Is she /ourgirl/?

she was a total whore and loved getting fucked by multiple men. Just like the typical liberated women nonsense that is seen today

literally jewish
do some even minor research into jewish cults.
they all devolve into fucking children in orgies basically immediately. seriously. of course you can't find access to verified historical documents easily because reading what jews do in jew's words is antisemtic goy

Totally /ourgal/

>she was a total whore and loved getting fucked by multiple men

So she used her female characteristics to improve her business? Smart idea if you ask me

Check Objectivists trying to rationalize Rand's adultery here. It is fucking hilarious.
forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/12809-ayn-rand-and-her-adultery/

Nope

Maybe if you're an angsty middle schooler.

What a strange place.

Assholes seem to love her. A lot of you are assholes. I don't know if the assholes represent the whole board though.

definitely not
even high schoolers are able to point out why this shit is stupid

>my worldview is the same as high schoolers
Yeah not a very convincing argument. You generally want to avoid drawing comparisons between yourself and idealistic kids that have no idea how the world works.

Anyways, here's my Veeky Forums take on Rand:

>Objective reality: A is A, fuck relativism. Pretending that A is actually B because muh emotions is bad Veeky Forums practice
>Upheld an admiration for men and women of achievement: you are not deserving of someone else's wealth just because you have a greater "need," and people who have this "needy" mentality are usually never successful

These are pretty mature attitudes, in my opinion. You can virtue-signal and thump your chest all day about "muh poor people," but at the end of the day rational thought is the only thing that can make you successful. Emotion ruins all of that. That is not to say that there is not a place for compassion and help for those in need, but people these days take that way too far and are just a burden on society. I think it's something like 80% of the western population that should just die, be put out of their misery, because they choose to contribute nothing to their own lives or society as a whole.

I like her message on integrity artistically and morally, but it's too idealized to the point of impossibility. I get that it's her point but going too much in one extreme is silly.
Outside of anything political, she was basically right.

Communists & Virtue Signalers are an Intellectual Pox on Humanity.

Also, the issue with her is that while she is right in her preaching of integrity, it is mostly used by delusional people as confirmation to do whatever they want. It's mostly the message 'murrica fuck yeah but on delusional people. See pic related but with insane people saying that their 'truth' is right.
Her philosophy is essentially telling psychopaths to do whatever they want and how to live correctly, but some are just psychopaths that will break the law and kill just because. There's only so far that message of encouragement can be seen as advocating for pure amorality.

Its stupid calling this shit philosophy, when she lacks the ability to understand people like Kant or Aristoteles.
Its stupid calling it objectivism and shows her mental disabilty and arrogance.
She just tells assholes that its alright to be one.

>it's stupid stupid stupid stupid
Wow, look at this brainlet.

Who's this sensual, sexy, feminine woman?

I'm no objectivist, but seriously this argument is retarded. She was obviously a brilliant thinker, and well versed in classical philosophy. She probably read more Plato and Kant then you ever will.

Still disagree with her on nearly everything. Her theory of love was interesting at least.

“The “phenomenal” world, said Kant, is not real: reality, as perceived by man’s mind, is a distortion.
His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man islimitedto a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist,becausehe perceives them. “
Wtf? Tell me where Kant said this?

“The entire apparatus of Kant’s system, like a hippopotamus engaged in belly-dancing, goes through its gyrations while resting on a single point: that man’s knowledge is not valid because his consciousness possesses identity.”
You wonder if she ever read him at all, when she`s coming to these conclusions.
The point of Kant`s critique of pure reason is to show that knowledge can be achieved, BECAUSE the we perceive the world in such an order, based on principles.

*“For the New Intellectual”
Even that title.

You're ignoring the distinction of noumena and phenomena. Kant did say our consciousness limits us from the noumenal world which is more "true", in a sense, than the phenomenal world which is inherently subjective. That's why synthetic a priori judgements are needed, to let us at least infer a glimpse of what the noumenal truth is, as we are, in a Kantian sense, blind to it.

Her bit on identity is her own interpretation that is more debatable, but overall it's a fairly defensible view of Kant.

