Why is this book and author so vehemently hated?

Rand's and Nietzsche's ideas are entirely different if you look a little bit closer. Nietzsche is deeply influenced by religious ideas (greek paganism, zoroastrianism, christianity and especially buddhism) while Rand's whole ethics are based on atheism.

Rand isn't a good writer and she's a bad philosopher when it comes to understanding other philosophers. When she's discussing guys like Descartes or Aristotle for example it's easily recognisable she has no clue what she's talking about. Maybe that's why she either gets ignored or bashed academically most of the times.
Nevertheless I really respect a lot of her intuitions and she's one of the very few (maybe the only one) who consequently tried to build up a moral doctrine exempt from any religious ballast. (On the other hand, she's actually talking a lot of bullshit: bringing up "objectivism" 300 years after Kant just doesn't seem like a well considered stance for example.)

youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM

/thread

Could you elaborate? Generally interested in this topic

>take responsibility for [yourself] and stop bitching about [your] circumstances
>you need to read hundreds of pages of shitty fic to understand something that basic
Most people with decent upbringing understand that before they hit puberty.

Don't feed the pleb.
QED:

I don't think you quite know what QED means, bubbah.

>I think there is very little wrong with wanting to be the best possible "you" you can be, of wanting to be great and doing anything to achieve it.
The problem is difference between idealism and reality. It's the difference between a psychopath that will stand firm by his beliefs to create art, never do anything wrong, or much of anything really, and a psychopath who will do whatever the fuck he wants to achieve success through his creative process.
Ayn Rand promoted the former, but also includes the latter, which people despises.

If you accept her philosophy as being idealistic (see romanticized) it's fine so long as you don't forget that it doesn't account for the stupidity of human life and base instinct. There's a reason why Ayn Rand promoted free will above all else with reason overcoming instinct.

Also pretty much this. People will mostly talk shit about her politics more than her philosophy.

Yes and no.
Ayn Rand is similar to Nietzsche only in being life affirming creatively but had different outlooks on how to become a Ubermensch.
The way I see it is more that Nietzsche advocated standing on your own feet, without the need of civilization, while Ayn Rand advocated the same but within the confines of civilization.

You'd be surprised how many people don't follow that.
Though it's not surprising either that it's because of this reason that she attracts teenagers.

If you pay any attention to modern political discourse it's pretty clear that that's far from a widely accepted/obvious. Take almost any humanities class at university today and in discussions about capitalist ideology, the poverty cycle, institutionalized sexism/racism etc (I'm not saying those topics are totally illegitimate) there's a strong tendency to dismiss all notion of individual responsibility.

"Bitching about circumstances" even became one of the standard methods in lobbying (together with the mandatory "this will kill x jobs" argument) - the more you whine publicly the more you're subsidized.
The most interesting thing about Rand is the difference between her ideology and the stuff which is actually called "capitalism".

She was very outspoken in her criticism of both libertarians and neo-cons like reagan and friedman (both of which, iirc, she thought were worse than marxists) and defined "capitalism" differently than any of them. Her version is probably even more unrealistic than that of the craziest ancaps but I think she had a kind of internally consistent logic at least.

Rand never argued that man wasn't capable of acting due to "unselfish motives", she simply said it isn't good to do such. Whenever Rand is mentioned, altruists like to complain about "nuance" and "societal principles" but can never seem to explain, in rational terms, why I shouldn't act in my rational self-interest.

The most important part of Objectivism isn't the emphasis on personal responsibility, but rather the emphasis on acting in one's rational self-interest. A lot of people can take responsibility for their decisions but few choose to act in their rational self-interest in the first place.

Humans aren't rational. Therefore rational self interest is unattainable.

Good post.

Clearly they're rational at least some of the time.

At least some of the time does not a coherent ideology make.

Why is that author and their books so vehemently spammed?

Take your marketing out of Veeky Forums

And in any case the fact that we are capable of rationality but choose to be irrational at times only makes us all the more irrational. So even our rationality diluted by our inherently irrational nature.

