“You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,” they chatter...

>I could act like a toddler and just say "why" until they get tired of my bullshit
>therefore knowledge can't exist lmao
This is a top tier post

>leech off of her husband.
Not to mention cucking the shit out of him

This reads like the "You just activated my trap card" of philosophical statements.

>she looked okay
No, she was always a fuggo.
(((Soviet)))

Hence the "sleeping around" part.

Don't forget to mention that she was also basically leeching off of Nathaniel Branden professionally after she stopped writing novels, he was really the one who made Objectivism what it is today. She threw him out of her "collective" (yes, they actually called it that, she became the very thing she wrote so vociferously against) for the most infantile and stupid reason you could possibly imagine: he picked up a third, younger hottie on the side of his wife and Miss Rand, and she pitched one of the 20th century's most legendary bitch-fits and exiled him, took control of the Nathaniel Branden Institute, renamed it the Ayn Rand Institute, and passed it off to her sole remaining sycophant when it became obvious even to her that she was running it into the ground.

Objectivists drone on about the importance of concrete reality but the moment you start pointing concrete reality out to them, they take refuge in rhetoric and idealism and pretend like it doesn't apply to the woman who spent her final years leeching off the government when her own philosophy stated that this was immoral.

I basically separate the ideas from the person when discussing Rand. I admire a lot of her work and ideas (although there's a lot I don't agree with) but I'll grant that the kind of life she lived was anything but moral or virtuous with regards to her own philosophy.

Her ideas have no basis in reality and only works in her own fiction.

Her predictions about the future fate of western civilization were pretty spot-on desu

But isn't separating ideals from reality the very thing she railed against?

I don't take her word as gospel. I think a lot of her ideas came from an understandable but misguided overreaction to Communism, but I still think she brought up some valid points.

Rand's ideas about individualism are highly idealistic. Regarding fiscal policy, conservatives and even libertarians are not extremely anti state, most accept the need for a socialized police or firefighters and some form of social security. Randians, however, are essentially anarcho capitalists, who believe the complete lack of a state would be beneficial to social and economic progress or simply oppose a government on a matter of principle. Knowing many ancaps online and personally know a couple, they don't seem to rely on empirical arguments, instead advocating moral positions like "taxation is theft and is oppression", the few empirical arguments they do use are regurgitated from conservatives or more moderate libertarians.
There is nothing inherently wrong with moral arguments as opposed to arguing what is better for economic growth. Policies like eugenics or even killing poor people can be universally condemned as abhorrent but you can still support its benefits to the economy. A less extrem example would be abortion, it's good for the economy, but some people might see it as killing babies.
In politics, it is hard to reconcile principles and empiricism(unless your principle is to do what ever it takes for economic growth), for right wingers, their perceived fundamental coercion of taxation can't easily be reconciled with the economic benefits and necessity of many programs funded by taxes, such as a military or welfare measures like a negative income tax.

Tldr: Randian philosophy is based on morality and not economics. This is not inherently good or bad

>read The Virtue of Selfishness (a book of essays, half of which were written by Branden
>one of the first things it says in the entire book is "Nathaniel Branden no longer has any association with me, my philosophy, or the Objectivist Newsletter"
hell hath no fury

In this pic she kinda looks like a cute vulnerable little Jewish girl who needs to be gently dominated

Would bang

...

>proof presupposes existence

I think this is wrong. If I ask you to prove the existence of something that doesn't exist, I'm not assuming that the thing exists.

>a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved

She's skipping over the part where one could ask for some sort of proof of proof itself.

No you brainlet faggot, the point is that you can always ask why as a valid question. "It works in my head" isn't proof of anything.

when the solipsist asks you to prove your eixstence, he asks his question in a language learned from his parents and community, which only functions with public rules around their use

his use of language proves the existence of others, a private language is not really possible

also it's not like we see others and then in our mind infer that they are conscious from their behaviour, and they could hypothetically not exist consciously beyond our experience of them (i.e. we don't make this inferral), rather we already are thrust into a world that is publically accessible, that contains others, that is experienced in a 'naive realist' fashion.

others are not inferred, others are the fundamental structure of the way in which the world is experienced, we are always already among others, we do not start as solitary consciousness and infer others beyond ourselves, rather we start as inhabitants of a public world as one of many, as a member of a family a state a shared history, and it's from this that the solipsists infers inwards

Holy shit way to completely miss the point you mouthbreathing retard. The whole point is that any argument contains assumptions that cannot be proven, for example "his use of language proves the existence of others" is an assumption, it only SEEMS like it MUST be correct, even if you break it down into to further reasoning you can always ask for proof that those further reasonings are true and that there truth leads to the prior conclusion, at which point you have to either break it down into further reasonings that have the same problem. At some point down the line you HAVE to make an assumption. But of course, the same problem applies to this reasoning.

I want to fuck her because she was ambitious and calculated. Very few women act like that, even today.

Looks like an adult Anne Frank.

So were Marx's predictions.

That doesn't make his ideas any less realistic.

>a cute vulnerable little Jewish girl who needs to be gently dominated
more like an attention-slut who banged all of her close associates, probably while her cuck husband watched from the louvred door of a closet. Even Alan Greenspan admitted that he fucked her. Murray Rothbard thought she was creepy and weird when she tried to get him to divorce his wife so that she could bang him, too.

You wouldn't even be getting sloppy seconds, you'd be getting sloppy fifths or sixths

>I like Rand
holy fuck you are autistic