>commies on Veeky Forums

Some people see blockchain as a way for wealth to transfer from the old oligarchical model

yes

Objectivist are all over crypto too, so it makes me wonder who's really advocating for blockchain technology.

Yes, people who hate the (((central banking system))) that has taken our nations hostage. It won't change market mechanics or make life easier for moochers and parasites though.

Probably bait
Kys

I`m not ignoring the distinction. Calling the phenomenal world not real, is just a false statement and shows her lack of understanding of both concepts.
And saying that the phenomenal world is subjective is missing Kant`s point, that only through the fundamentals( of time, space and causality) in which way we perceive "notions", we are able to draw those conclusions. We can only claim objective truths like mathematical or geometrical ones because these principles are true to every human.
Both noumena and phenomena are true. The only point in which they`re distinctable, is our ability to perceive them.

No, she is a narcissist who justified her pathetic ego through hack philosophy and terrible prose. Whenever you meet an objectivist, it's always "that guy"

REDISTRIBUTE YOUR GAINS TO ME NOW

yeah, I'm sure that a system designed by libertarians will usher in a communist's paradise

top kek

Passed phil 101, did you? A priori structures like space and time are built on synthetic judgements not analytic. They are drawn from outside sources; they are not perceived, they are intuited. This is precisely because we have no perception of the noumena, the actual things in themselves. We only have our subjective phenomenal world and the intuitions of some a priori structures.

Kant believes there is a real world somewhere out there, but we only know about it because of shit like math and geometry. It doesn't exist in our world any more than Plato's forms.

"I suppose that there be things that are merely objects of the understanding and that, nevertheless, can be given to an intuition, although not to sensible intuition (as coram intuiti intellectuali), then such things would be called noumena (intelligibilia)... the word "appearance" must already indicate a relation to something the immediate representation of which is, to be sure, sensible, but which in itself, without this constitution of our sensibility (on which the form of our intuition is grounded), must be something, i.e., an object independent of sensibility. Now from this arises the concept of a noumenon, which, however, is not at all positive and does not signify a determinate cognition of something in general, in which I abstract from all form of sensible intuition."

ideology

First:
Fuck you for your assumption.

Second:
I only knew the german words, because I read it in german, so I tried to translate "Anschauung" and the best I could find was "perception".

space and time are not build on synthetic judgements they are the basis of them. They have to exist before any notion is accesible.
space is „nichts […] so bald wir die Bedingung der Möglichkeit aller Erfahrung weglassen, und ihn als etwas, was den Dingen an sich selbst zum Grunde liegt, annehmen“.

Calling the phenomenal world subjective and less true is just wrong, because its the only basis apart from analytical judgements, that allow us to gain knowledge.
And the noumenal world has to exist saying that it doesn´t makes no sense. There has to be a "Ding-an-sich" to express the notion we perceive.

You piece of shit

I love how Zizek hates Ayn Rand because he understands she's everything he's against.
>wrote an article saying John Galt is the reason the 2008 crash happened
Cheeky fuck.

>space and time are not build on synthetic judgements they are the basis of them.
i beg to differ. its highly probable that time is a product of our perception, i.e. the mechanisms in our brain depend on entropy thus giving an arrow of time
>Calling the phenomenal world subjective and less true is just wrong
as above, what we call phaenomena is a product of subjective experience - of course in a shared physical world
also "true" may mean different things

>time is a product of our perception
How do you differ if?
The basis of Kant`s philosophy is that our brain has to create space and time to make sense of the phenomenal world.

I don`t know in which way you have use the term "true" to make the statement meaningful and coherent.

kill all kikes
UNIRONICALLY

kek, sorry mate.

I don't understand, are your really trying to say phenomena are not subjective? Like, optical illusions exist in objective reality or something? That seems to be the number one criticism laid against Kant, that his idealistic system allows very little room for the sort of "truth" that most people want.

Even if you read Kant differently, how can you not at least understand how people reach that conclusion? I would call myself a Kantian over a Randian any day of the week, in fact I think her overarching theory ends up being some what of an unintentional parody at the end of the day. I even think her analysis of Kant's metaphysics gets needlessly wrapped up in identity which Kant was hardly concerned with. But why would you go as far as to assume she lacks the ability to understand him?