Can we talk about Objectivism and how it's right about nearly everything?

>reality exists independent of consciousness
No shit. If it were any other way we'd be able to think things into existence with out magic mind powers.
>humans have direct contact with reality through sense perception
No shit, I can see things and hear things. Tell me how this is a philosophy and not just a collection of loosely strung together facts.
>one obtains knowledge through perception
Yes. I see the sky is blue. Now, I know the sky is blue. Bravo Rand.
>pursuit of happiness is meaning of life
This is entirely subjective and has nothing to do with reality or logic.
>Laissez-faire capitalism is good
This is just plain wrong.
>Art's purpose is to spread ideas
Yeah, no shit.
>individual happiness and no infringing on others rights
What if infringing on your rights is what makes me happy?
>

>sounds like a shit philosophy that would appeal to conceited retards.
Not an argument.

>no shit
Something being self evident is not a criticism or a fault.

>What if infringing on your rights is what makes me happy?
Then it's bad. Do whatever you think makes you happy so long as it doesn't infringe the rights of others.

If it's self evident, why even bring it up?

Why write it down and treat it like it's some sort of huge discovery.

>Do what you want but don't be an asshole about it.

Wow, thank you based Rand for morphing common sense into a "philosophy" I can feel superior to others about following.

>bad
S P O O K

That first part seems rational. But then it went downhill.

>A=A

Fuckin'#rekt 'email, mate.

It's not some grand discovery, but the foundation of life.

>Wow, thank you based Rand for morphing common sense into a "philosophy" I can feel superior to others about following.
You can say that about all philosophies and morals.

>human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception

Sounds like human beings have access to 'reality' mediated through sense perception. Unless Rand wants to identify reality with sense perception, in which case she's a phenomenalist and not actually a realist like she claims.

That's the point I'm trying to make here.

People had been silently following the "don't be a dick" rule forever before that hack Rand wrote that boring novel.

All Rand did was put a name and sense of superiority to it.

>People had been silently following the "don't be a dick" rule forever before that hack Rand wrote that boring novel.
Rand is not reinventing the fucking wheel. Nearly every institution of morality and religion follow the golden rule. Rand build on it, she doesn't put a name on it. This is why she hated Liberalism. It's a rule, not a philosophy.

Rand didn't build on anything.

She did not add one original thing to the idea of being nice to others.

Sure she did. She added the concept of hierarchy of values in relation to selfishness.

Try that again without an overwhelming feel of pretentiousness.

yeah any ideology seems 'right'... that's kind of the point. marxism seems right as well because you are able to apply it to real-life examples, as academics have been doing for over 100 years.

If there's an objective reality, how do you explain colorblindness? Are things really both green and red at the same time and why is the colorblind and noncolorblind person right when they obviously both got it half wrong?

How was that even pretentious?
Rand says the highest value is your own survival, then it's built on anything else in relation to selfishness and their importance to you. You only care about other people you find value in. No one would care or value someone they don't know or someone with no value (being boring or annoying for example).

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you works in a selfish way as well. People think being selfish just means only thinking about yourself, but that you should disregard anyone else. This is false as ignoring what other people can do for you or enrich your life is a lesser gain on your life. Thus by being more selfish than idiotically selfish, you gain more. This also works in relation to capitalism. For example, a businessman starting his own business can be very selfish, only having extremely high prices to screw over customers, but it won't get him anything big. He has to sacrifice himself and short term gain to succeed in the future. By being selfish and thinking about himself and helping others, he is elevating himself.

Rand would argue that marxism is rooted in collectivist ideology and is wrong.

Awareness is not limited to sight alone. Color blindness does not stop you from experiencing reality. Nor does it limit your rationality and live.

>Rand would argue that marxism is rooted in collectivist ideology and is wrong.

just as marx would argue that private ownership of the means of production is wrong. what's your point?

>Awareness is not limited to sight alone. Color blindness does not stop you from experiencing reality. Nor does it limit your rationality and live.
Well it obviously does stop you from experiencing reality if things are both green and red and you're only seeing one of them. That's half a reality of value gone right there, and you'd realise that if you were rational at all.

You can still show a color blind person the wavelengths that each color exist at.

>Well it obviously does stop you from experiencing reality if things are both green and red and you're only seeing one of them.
That doesn't stop you from living your life either in a rational way. That's like saying a blind man does not see reality. He simply does not perceive reality in a similar way, it does not change that he is aware of reality and interacts with it in a rational way.

Being color blind is of no consequence so long as you have awareness of reality.

So? That doesn't make him an objective observer of the color, why should we trust he's an objective observer of the wavelengths when he's already missing at least half of objective reality?
>That doesn't stop you from living your life either in a rational way.
Yes it does, they're not observing reality objectively, and they certainly aren't going to observe stop/go signals objectively, that's why we won't let them become pilots.

If the object is both red and green then not answering both is objectively wrong and rationalizing otherwise is as good as rationalizing communism: WRONG. You're not aware of reality if you're getting basic objective facts wrong, and don't understand objective values. To be honest, I don't think you're ready for Rand; you need to go back to reading Marx or whatever you nonobjective people read.

>if you're getting basic objective facts wrong, and don't understand objective values.
That's a pretty big leap
>people don't experience things the same way therefore no objective value can be achieved
A person who does not see red or green does not make them incapable of rationality.

