Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness...

>be objectivist
>reject biological determinism

good goy

Working within the confines of capitalism to pursue your self interests is far more rational than agitating for an international proletarian revolution that will never come.

are you implying enviroment has no effect?

I generally agree, but Ayn Rand's version of capitalism isn't the only form of capitalism. In her utopia, absolutely everything would be privately owned, which is just a stupid way of running things.

HOL up

Case in point

if you are born rich, sure.
If you are a poor guy who own nothing, a revolution makes much more sense. You have nothing to lose and everything to win

What does a communist revolution offer you that you dont already have? Tread carefully.

Oh yea, I do like how it showed the guy was willing to betray his principles the moment he thought he would no longer be on top anymore.

access to wealth and power

Schopenhauer writes in the World as Will that people really shouldn't try to do philosophy at a young age because it can tend to lead to dogmatism. Instead they have broad literary and scientific interests.

Atlas Shrugged seems to be babbies first philosophy for people in highschool and college and messes them up for life.

The ability to posit the very conditions under which my choices are made. Since there would be no wage labor, capital, commodity production etc I am able to make choices totally outside of alienated social relations.

*should have broad....

Food? Housing? Entertainment? Work? Iphones?

Just be a good goy and vote Center left until you make it then you can vote Center right. :^)

That wont work in America, since there is no cener left party

>He believes he is alienated from normal social relations because of capitalism

Modern communism relies on the support of socially retarded virgins confirmed

>Modern communism relies on the support of socially retarded virgins confirmed
so does objectivism

name 1(one) passage of ayn rand's work that relies that statement credibility.

I have no idea why i typed "relies" when I ment lends

all of them

...

> Her philosophy is dumb, lol
Boi... I've seen dumber shit from this moron

"dude it's all like right there lol, if you don't support absolute laissez-faire capitalism ur dumb lol"

>reality exists independently of consciousness

It clearly does not.

>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

Well this much is true, at least. I don't see how you can extrapolate the rest of that bullshit from the former observations, though.

>objective observation through concept formation
>dude inductive reasoning just worx lmao
wew!

She was a dumb bitch.

I agree. My philosophy has changed a lot over the years. To be honest with you, my understanding of philosophical questions has deepened over the years as I read Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy more and more. I also occasionally actual philosophical texts too, yeah.

I think the issue is most people do not take time to digest the questions, so they never really understand what the questions are getting at (e.g., problem of universals, problem of induction, accidental vs. essential properties, essentialism vs anti-essentialism, mind-body problem & hard problem of consciousness, and much more).

>. I also occasionally actual
occasionally read*

Like Ayn Rand who jumped up government's welfare tit the moment she developed cancer.

yin yang bb

Now look at her quotes on Arabs and Native Americans.

Good question, her books are so full of paper-thin characters and heavy-handed ideas that they look more like fanfiction than anything approaching a serious discourse.

>I don't know the difference between self-interest and hedonism

Ad Hominem
The free market allows people to voluntarily give up their rights. There is nothing stopping you from pursuing something else as long as it doesn't violate anyone else'.
Agorists and Menonites are a good example of this.
Even employment requires you to not live in a manner in which all liberties are not kept completely in tact.
Do you want to voluntarily give money to the government? Go crazy!
Do you want to take money from other people and give it to the government? Fuck off!
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem
Capitalism requires private ownership.
If a monopoly on violence owns something, using coersion, it violates the voluntary element of capitalism and isn't capitalism.
Ad Hominem
Capitalism has given all poor within it's market a way to get out of poverty.
Marxist ideologies have murdered over one hundred million poor.
Starvation.
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem

I like a lot of her ideas, but Morality comes from God (or a similar moral authority), not from ourselves or one another. Morality is by definition universal right and wrong, and we do not have authority over each other.
I cannot tell you to go to not steal any more than you can tell me I have to go to church.

You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.

...

>Laissez-faire capitalism will make your life better

kek

I agree with the rest of what is said, but that's idiotic.

> DIRECT contact with REALITY through SENSE PERCEPTION
Yeah this is basically one of linchpins of philosophy when building an ethical theory why even bother capitalizing something so given and trivial?

>>morality = purpose
>>purpose = happiness
>>purpose = self-interest
>>morality = happiness
>>morality = self-interest
>>happiness = self-interest
>>self-interest = rational
>>rational = happiness
Okay if you say so.

