacks an answer) was considered an absolute embarrassment even by his supporters.

Which is precisely why her philosophy falls apart. It has no real world application. It's a philosophy that only exists to work in her own fanfic. It's not realistic nor was it ever intended to be.

Her philosophy is based on an imaginary rugged individualist that was contrary to everything Communist and made her pussy wet.

>She didn't even write about real life examples, she didn't observe anything and write it down
Actually, she did, but it was basically "WEST GERMANY BEST GERMANY(and the Warsaw Pact sucks)! SO CAPITALISM RULES!
Also, i have a boner for the New York skyline, and everyone who thinks it ain't the most awesome shit in history is a mud-coated barbarian"

I stick by my claim of no real life examples.

Her examples are basically inaccurate generalizations that ignore any actual Marxist theory

Yeah sure buddy, that's why Stirner is always on the syllabus and Marx isn't- ah no wait, Stirner is completely irrelevant beyond a history of anarchism module

No wonder Britain's upper class is so shit. Your top unis only teach how to avoid answering questions rather than deal with them.
Must be why all your politicians can do is passively let the country go to shit while blaming the EU for their own incompetence.

I know, just find the whole thing funny.

i liked Anthem because I had just seen bill and ted's excellent adventure and applied that Futuristic City aesthetic to my imagination

Columbia >>> Crapture

Marx put lots of logic and reason behind his thoughts. Just because many of his arguments got refuted doesn't mean he didn't try. And Americans have this habit of saying this one Marxist thing was wrong, and therefore everything he said was wrong, completely different from the way they treat every other economist in the history of economics.

Just because his followers were retardedly dogmatic doesn't mean he was.

And Stirner is still more relevant. I'm pretty sure if it wasn't for Bioshock, created by the Jew, featuring a "philosophy" by another Jew, as a backdrop, Rand would have faded to obscurity and best known as an author of young adult fiction.

?????
Do you think that Bioshock created the Rand foundation, who endlessly shill her books to schools?

Correction, Ayn Rand Institute**

Objectivism is to libertarianism like mormonism is to christianity, a kooky charlatan cult full of weirdos.

What are you? Some salty polack?

>Rand would have faded to obscurity and best known as an author of young adult fiction.
Thank you for proving my point.

I just want to know the resoning behing the idea of spooks being a spook itself.
Am I asking too much from a Cambridge educated philosophy student that read Stirner's work?

Because Republicans.
It is the anti academic party.

It is a spook. Just because something is a spook doesn't make it not useful. Spookism is the spook that Spookman created and had mastery over. He used spooky spookism to troll the fuck out of philosophers, and several philosophers did get genuinely buttmad but had no real counterargument and wrote essays that were just denial arguments, he inspired Nietzsche who is arguably worse, but more relatable to people who can't go full egoism, and secure a minor place in history when he would otherwise only been known for the inscription on his tombstone.

>RIP
>Here lies a failed Hegelian milkman and male gold digger
>Maximillian Stirner

Really makes you think

My point is, without the Ayn Rand Institute, she would have been a forgotten writer, instead of having multiple Veeky Forums threads about her.

Fucking Roman gommies. Kill Jesus, praise usury.

An idea is a spook when it controls you. If you control it (make it useful) it's not really a spook anymore.
Regardless, what is stinky about his philosophy if even your version of it admits that spooks can be useful? Are you a different user by chance?

A spook is an idea that you put before your self interest. How can the awareness that you're putting an idea above your self interest a spook itself?
It's not like all concepts can be spooks. It's basically just oughts. Awareness of something is no more an ought than material objects are.

And she only reached the current prominence she did because her edginess was repackaged in a mass market form of vidya for a mass market full of edgy teenagers. Sales of Atlas Shrugged spiked after a bit over 1 year after release, because that was the first time it went on Steam discount sale.

And how did Ken Levine hear about Objectivism?

>Why is Ayn Rand's philosophy dismissed by academics?
similar ideas are pretty common, here's are far from unique, just poorly worded.

Nietzsche said things that were similar and was enormously influential.