She's popular in America because her views strike a resonance with the whole American Dream, "can do" and ability to achieve anything as long as you work hard enough memery.

This is exactly the bullshit people try to excuse their irrational behaviour with. As soon as you agree you're able to act rationally at all, it becomes irresponsible to continue to behave irrationally.
And this very concept is a lot older than everything Ms. Rosenbaum said or wrote.

It's a good superhero story, like reading elementary school U.S. history textbooks. You walk away feeling all patriotic and brave and proud and

She held a romanticized view of capitalism, built on meritocracy without any interference from the state, but placed too much value on the free market solving everything. Her vision isn't entirely wrong, it just needs to be more realistic to protect workers.

the prose is on the level of harry potter, the heroes are flat out unlikable to anyone with any sort of empathy whatsoever and the antagonists are poor caricatures of human beings. rand writes for people who are at a cross section between self-perceived superiority and complete lack of willpower, which is why i loved her at 14. if you're a decent person, you get over it eventually

>the prose is on the level of harry potter
Do give evidence of such lackluster prose.

>humans aren't rational

First, let's define rational: able to think sensibly or logically. Logic is simply the art of non-contradictory identification, or identifying what is true.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but by asserting that man isn't rational you are arguing that he is unable to identify what is true. That's a self-defeating argument, as if you hold that humans cannot identify what is and what isn't, you deny that you have the ability to declare that humans aren't rational.

When one makes an argument that humans are not rational with evidence of any kind, one is using logic and thus inadvertently confirming man's ability to be rational. And if humans are rational, then one can most definitely act in one's rational self-interest.

Don't bother, they're anti-life nihilist.

1. She's a hack writer
2. Libertarianism and objectivism are brainlet philosophies for "redpilled" white American men born into wealth and condescend on the less fortunate

All of those people are born into wealth and privilege and it is handed to them. They know nothing about "earning their own life", how hard is it to be a corporate stooge or a government yes man?

You haven't read much of Rand.

>dissonant and naive version of nihilism

There could not be a greater divide between Nihilism that holds there is no morality, and Objectivism that states there is objective morality. Objectivism derives morality from the nature of life as man's only inherent value, whereas nihilism represents the absence of morality.

>She thinks that free markets will naturally reward the most "moral" people with success while obviously this is often not the case in reality

False. Rand didn't support lassiez-faire because it guarantees those who act in their rational self-interest success, but because it is the only system that allows individuals to act in their rational self-interest in the first place, and thus connects to our ultimate value of life.

>fails to adequately justify her belief in absolute morality

That's just not true. Rand justifies her belief in absolute morality by asking the question: why do we need morality? The only answer to this rooted in reality is to secure man's only inherent value, man's only objective value, and his standard of good: life.

Too many left-wing philosophers brush aside this argument rather than trying to address it, and that's why I can't take most "critiques" of Objectivism seriously.

>especially don't like that she places blame directly on the unsuccessful and outright says that some people are better/have more potential than others

Rand holds that all individuals are capable of acting in their rational self-interest, and that's very far from arguing for the inherent superiority of some individuals. However, do some people act in their rational-self interest more than others? Yes, but not inherently. That doesn't make them "better", just wiser.

In The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, she creates caricatures of the ideal man and the parasite.

The ideal man is unrealistic, but a fine goal to strive for in life.

She absolutely nailed the parasite, and called out parasites for what they are. That's why I think it's vehemently hated, she exposes the piece of shit human, and predicts exactly how he will react to the exposure, which the parasite promptly acts out irl.

Regardless of the accuracy or aesthetic quality of Rand's writings, the reaction people have to Rand is a useful litmus test on the type of person one is.

Agree blindly with Rand: a naive edgelord virtue signalling how great they are with nothing backing up the greatness. LARPing as Roark or Galt.

Attack Rand blindly: the parasite that Rand describes.