>That's a pretty big leap
No it's not, color is an objective value. Read fucking Aristotle before you try to pretend Rand didn't.
>A person who does not see red or green does not make them incapable of rationality.
It makes them incapable of objectivity. If you want to be a rationalist who believes in fairy stories like Kant did, you are denying objective reality.

>color is an objective value
Incorrect. There are animals that can see more colors. Perceiving more or less color only affects perception, not awareness. Awareness of reality does not affect a person's objectivity. That would be like saying a blind person cannot have an objective value to a person who can see.

>Incorrect
No, I am correct, as is Aristotle. Arguing otherwise is arguing Rand was wrong. Awareness of reality is foundational to objectivism because it maintains there is objective value, including color and form. You obviously missed the entire point of Rand's work and might as well be Peter Keating painting his shitty pictures of no objective value. It's too late for you, my friend; you're so lost in your subjective sentiment you cannot even correct your mistakes.

>Implying knowledge of objective truth is possible

It is what Rand argued. If you want to be a communistic religious Kantian or a sentimentalist Humeian, and be wrong, fine: join the communists and their ilk.

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

this is where it goes wrong. there is no reason to believe laissez-faire capitalism respects the rights of the individual in any capacity.

One of Rand's central theses is a vain and simple-minded ethical egoism. She maintains that the individual should do precisely what they want, for no reason other than because they want it.

She then goes on to write 1000 page doorstopper condemning as villains men who do exactly what they want, she's just buttmad cuz they do it using government to flatter themselves rather than steel.

She didn't really think her ideas through thoroughly. Instead of just being a classical liberal, she had to go and start a cult to appease her wounded sense of self.

>She maintains that the individual should do precisely what they want, for no reason other than because they want it.
Yes, so long as it doesn't infringe other people's rights. Collectivist will impeach on your rights for the ideology. They will identify you as part of a collective and will kill you for not being a part of that collective.
You can see this in recent events
>killing a man because he was a white man and a police officer

>will kill you
>says the idiot who doesn't believe in color
Stop defaming Rand by trying to associate yourself and your psychotic delusions with her.

Not an argument.

OP, attend to this problem. How is Rand a metaphysical realist if she contends that sense perception has to mediate our access to reality?

I don't need one when you're objectively wrong and contradicting yourself by saying that color doesn't exist and then trying to make out color is a reason to shoot someone. You're obviously just going to be used by some Tooley so I don't expect you to come up with a coherent argument for me to answer by yourself.

>They all hold anti-capitalism values

no they don't. most of their rhetoric is based around making capitalism easier for others to participate in because there are non-rational forces in capitalism that prevent the true free exchange of goods and services. they interrogate the logic of our current form of capitalism, because what we have is not lasseiz-faire

How do you get

>you shouldn't infringe on others' rights

from

>you should do whatever you want

A: you don't

Rand is worse than Reddit-tier

>posts a picture of nbc headquarters
>manages to talk about something even less compelling

If the thing does not exist it cannot be viewed at all. There is a base to everything that is its own being and perspective distorts it to the viewer.

It's not just black and white.

>the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness
>we should live it to the fullest to what makes each person individualistically happy while not impeaching on others personal rights

>while not impeaching on others personal rights
Nothing in the premises leads to this.

It's like you can't even combine. You can do whatever you want so long as you don't infringe on other's right.

The irony.

Lol. What about colorblindedness? Uhh, well let's see: the reality is that particular individual has is lacking the sufficient color cones to nornally percieve color within typical human parameters. That's the reality.
Nitpicking about who sees green and who sees red does not change this fucking fact, it merely OBSCURES it. Which is what blatant sophistry does, IT OCCLUDES COMMON SENSE.

Finally someone with some senses.

Answer the fucking question.

Reality encompasses the reality of sense perception, dimwit. There is nothing else to say.

Not an argument.

What about it led you to believe it would be?

>Reality=reality

Great.

Look here, cunt:
>that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception
>through sense perception
>THROUGH

That is not 'direct contact'; that is mediated 'access'.

Explain.

>Lol. What about colorblindedness? Uhh, well let's see: the reality is that particular individual has is lacking the sufficient color cones to nornally percieve color within typical human parameters. That's the reality.
It's not the reality of color which is independent of perception.

What is the reality of color?

For simple colors, white and gold, as one would expect.

But who has the right to define what is a right?

Objective law

no it's blue and black

That's not a person. The question is clearly "who" not "what".

No, black is only an appearance of transformation. You need to study ashes.

>endorses naive scientific realism
You have a highly neckbearded epistemology. DAE stem?

Do you mean "natural law"?

it's clearly blue and black

You're criticizing Rand for all of the wrong reasons.

>mother of the bride dress
>not in shadow
>not obscuring its white and gold through minimal reflection
it's like you've never been to a wedding. delphi will not be pleased.

There is no such thing

That first part is the easy self evident part. The important part is the one you are ignoring because it's literally one tiniest bit more complex.

what are you talking about m8

The Greeks, babby.

they have nothing to do with the blue and black dress

Yes they do; Aristotle solved it before they even made that dress.

i already got dubs, you're finished

You need trips for it to be true; learn to numbers.

double dubs > trips

this ain't poker fuccboi

false

Seems answers are always running before your questions.

Did she have any original thought whatsoever?