Objectivism

>her ideas have no basis in reality.
What do you mean by this?

>if we make maximized individual power and capabilities the ideal
We do, which is why liberalism has become the dominant philosophy of the West; a philosophy which is literally all about letting every person, no matter who they are, maximise their individual power and potential.

I don't know what Nozick's political philosophy is (even though I literally wrote an essay on him, and Rawls, in a political philosophy module at university. He didn't leave an impression on me.)

Whereas everybody knows who Rand is and what her ideas were.

This is the worst argument I've ever read in my entire life

I'm not joking

>liberalism
>a philosophy which is literally all about letting every person, no matter who they are, maximise their individual power and potential.
What if I wanted to maximize my power and potential by becoming a brutal warlord who enslaves thousands of people? Would liberalism be ok with that?

I guess not

Anyway can we get back to the question at hand? Which is whether objectivism is the best moral philosophy for one to embrace in the modern age.

Objectivism is a mashing together of several different individualist ideas and free market capitalism applied to Rand's fanfiction world and not reality. It fails immediately when it meets reality and Rand herself couldn't stick to her own shitty ideology.

It's no less a fantasy than Marx's idea of a utopian Communist future and really it all boils down to Rand having a hate boner for communism and wanting to get fucked by an engineer.

If you still take Rand seriously after the age of 16, you've been stunted and I'd advise reading the works of other individualists so you can see just how shit Rand is in comparison. She's shit as a writer and as a philosopher.

I wouldn't go as far as calling being a selfish prick a philosophy. Fun part is - you are trying to rationalize it and convince yourself, that being antisocial is good for society.

Yes.

It's something moral realists tend to forget. They think morals exist as an objective absolute and people should be moral just because, even if they don't want to be moral.

Objective ethical realism vs. Subjectivism really boils down to a very simple question.

Is it best to pursue beneficial symbiotic relationships with everything, or is it best to exist as a dominant parasite which is capable of disengaging from being preyed upon.

I feel the answer is painstakingly obvious, getting there is the thought provoking part.

Because Nozick never distilled his philosophy into literature suitable for mass distribution.

It may seem trivial but salesmanship matters

>If there is only ever one type of reason as you claim, then it has no adjective since it is always of one type and therefor it is only a reason. Not a selfish reason, just a reason.
So if all cars were red, we wouldn't be able to say anything meaningful about them; we wouldn't be able to say that they're fast or slow, we wouldn't be able to say how many wheels they had, etc., because according to you, that's impossible.

Okay, got it.

I don't understand how this is a response to his terrible non-argument

The post he was responding to (my post here: ) isn't arguing for moral realism, so why are you talking about moral realism?

>It fails immediately when it meets reality
How? How does the idea that you should do what's best for yourself "fail... when it meets reality"?

>good for society.
You didn't read this: >I don't see the purpose of ethics being "maximise the good throughout the world".
>So when I ask the question "is objectivism the best moral philosophy", what I mean is, is it the best moral philosophy for oneself?

>It's no less a fantasy than Marx's idea of a utopian Communist future
How, exactly? Objectivism defends a laissez faire capitalist society - which existed at the time that she was writing, AND WHICH STILL EXISTS. These laissez faire capitalist societies are, in fact, the most prosperous in the world. And they have survived for centuries. Whereas almost all communist societies in the world have failed.

So how exactly are her ideas "fantasy"? Can you please explain that one to me?

>She's shit
Ad hominem; not an argument

>Objective ethical realism
That's not what objectivism is you fucking moron.

Objetivism : The belief that certain things, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.

Moral Realism: (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.

Okay aggy beta, try again

>Objetivism : The belief that certain things, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.

Again, that's not what objectivism is, you fucking moron.

Oh look a micro sample to confirm your micro perception of etymology.

Here's a macro definition understood by philosophers:

The OP pic is a fucking Ayn Rand novel, obviously it's about the Ayn Rand type of Objectivism.

This guy is intelligent enough to look at the OP and understand what this thread is about: Unfortunately, you're not

Jesus Christ, you are one thick idiot.

your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever

So as always Veeky Forums can only devolve into semantics.