> Man exists in his own right, neither needing to sacrifice himself to others or sacrifice others to himself.
> Collectivist altruism is moral cannibalism that sacrifices man to others

She's right you know. Collectivists are like Aztecs carving people up for their subjective unfounded bs, Individualists are the artists and entrepreneurs pursuing their paths in life while cooperating with others. It's a beautiful vision for society that she arrived to in her own way.

Notice how she literally shilled for Israel. She's the fucking caricature of a Jewish slime.
Not anti-Semitic, just pointing out that she was a hypocritical cunt. However her cultists believe that being a hypocritical cunt is fine so debating them is utterly poi ntless. Not like they are relevant in any way.

> the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism
> laissez-faire capitalism
> displays full respect for individual rights

See, this is what happens when philosophers and their sort think they found the one objective truth and try to get their noses into politics

Absolute nonsense

>Yea fuck these subjectivists man
>Beautiful vision for society that she arrived to in her own way

>it's allllll le tabula rasa, I put my thoughts into your head! that's why we should all worship the same goal! BECAUSE YOU'RE THE SAME AS ME

Keep whining over the mind-body problem and defining qualia plebeian.

>naive realism
>the linchpin of ethical theory

LOL

She built her philosophy from the ground up, from sense perception through first principles is what I meant.

> talking about right/wrong & the morality of human action
> not starting with how we perceive reality
Fair enough.

I'm not an objectivist but I never understood the "bioshock refuted Rand" meme. Bioshock didn't refute anything, or make an argument at all. It simply asserted that Rand's ideas would lead to X result; it's not more intellectually sound than Rand's own assertion that objectivism would create a paradise.

The epistemology is as solid as anything else out there, but the leap from that to "therefore altruism is bad and capitalism is good" is a big non-sequitur.

Well of course it works. Reason is an axiom. We know reason works (and is axiomatic) because you can't even question it without relying on it. Without reason, you have no starting point to doubt anything, including reason itself. Therefore it's axiomatic.

>The free market allows people to voluntarily give up their rights. There is nothing stopping you from pursuing something else as long as it doesn't violate anyone else'.
Why would I give up on my right to violate someone else if I am able to do so?

Because it is immoral and people will use violence in defense of their own rights.
You also don't have the "right to violate someone else(' rights). That that you would even phrase it this way proves you know fuck all about morality, rights, and political philosophy.
>HEY GUYS, isn't Ayn Rand's opinions on morality so dumb!
>What do you mean I should violate other people's rights!?
Moron.

Morality is no real world imperative. People have been acting against whatever you consider morality since the dawn of time. Important is not what is good or bad - important is whether you have the power to keep me from doing what I want.

Did morality help Melos when Athens did not want to tolerate their independence? No, Athens said that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, for rights only exist between the equally strong.

Why would I submit to the rules of trading things when my strengths lie in taking things by force? You have no strong argument on your side.

Man, what could go wrong with the real world application of "might makes right"?
So if I walked into your house and killed you, I would not only not be immoral, but would be in the right?
So you're essentially the "Hitler did nothing wrong" of political philosophy, huh.
Well right after I morally murder you for your tv, I'll start taking your opinion seriously.
Then maybe you'll start to see the "real world imperative" of morality.
>this is what atheists actually believe

I don't see any glaring contradictions.

Just because sense perception is not 100% perfect doesn't mean we should place commie mysticism above it.

>Man, what could go wrong with the real world application of "might makes right"?
Might makes right is still the basis of everything, except that is nowadays happens between states rather than individuals.

>So if I walked into your house and killed you, I would not only not be immoral, but would be in the right?
It's completely unimportant whether you're immoral or not. It only means anything if it comes with some kind of real world imperative - e.g. a law enforcement system that punishes you for it and then it's still not the morality itself but the people who use force in its name.

>commie mysticism
your brain on /pol/, everyone

>I got raped by soviet communism so I'm going to advocate it's antithesis for the sake of reaction on a most animal level.

pity.

>exists independently of consciousness
>human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception

sense perception is processed through conscience though...

Quads of truth

QFT

So we should disregard rational self-interest when it produces a more desirable generalized existence?

Desirable for whom, if not myself?

what sort of moron would argue that reality doesn't exist