How many in the 21st century would have even heard of her if not for BioShock?

>Millennials getting their philosophical/political/literary opinions from video games instead of the works said games reference

Imagine my shock.

desu I did originally learn about her through Bioshock.

Good post.

>Agree blindly with Rand: a naive edgelord virtue signalling how great they are with nothing backing up the greatness. LARPing as Roark or Galt.
>Attack Rand blindly: the parasite that Rand describes.
Well said.

For real, she might have been tossed into the same historical category as General Semantics.

It's funny because every possible criticism of her in that game is so wrong it's laughable. The game confuses her philosophy for pure anarchism, which she despised.

Rand was pretty much completely unknown in most of Europe (aside from the UK) before BioShock was released. Even now, there are not many people who know her (and I'm talking about professional philosophers).
For example there wasn't a German translation of Atlas Shrugged available before 2012 (there were translations from 59, 89 and 97 but none of them were reissued - you actually had to pay 200€ on eBay for a copy of one of them). The edition from 2012 is self-published by a guy who paid for the whole translation himself - there's no edition of Atlas Shrugged by a German publishing company at all.
I actually studied philosophy in Germany (M.A.) and I never ever heared of her before BioShock was released.

after all the jews left gemany for america you dudes really became an intellectual and cultural backwater, and now you're just becoming an islamic shithole

They do not act rationally when they have the ability to think rationally, an act which is of itself irrational. It's actions that count. This is why you cannot predict the actions of man.

You are confusing "sometimes can" and "always do".

Your initial assertion was that "rational self interest is unattainable", because "humans aren't rational".

I proved that humans are rational by pointing out the self-destructive nature of your argument.

Now, if I am not mistaken, although you concede that humans are able to think rationally, you insist they do not act rationally, and therefore rational self-interest is still unattainable.

You're saying that although EVERY man has the capability to think rationally (and often do), not ONE of them has acted upon such reasoning to achieve his own values in the history of mankind?

I value milk, I know that milk is in the fridge, I go to the fridge to get milk. I have acted in my rational self-interest, and thus rational self-interest is attainable.

>OP wants inspiring characters
>Offers a character whose story parallels Icarus

No wonder he's convinced that Rand is worth reading. None of you faggots can recommend anything that'll scratch the same itch.

I'm not confusing "sometimes can" and "always do", I'm addressing the claim of dual absolutes:

1) Humans are not rational.
2) Rational self-interest is unattainable.

To defeat this claim, I only need to prove that humans are sometimes rational and sometimes act in their rational self-interest. If you want to argue something else, rephrase the claim.

How do you explain NEETs?

...

You are confusing them in your definition. Don't assume things about my intentions or anything else, just engage the point of contention.

>I proved that humans are rational by pointing out the self-destructive nature of your argument.
Y-you mean you established a false premise, and then patted yourself on the back for your oh-so-clever wit. Sorry, cupcake: that don't count. Why can't you think rationally???? Why can't you ACT rationally????
It's adorable how stupid you are, though - give us moar, yes?

Come on, NEET - whatcha waitin' for?

Now this is autism.

That's it? But you were so loquacious before! So cunning! So witty! So full of vim and vigor!!
And now, nothing but this cuck 'autism' response??
Pathetic.
If yer gonna troll, troll - don't be a fag about it.

It's not a point of contention, as it has nothing to do with what I posted. It's a fact of reality that humans do not always act in their rational self-interest, and that fact has nothing to do with whether or not man has the ability to act in his rational self-interest.

Even if what you said were true, the point of contention would be that someone thinks it has something to do with what you posted, while you disagree. The fact that you can't even work this out for yourself makes me think that you may be incapable of intelligently discussing the question of rational human self-interest.

To work on the level of disagreement is one of the most basic requirements of productive discourse.

NEETs are absolutely rational. They are parasite, leeching off parents or the government for their livelihood, unable to live by their own means. *True* NEETs are self sufficient Ubermenschs that live outside the confines of society.