Clappingman.jpg

>Objectivism defends a laissez faire capitalist society - which existed at the time that she was writing, AND WHICH STILL EXISTS. These laissez faire capitalist societies are, in fact, the most prosperous in the world. And they have survived for centuries. Whereas almost all communist societies in the world have failed.

laissez faire society does not exist and has probably never existed

When (if) you have children you will discover that thier fate is directly something that effects you. Your promotion of your own power is a promotion if your interest and thier interests as it will ultimately benefit them as well. That is the only biologically objective moral that can be said to exist from a realism standpoint.

Thus objectivism, if it allows the maximum power to the individual, creating the strongest and most capable individual will result in a society where individuals can pass on whatever advantages they gain in whatever form to their offspring. When each person is responsible for them self and thier interest it leads to higher individual achievement and a better starting platform for the offspring of that individual. This advancing the species (I know not a concern of yours, but an end product of the process of life and evolution) towards greater power, capability, and survivability.

>we should behave the way single cell organisms behaved billions of years ago

What about hivemind/singularity?

He obviously thinks I'm talking about moral realism, which I guess you might want to call "moral objectivism" if you're so inclined

But of course I am talking about Ayn Rand's system of philosophy that she referred to as "objectivism".

Here's a good summary of Ayn Rand's objectivism:
>Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Yes it has. Anarcho-capitalism, which is what you're thinking of, is not the same as laissez faire economics. Laissez faire economics is not committed to the removal of ALL government interference. Stop being a fucking idiot.

>little children deserve to die because their parents work for da gubmint

the best moral philosophy ever

it's for sociopaths and kids bullied in school who never got out of the "ONE DAY I'M GONNA RAIN DOWN VENGEANCE UPON YOU BASTARDS" phase

If you mean classical liberalism yes. This is the dominate philosophy of the west because it gives the individual the best feelings of autonomy and potential. But that is not the same as capability and power.

You are talking about a liberalism that does not fully inform the status of an individual within the society. When you burden an individual with the well being and upkeep of a whole society you are not maximizing his potential power or capabilities. Most certainly not when you put hard limits on the scope and scale of his endeavors to enact his ideas however he sees fit. Only by this free expression of individual power to take risks and fail without the safety net of the state do you produce results that exceed previous generations capabilities and knowledge. Seeking symbiotic balance of all things may abe a great abstract ideal but it results in stagnation. Even conflict and struggle while having negative short term impacts yields long term benefits to knowledge and the power of human capabilities.

The type of power that advances human civilization is not the power to define your gender as you wish or marry whomever you want. These are great personal liberties afforded by our modern civilization but these are not power except in an ideological sense.

The kind of individual power I'm talking about can best be defined as person leverage against the status quo of society to create the results one desires for ones self and ones offspring. For example a person being able to leverage thier personal assets and influence to colonize another planet would be individual power. Whether that is a right or wrong thing to do is up to the individual to decide. This is opposed to a collective state power where a government may have the ability to do the same thing but be unwilling to do so because the collective will of the people or political process does not exist to do it.

>Laissez faire economics is not committed to the removal of ALL government interference.
of course not, only the kind of "interference" that works on the behalf of the consumer

>basically pic related

Yes we are multicelled biological organisms, we should take lessons about what works in reality from the largest most robust living collection of living things which by the way have prospered and withstood massive odds against it and thrived even under planetary wide disasters.

>When (if) you have children you will discover that thier fate is directly something that effects you. Your promotion of your own power is a promotion if your interest and thier interests as it will ultimately benefit them as well. That is the only biologically objective moral that can be said to exist from a realism standpoint.
I agree with that

>Thus objectivism, if it allows the maximum power to the individual, creating the strongest and most capable individual will result in a society where individuals can pass on whatever advantages they gain in whatever form to their offspring. When each person is responsible for them self and thier interest it leads to higher individual achievement and a better starting platform for the offspring of that individual. This advancing the species (I know not a concern of yours, but an end product of the process of life and evolution) towards greater power, capability, and survivability.
Perhaps true

But as I said, I'm mainly wondering whether objectivism is good FOR ONESELF.

