Why is it that Objecticism is a meme Philosophy? Seems pretty on the money to me...

I remember asking the same question a while back, and the best answer was that it was essentially just anti-Soviet. Generally a good idea but doesn't exactly lend to a consistent ideology.

Libertarianism is kiddotier 101. I laugh at memelords who think that the solution to places like mexico's woes are more lolbertarnism and "muh second amendment" when the real thing places like Mexico need is the switch from corrupt democratic systems to an autocratic one, the removal of meme elections and ultimate autonomy at a local level for affairs (which will naturally be hierarchical).

What is soviet at an ideological senses? Just the command of modes of production by workers councils?

>woman
>jew

The only solution to Mexico's problem is a total genocide of its population.

t. brainlet

She called it objectivism because existentialism was already taken. No joke.

Reason it's unpopular is because it's a house of cards laid on a bunch of terrible metaphysical assumptions.

Something really odd since if there's one thing that American philosopher at her time was and is good at, it's to isolate philosophical questions so you don't have to do shit such as discuss morality while also discussing metaphysics or politics.

However she's has boobs and came from Russia and write texts easier and more entertaining to read than your average philosophical paper so it's no wonder she's a big hit among your average mutt.

Also get out of nafta and other meme trade agreements. These things destroy the local economy.

t. Mexilard

Not rigorous enough for analytics, not obscurantist enough for continentals.

Muh property. Stirnerism but with property spooks. It's a Judeo-capitalist perversion of egoism.

>some people are just born better lol

no such thing

She tried to construct a morality where altruism is somehow always objectively evil. That alone should be enough for you to laugh at her.

> ultimate autonomy at a local level for affairs
So... libertarianism?

That's not very objective of you.

This is kind of off of answering OP's question, but one of the reasons it's seen as a meme philosophy is because she spent her life living off of the good graces of first her husband, then her state. This, of course, doesn't have anything to do with whether or not objectivitism is correct. But why would you expect people to take you seriously when you lived a life contrary to the principles you espoused?

She didn't live contrary to her principles, she was getting back stolen money.

Isn't her philosophy just the ultimate form of egoism? So technically there's nothing bad for her to scrounge money as long as she's benefitting herself.
Truly a philosophy that could only be invented by a female Jew.

This argument is on the same tier as
>You don't like capitalism? But you still buy things :^)
According to Rand, there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of welfare programs that you've been forced to pay for, as long as you're doing everything you can to get rid of them.

kind of like progressivism lmao

Okay, so objectivist bros, how accurate is the Wikipedia description of this:

> 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.

Because every single one of these points seems arguable.

Vanguardism would be more appropriate, I feel.

It's accurate.

This actually sounds like one of the few right-wing pages that wasn't written by a fucking marxist. (see: classical liberalism, right-wing Libertarianism, Anarcho-Capitalism)

I'm not an objectivist but that sounds like it was pretty much written by Molymeme and seems reasonable if not disagreeable.

nah, Spain tried that already

Simple:
It's the philosophy of "Me! Me! Me!"...
Although it's better than Existentialism's
"I'm Always Right", it's still childish, and thus: Memeible.

>deregulates drugs
>Cartels lose their income
>Mexico is a better place

How can you say libertarianism is not the answer?

To me every single point seems arguably correct could someone explain to me why it is a meme philosophy?

Collective BS as in taking her social security check every month?

Stirner was pretty shit to begin with.

Try it bitch. We are already genociding the white species in America though the raw power of brown dick. What’s your plan to stop us?

>people have direct contact with reality
>implying people have direct contact with radio waves, gamma rays, and nuclear decay through their senses
it is ridiculous to assume direct contact with objective reality is possible when our senses are limited by both the range and faultiness of their perceptions.

Because then "people" would smoke a joint after work. How can you let that happen?

You sounds like you are religious.

And even more so when the inputs we receive from reality are always interpretations defined by a person’s subjectivity.

But we make itens which translate those said waves to our reality therefore our reality is entirely measured by our objective senses

In general no, only if a person has a faulty organ

If you are working correctly a pinch voice you always be a pinch voice, which you can create a device for a more accurate measurement.

this is objective no?

Even culturally speaking there are things that are fixated, a warrior is always the same archetype in every culture same as the king

My god, we surely need to spend more 500 billions so maybe we can´t stop this madness this time

>But why would you expect people to take you seriously when you lived a life contrary to the principles you espoused?

Marx had to live his life with financial aid from Engels because nobody would want to hire a commie. And Engels himself was a fucking FACTORY OWNER. Nobody had any problem with Marx and Engels.

>Nobody had any problem with Marx and Engels.

Progressivism is a much fairer description. It advocates for society to progress or change. Where it's adherents fuck up is in assuming that all "progress" (i.e. motion towards a destination) is good, and that the destination is one worth getting to. Both Stalinism and Naziism were extremely progressive and many would argue that they are not systems which should be emulated.

>> that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest),
Found your problem. "Fuck you got mine" is in no way the correct morality. By 1-4 we can remove the Problem of Other Minds inductively, thus proving that there are other people because they act like people. That's a pretty big blow to "only I matter".

Exactly

Direct contact, not perfect interpretation.
It recognizes that our senses are limited

The left isn't neccessarily socially marxist. Though collective in economics.

I read 5 chapters of Atlas Shrugged, realized it was a shit book, and never touched it again. Writing style was atrocious.

The way I understood it, its a contrast to altruism being considered a higher value because the logical conclusion of altruism is a race to the bottom. Selfishness doesn't necessitate dickheadedness I probably didn't understand it though.

>USA where it's amusingly enough very popular.
It's really not, even in the US it's a pretty fringe belief compared to even libertarianism.

>Nobody had any problem with Marx
Then why did no one want to hire him? Not even Engels who as you said, owned a factory Marx could work in?

>because the logical conclusion of altruism is a race to the bottom
Yes but that's if people didn't act like human being and just donated everything all the time. Which they don't.

If you're forced to pay into social security then why shouldn't you take advantage of it when you can?

Her philosophy ain't great, but the reputation as ridiculous idiocy was carefully built by others - because she was against hippies and (iirc) for the Vietnam war and everything, and it's those hippies and far leftists that went on to become literature teachers and philosophy professors.

Not to say she's Nietzsche or anything, but her reputation was turned to these ridiculous memes and the bad parts amplified cos the people teaching it had their grudges and agendas.

Because it doesn't involve conflating normative and descriptive ideas so hipsters can go around thought policing everyone.

i.e. The real issue here is that it's *not* a meme philosophy. It has no way to propagate itself in the minds of retarded authoritarian "altruists."

Because then he wouldn't have time to spend time in libraries like autist looking for statistics of grain prices

>A jew encouraging societal and cultural degredation

Shocked

I could make a critique, but it would at the least be two posts long, and I have no idea if the thread is active enough, or if this user is still here.

I don't even know who this chick is but let me guess she tried to point out flaws in the tradition ways of the west and tried to influence people to go against them?

Sounds really very similar to libertarianism, I don't understand the aggression here.

The opposite. She got a pussyboner for the west, and hailed key American philosophical concepts in antithesis to her experience in the USSR.

"only i matter" =/= rational self-interest
stop trying to steal my interests for your own selfish purposes butthead

It's complicated. She thought Amercian ideals of muh freedom were very worth preserving, but she was anti-religion, anti-Christian morality and very against using tradition in itself as a justification for something.

Oh what do you know, she also happens to be a jew.
Funny that.

I don't see why.

Literally no argument in your post.