NEETs are living in their own rational self interest, but not correctly, as it is weakness to become dependent on the will of another.

You posted a one-sentence response claiming that I confused "sometimes can" with "always do" somewhere in my post. I assumed that you were claiming that I implied that man always acts in his rational self-interest, so I replied with a post articulating that that was not the aim of my argument.

You replied that I was not "engaging the point of contention". Perhaps, I was mistaken as to what you were trying to contend. So, instead of deeming me "incapable of intelligently discussing the question of rational human self-interest" oh mighty philosopher king, why not clarify the point of contention you were trying to make?

Buddy just made you spin out! This post makes no sense, it's just mindless baiting...brilliant, aspie, brilliant!

>Buddy just made you spin out!

i like to imagine this is pynchon posting here after a super smash bros sess with his grandson or w/e

Defeating the claim in the most narrow sense possible doesn't add very much weight to the argument that rational self interest is a good philosophy to base a whole society on.

You answer your own question.

If they think so highly of themselves and so poorly of you, why would they clarify for the mindless worm why it is better to be the thinking human?

The answer is that you can only approach philosopher kings as supplicants or aggressors if you want a serious response. A supplicant that doesn't know how to supplicate and an aggressor that doesn't present a challenge are both unworthy of the philosopher king's effort.

>muh, got asked a direct question
>muh, here's another post full of bullshit response
>muh, why these faggots keep taking my bait?

Of course the argument sufficient to defeat the infantile claim that humans aren't rational isn't sufficient to prove that "rational self interest is a good philosophy to base a whole society on".

But, why wouldn't it be? There's nothing in the words rational self-interest that implies trampling upon the rights of others.

Starve him of (You)s and maybe he'll leave or actually contribute to the discussion for a change.

user literally explained how they answered their own question, in detail.

When you come with your hands out for something to be explained to you, don't do it with an attitude problem. Your betters are perfectly capable of allowing you to languish in your own ignorance.

Her understanding of metaphysics is weak, and so is her writing.

Virtue signaling.

>Why is this book and author so vehemently hated?
Try reading it.

/thread

Isn't that because they already had the spook buster?

Can't say that I have heard about her before Bioshock. Maybe it's because I'm a Swede and her sentiments were not popular in my country back in her day?

To any objectivists in this thread what do think about stirner

2spooky4me

This is a pretty good video explaining the link and looking at the game in depth.

youtube.com/watch?v=sN8LgXsJJNA

better link the video

The problem with Bioshock is that while it does portray some aspects and values of Objectivism, its only critique is simply ''well what if Ayn Rand's characters were not idealized and broke their own moral codes and values'' and that's a stupid way to argue.

The problem is that there was no government in rapture, it's an anarchy city that cannot enforce property rights. Same with the police. You can see Andrew Ryan police stickers on the wall, showing that there is no state, simply a Night-watchman state. Of course when some asshole comes to destroy your state, it'll fall if you don't have a government.
Andrew tried to enforce a ban, which does against free trade. He allowed little girls to be used as experiments, denying them of all rights because there was no government to enforce those rights.

Honestly, the problem comes from people who read Atlas Shrugged and not her other works. Anyone who argues that Bioshock is a good criticism of Objectivism is an idiot.

There are vague references to an elected city council that Ryan, McDonagh, and apparently other people are on, so I don't think it was complete anarchy.

>female, jewish, egoist author
why wouldn't I hate it?

zerothposition.com/2016/07/22/an-overview-of-autistic-libertarianism/

P U R E
U
R
E

A council is not an elected government that enacts laws and other governmental duties.
That council was simply an oligarchy or aristocracy selected by Andrew Ryan to act against the rights of people for the sake of the city using emergency powers. That is not a limited elected government.