I'm wondering what positive/good reasons there are for someone to believe in objectivism, as opposed to other ideologies like Christianity or whatever.

And I think objectivism probably IS a good thing to believe in, because in today's individualistic world, it will help you get ahead.

If you found yourself in 19th Century America then it would behoove you to be a Protestant, because other belief systems were essentially persecuted, and all the power lay with Protestants. But since today's society basically only venerates the self, I think that objectivism will allow you to succeed the most in the modern world.

That is basically all of humanity during ever stage of history. (did you read the text books?) and every form of living biological life yet known to man. You think we are like the mountains and adversity will just smash into us and wither away because we have morals and ethics? We are a living species. Many have been exticted before us. Many more will become extinct. I know that might not bother you.

Every single organism on the planet is merely trying to proliferate itself, and we are no different, and if you think that we are, then you're wrong, and you fundamentally misunderstand biology.

Who says that "little children deserve to die"?

I'm not an expert on Rand by the way, maybe she said that. I've never read her books. I only know a bit about her philosophy, which is partly why I created this thread, to discuss it. But I just reckon it must be a good philosophy, since so many CEOs and entrepreneurs swear by it.

>it's for sociopaths and kids bullied in school who never got out of the "ONE DAY I'M GONNA RAIN DOWN VENGEANCE UPON YOU BASTARDS" phase
So Rex Tillerson didn't get out of that phase? (see pic)

Also the whole "rich people are sociopaths" meme is what jealous poor people say. Lol stay mad :D

Source for pic: businessinsider.com/21-ceos-name-their-favorite-books-2012-2?op=1&IR=T/#rgan-stanley-ceo-james-gorman-10

>But I just reckon it must be a good philosophy, since so many CEOs and entrepreneurs swear by it.
this is exactly why it's a terrible philosophy
ceos and entrepreneurs are pure cancer, people who will march us all into extinction because they're only looking out for the next quarterly report

If you are afraid that people acting under objective philosophies on thier own self interest to cause harm to groups of lesser strength, then you would also have the opportunity to counter that person with your own capabilities and power. Doing so, the ensuing struggle would not benefit you directly, bit having the ability to so that benefits your offspring as it slow them to learn from your struggle, gain from your advances and continue thier struggle until success. This process of conflict would result in the net increase of capabilities and power leveraging and survivability for them in the long term. This is the whole story of humanity. Do you think we got to this far by all just getting along?

Wow holy typo batman. I was thinking faster than my fingers.

Only by fearing the strong can the weak achieve greater capabilities and survivability until they are no longer at risk. This we no longer live in day to day fear of lions tigers and bears because we have advanced beyond thier threat. Nor fearing those things just gets you eaten.

>people who do better than me in life, and have more money than me, and create thousands and thousands of jobs, and pay more taxes than anybody else, are cancer

>not murderers
>not rapists
>not welfare queens
>not burglars
>not thieves
>not fraudsters
>no no, the REAL cancer of society is entrepreneurs

>Do you think we got to this far by all just getting along?
I think we've gotten "this far" by using your methodology and when I say "this far" I'm talking about the coming rise in sea levels and the humongous number of people that will die in various ways. I'm sure that will gladden your heart since it will mean the human race has rid itself of "detritus" and will in the future be more advanced or whatever you like to tell yourself.

what does paying taxes, having money, creating jobs have to do with being a cancer on society
this only shows how limited your view is, as I said, all you and they see are the next quarterly report, no vision

>what does upholding society have to do with being a cancer on society

if I buy and install new drapes in your house while burning it down by your retarded logic I'm being helpful

>People who were born wealthy deserve to become wealthier and people who need assistance deserve to die

Blue collar crime involves a single victim, at most a few, and takes place at the margins of society, usually in poor ethnic neighborhoods
White collar crime fucks millions and undermines civic authority.