Ayn Rand argued that a limited government needed to exist to enforce law through the police, have objective laws that applied to every individual regardless of their status or wealth and judged unbiasesly (so Andrew Ryan killing his lover would be thrown in jail even if he created the city) and to ensure property rights.
And personally, politically, I would argue that you need a lot more to ensure the protection of the individual like consumer standards, labor protection agencies, accountabiliy for companies, taxation for all at a limited supply. Bioshock simply went full anarchy with Andrew Ryan controlling everything.

That council was also extremely biased and simply listened to whatever orders Ryan gave. The council should have never had the power to nationalize anything like it did with Fountaine's business. That's because the only thing the government had to do was bring Fountaine to trial and shut down his business, not give it to Ryan for whatever reason.

Like, for example, he had smugglers killed because of his desire to keep the city hidden. His desires are not the will of the state, even if he created it. Smugglers should be allowed to exist, his city should have simply become its own nation underwater allowing any to join if they were smart enough rather than become completely isolated for no damn reason. Even at the end of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt says that the doors of his city are open to any that find it.

And then there's that bullshit regulation of free trade by banning the bible. That's entirely anti free market to ban any book, even religious. The only thing that should be banned are protects that willingly hurt consumers, like that Adam magic crap.

Honestly, the story just wanted Fountaine to be this Joker figure anarchist that wanted to destroy the world by watching it burn and had to do it by bending Objectivist values by not making them Objectivist yet alluding to them.

(1)
Like any self-satisfied pseud I actually read almost everything she wrote in high school, though I'll admit my memory of the nuance may be somewhat lacking now, especially that of her nonfiction and essays.

>There could not be a greater divide between Nihilism that holds there is no morality, and Objectivism that states there is objective morality. Objectivism derives morality from the nature of life as man's only inherent value, whereas nihilism represents the absence of morality.
>Rand justifies her belief in absolute morality by asking the question: why do we need morality? The only answer to this rooted in reality is to secure man's only inherent value, man's only objective value, and his standard of good: life.
My phrasing of this point was pretty bad or at least unclear. I was trying to say that she starts from the same kind of base point as other egoists like stirner/nietzsche, by deconstructing a lot of the conventional moral/social framework. The fact that she insists on absolute morality after doing this just doesn't follow. Though she tried to address this there's no objective relationship between human life and the moral rules she advocates. I know it's very reductive but that meme about respecting property rights vs true egoism is a conflict that iirc she can't answer other than to say that the values she advocates are obvious. I have a q&a book of hers in my dorm I'll try to find a citation on this point when I get a chance later today.

>False. Rand didn't support lassiez-faire because it guarantees those who act in their rational self-interest success, but because it is the only system that allows individuals to act in their rational self-interest in the first place, and thus connects to our ultimate value of life.
While I don't remember (and will take your word for it) that she doesn't make this point directly in nonficiton, her fictional characters make it undeniably clear that she believes lassiez-faire will create an implicit meritocracy.

cont

>Rand holds that all individuals are capable of acting in their rational self-interest, and that's very far from arguing for the inherent superiority of some individuals. However, do some people act in their rational-self interest more than others? Yes, but not inherently. That doesn't make them "better", just wiser.
For one thing I don't see how you divorce "wiser" from "better". She consistently gives weak characters like James Taggert and especially Peter Keating a bunch of chances to do the "right thing" which they inevitably choose not to (when Peter gives up his own happiness to marry Dominique, for instance). The conflict between her great men and the parasites are pretty much the central point of all her books.

This wasn't even my point, however. I was mainly referring to characters like Eddie Willers who is basically good but simply doesn't have the potential to be one of her heroes. Again I don't even disagree with this assessment (in fact I think it's pretty obviously true) but I do think calling some people out as inherently "worse" or just as having less potential than others is something about her writing that most rubs left-wing critics the wrong way.

This is the meme I referred to, forgot to attach

>Getting your philosophy from a Youtube channel that overanalyzes video games and cartoons

This is why everyone makes fun of millennials.

I can meme too.

>Your betters are perfectly capable of allowing you to languish in your own ignorance.
Nice psychopathy, brah.