>creating successful businesses that keep people employed, instead of rioting in the streets, and which pay for the taxes which fund public services, which literally uphold the functions of society, is EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS BURNING HOUSES DOWN

Flawless logic.

>entrepreneurs were born wealthy

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "entrepreneur"

>he thinks Bernie Madoff is an entrepreneur
>he literally didn't read my post that said thieves and fraudsters are cancer on society

Holy fuck you are the most retarded person I have come across on this board, and I'm not exaggerating.

>is unable to understand that I'm talking about the global climate change crisis that will probably be of biblical proportions even when it's spelled out to him

literally retarded
I'm pretty sure the only contact you have with a ceo or an entrepreneur is when they give you some pennies to fuck off with your squeegee

Dont you think finding solutions to global problems for survival reasons will greatly enhance our survivability in the face of other various scientific problems we will face in the future. You would have us be like the ancients who didn't know why the sea rises and can't do anything to mitigate or prevent it? So less knowledge, less power. I would rather we face the challenges that we face so that we can increase our science and knowledge and capabilities as a species.

>I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "entrepreneur"
a marketing gimmick meant to convince working rubes that they, too, could be a millionaires some day if they work hard, don't question authority, and accept shittier working conditions and reduced benefits in order to pay for their boss's tax cut

>Holy fuck you are the most retarded person I have come across on this board, and I'm not exaggerating.

Holy fuck you have no substance, you're just a shitposting moron who gets triggered and needs his safe space where everyone agrees with him

>Dont you think finding solutions to global problems for survival reasons will greatly enhance our survivability in the face of other various scientific problems we will face in the future.
I'd rather solve the problem than wait for it to destroy us and then start implementing solutions.

>You would have us be like the ancients who didn't know why the sea rises and can't do anything to mitigate or prevent it?
No, I'd like us to mitigate and/or prevent it, you're the one who's against mitigation/prevention.

>I would rather we face the challenges that we face so that we can increase our science and knowledge and capabilities as a species.
I would rather we mitigate or prevent the crisis than wait until millions/billions are dead. But that's just me. I'm the guy who likes driving with an airbag instead of intentionally driving into walls in a rickety old car just so I can "learn" that being in a fucking car crash is bad for you.

While some more objectivity would be nice, what Rand is actually advocating is the abandonment of Altruism... Which I would argue is objectively unconstructive towards the goal of a prosperous and functioning society.

Not that she doesn't have some points, not that individuality isn't a healthy and important aspect in societies... But any philosophy taken to its ultimate extreme, is ultimately poisonous.

>>creating successful businesses that keep people employed, instead of rioting in the streets, and which pay for the taxes which fund public services, which literally uphold the functions of society
Using his country's legal/judiciary apparatus, his country's infrastructure, and his country's educated labor pool. Because they worked hard and took calculated risks they are rewarded for their initiative, but because they are the primary beneficiaries of society, they are also the ones expected to pay the most towards its upkeep
>protip: every last single little piece of technology in smart phones was invented by the Department of Defense or the CIA and co-opted by the private market when these technologies became commercially viable

Oh yeah that was really obvious that's what you were referring to

Completely obvious

You're a genius

You made it so subtle

>anybody who starts their own business is just engaging in a "marketing gimmick"

HOLY FUCK MY SIDES

PLEASE CONTINUE user THIS IS COMEDY GOLD

>Oh yeah that was really obvious that's what you were referring to

yes, when I said
>into extinction
I obviously was talking about people creating businesses

If

But it doesn't. Objectivity only caters to self interest.

Its like denying global warming even though your house is on the beach because you own oil stocks.

People do dumb things through self interest. You need technocrats like in China to do the right thing.

Which is why China isn't going to collapse and will be dominate after 2050 while USA collapses.

Best reply in the thread.

>every last single little piece of technology in smart phones was invented by the Department of Defense or the CIA and co-opted by the private market when these technologies became commercially viable
this

t. Archidamus Eurypontid

>I'll spout simplistic opinions for hours on end, ridicule anyone who disagrees with me, and generally foster divisiveness, cynicism, and a lower level of public dialog
Rates of new businesses being started have been falling precipitously over the course of history and is currently at historically low rates, and that has more to do with technological change than whose in control politically. More and more, business success is falling into the hands of people who already had the capital in invest (with rare exceptions).

"Entrepeneurialism" is hero-worship, the same kind of secular degenerate religion-analog which drove the Romans into decadence when technological change drove their societal arrangements into obsolescence and they refused to adapt. At best they are like Steve Jobs, slapping the freshest coat of advertising paint over technologies which largely arose out of military, national intelligence, and educational institutions. They are not the heavy lifters of society, they are the salesmen greasing the machine of human progress, and lionizing them needlessly is only aiding and abetting the creation of a two-tier society of haves and have-nots.

>You need technocrats like in China to do the right thing.
Not that I don't have my doubts, but I hate how some of the most nightmarish systems around are also among the most effective.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying I'd like to live in China, but their modern system is effective and basically destroys everyone elses economies over time.

Meh, I'm hoping someone will come up with a system that is both more effective and more pleasant before we're stuck with that.

Sadly I've no real idea how to design such a beast, much less make it self-propagating. Sadly, for all her claims, neither did Rand.

Bullshit. China is currently teetering on the brink of financial Armageddon, in our generation of Chinese there are 2 million more men than women, a city's worth of men who will never even get the chance to feel the touch of a woman he didn't pay for. Their cities and rivers are chocking with pollution and desertification is taking over vast swathes of northern China. They've got a shit ton on their plate and their leviathan of a central bureaucracy is notoriously corrupt and bloated and drowning in debt. Global dominance is far from assured for any of the major powers, but all of the power players still have their money on the United States.

Back in the 1930's everyone thought that liberal democracy was dead and the future was either national socialism or communism. In the 70s and 80s everybody thought that the Japanese were going to take over the world, but after two decades of economic anemia and population decline, people realized that shit happens which nobody expects.

I've been hearing this like Zero-hedge for 5 years now.

China seems to be doing fine.

Not him, but on the other hand, a lot of their "doing fine" is dependant on the US and Europe doing fine.

If the US collapses, so does China.

China had a period where tens of millions people died from famine. Yet no one bothered to really revolt.

If the same happened in the USA, it would fall apart in 5 days.

Ah the old Gasaraki argument - while it may be true - what's going to stop them from starving?

I don't get your point?

China could survive an economic collapse and millions of its people dying from various causes and it would still continue to exist as a fascist authoritarian government as long as they had enough food and bullets for the military.

The USA on the other hand would have a secessionist revolt. Roving bands of armed militia hoarding resources and various other things free thinking people do when they are without food.

Best case scenario if the government would survive, they would elect in an authoritarian person or group who would ignore or dissolve the constitution and start murdering citizens who revolt without due process.

That said, even if the Chinese economy collapsed, millions of people wouldn't starve.

>China had a period where tens of millions people died from famine.
Mostly because it was politically self-inflicted, like all famines are.

>If the same happened in the USA, it would fall apart in 5 days.
The U.S is not in any danger of that. The vast majority of its agricultural production is left idle, giving the soil time to replenish and keeping food prices above profitable margins. Small farmers are subsidized to basically just exist and grow food like soy and other niche interests. If the need arose the United States could very easily ramp up its food production, and contrary to partisan rhetoric you still get small farms in every state of the union, even in states with large urban centers like California and New York.

Trust me, running out of food is literally the last thing Americans have to worry about

Should have clarified - what's to take them out of that starvation and economic collapse? Their current economy more or less requires a super-power to trade with.

Yeah, you could make the argument they'll just war their way out of it - and you can make that same argument of the US, but in the long run, that doesn't really help. You can gather all the clay you want, but if your system requires trade with a more powerful economy, once there is none, you're kinda boned, and can't maintain that military to continue to expand.

Mate stop skirting around with bullshit and tell me what the fuck you want to say or I won't engage with your bullshit

>Using his country's legal/judiciary apparatus, his country's infrastructure
Which entrepreneurs contribute to more than anyone else, because they pay more tax than anyone else.