What is it about this contention - that the superior aren't necessarily forced as a matter of course to educate the ignorant - seems like mental illness to you?

if liberals like John Oliver hate her, she must be on to something

/thread indeed

>I was trying to say that she starts from the same kind of base point as other egoists like stirner/nietzsche, by deconstructing a lot of the conventional moral/social framework. The fact that she insists on absolute morality after doing this just doesn't follow.

I don't see how Rand critiquing society and conventional morality impacts her argument for absolute morality. Whatever commentary she made doesn't impact the validity of her core thesis.

>Though she tried to address this there's no objective relationship between human life and the moral rules she advocates

Rational self-interest is the only means by which man may secure his life. There's an objective link between rational self-interest and survival that can be observed in our Paleolithic ancestors: those who saved up for winter survived, while those who chose to squander their food died.

But, rational self-interest is inherently linked to the enjoyment of life as well. Rational self-interest is simply pursuing your values, that which provides you with a sense of emotional fulfillment. So declaring that people should not act in their rational self-interest is simply saying people shouldn't strive to be happy.

>inb4 altruism makes me happy

If altruism genuinely provides you with a sense of fulfillment, you are ironically acting in your rational self-interest by pursuing it. But altruism is a forced meme and I know many people who hate their lives because they've always sacrificed themselves for others.

>that meme about respecting property rights vs true egoism is a conflict that iirc she can't answer

I don't think any rational individual will find violating the rights of others to be in their rational self-interest. As with nations, it is more profitable to peacefully trade with others than to engage in conflict.

>If altruism genuinely provides you with a sense of fulfillment, you are ironically acting in your rational self-interest by pursuing it.
Only to a certain degree. A slave getting cotton for the rest of his life would never feel happy. Helping others is fine, but spending your entire life at the whims of others is immoral. What Ayn Rand argued is people using shame or duty (see spooks) to make everyone live their lives for your sake. If you're a broken person and you don't mind living your life for others, then go for it. Everyone should follow their own rational self interest in their quest to obtain happiness. But if you're doing out of some obligation, then it is immoral.
Equally, if it gives some people a sense of fulfillment, by no means does it mean that everyone should do the same, as it assumes everyone hates themselves and their lives.

>I don't think any rational individual will find violating the rights of others to be in their rational self-interest.
They would, if they could get away with it.

>There's an objective link between rational self-interest and survival that can be observed in our Paleolithic ancestors
Sure but she advocates for moral actions that are outside that rational self interest. Yes, a rational person usually won't steal because the potential legal consequences outweigh the benefits but this is far from universally the case and this isn't even the argument she's making. If I have the opportunity to easily steal food from my dining hall at very little risk of being caught, with the only potential consequence being told to put it back, a real rational self-interest calculus tells me that this is the right thing to do, while Rand would doubtless characterize this kind of petty theft as the action of a parasite. I think you're deluding yourself if you actually believe there aren't countless opportunities to free-ride at little to no risk of personal consequence.

>>I don't think any rational individual will find violating the rights of others to be in their rational self-interest.
>They would, if they could get away with it.
This is also true. The only reason people would follow her moral code, according to your argument, is because they're more or less being forced toc (whether by social pressure or literal laws). This makes her supposedly emergent and absolute morality just as artificial as any other legal system, perhaps with a somewhat less consequentialist inspiration behind the laws.

Sort yourself out leftists

>Yes, a rational person usually won't steal because the potential legal consequences outweigh the benefits but this is far from universally the case and this isn't even the argument she's making.
I don't think Ayn Rand ever advocated not to steal, just that if you do so, you would be faced with the full punishment of the law. That's like saying you shouldn't steal if there's a policeman looking over your shoulder.

Though Ayn Rand advocated people to live off their own means, without relying on others, so stealing just means you're forever dependent on other people growing and harvesting, which isn't morally right if you want to live for your own rational self interest as you are at the whims of someone else.