>but because they are the primary beneficiaries of society, they are also the ones expected to pay the most towards its upkeep
And that's exactly what they do. I think Bill Gates once said that he's paid more money to US federal government than anyone else in history, which is probably true. Probably billions of dollars; and especially if you count the business taxes of Microsoft then I'm sure it is many billions of dollars.

>protip: every last single little piece of technology in smart phones was invented by the Department of Defense or the CIA and co-opted by the private market when these technologies became commercially viable
I'd like to see you defend this point because it's utter bullshit

Btw when I say entrepreneurs, I should have said *successful entrepreneurs

Obviously an unsuccessful entrepreneur will be broke and therefore won't pay much in taxes

>Mate stop skirting around with bullshit and tell me what the fuck you want to say or I won't engage with your bullshit
how many times do i have to say the same thing, four, five? extinction = climate change

>I've cherry picked little examples of technology that come from government-funded research laboratories, therefore everything inside these products was created by the state
No
As I said to the other guy, iOS and Android are just one example of something that wasn't created by state-sponsored agencies.
Both are based on UNIX (well they both have kernels which *copy* UNIX) which was developed at Bell Labs, which was owned by AT&T at the time.
So AT&T owned UNIX, but then they licensed it and shit.
But yes one has the XNU kernel (iOS) and the other has the Linux kernel (Android). The first was written by Apple (a private company). And also the whole of iOS, of course, all the libraries and shit, were developed by Apple (many of them are taken from OS X)
Linux was developed by Linus Torvalds while he was at university. Also Android uses Java, which was developed by Sun Microsystems (a private company)

>Rates of new businesses being started have been falling
Then start one

Christ your arguments are pathetic

when he said technology, he obviously meant the physical hardware, not the OS

so congrats, you found one (1) thing

It's still false, I don't know why I went off on that screed to be honest

Nah we'll adapt like we always do

The fuck is a couple degrees? Fuck all. A new beach where the Netherlands is. Lovely jubbly.

>his counter-argument is "well, do something to disprove your own argument" and he bitches about other people's arguments

>It's still false, I don't know why I went off on that screed to be honest

I've no idea about iphone technology but that pic is pretty damning
it depends on what you're trying to disprove, if your point is to prove that not literally everything in an iphone was invented with governement help then maybe you'll find some rinky-dink part but all the important stuff is

>Nah we'll adapt like we always do
>The fuck is a couple degrees? Fuck all. A new beach where the Netherlands is. Lovely jubbly.

Tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of people are going to die you goddamn scumbag.

>Which entrepreneurs contribute to more than anyone else, because they pay more tax than anyone else.
And cutting their taxes doesn't actually inspire them to create meaningful, lasting contributions to the economy.
>I think Bill Gates once said that he's paid more money to US federal government than anyone else in history
and still probably pays a smaller portion of his overall wealth than his secretary.
>I'd like to see you defend this point because it's utter bullshit
see

Only Rand could be this retarded to make selfishness a spook

Good, too many people anyway, and hopefully those that die will be in Africa where they're breeding far too much.

>turns out the ancap is in full Fuck you, got mine beneath all his meaningless rheortic
Not even suprised desu

>And cutting their taxes doesn't actually inspire them to create meaningful, lasting contributions to the economy.
Where did I say we should cut their taxes

Anyway none of you are answering my question, none of you at all

As I said here: >When I ask the question "is objectivism the best moral philosophy", what I mean is, is it the best moral philosophy for oneself?

That's what I'm asking. Nobody is offering any answers, or attempts to answer that question. Forget about "the greater good", which is a stupid fucking argument to have anyway. I don't care what serves the greater good. That's not my concern. I don't give a fuck how you define the greater good, because I don't care about the greater good.

My question is, for oneself, is objectivism a good philosophy to embrace?

I'm not ancap but yeah basically

Lol why wouldn't you do everything that's in your interest

I don't understand you

That's the root of their pitiful ideology

He spent too much time ITT talking about how ancapism is great for everyone

Plus FYGM isn't just about self interest