/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

So they finally started ignoring you on /pol so you bring this shit here?

You know what we all think of marxist jew Rand and yet you shitpost it here.

This requires a deletion.

>>14605

What? I just want to know what you guys feel about her works. /pol/ is full of retarded neo-nazis.

Judging by her works, she is pretty self centered and idealistic.

First and foremost just talking about Atlas Shrugged, she can't write novels for shit. Ayn Rand's prose is fantastic, but she only ever saw fiction as a way to prop up infallible heroes and absurd strawman villains. Any time the book comes close to an actual ideological argument or potential test of Objectivist beliefs, the hero spends the whole debate being a level-headed industrialist superman with a flawless strategy, and the socialist or anti-objectivist villain spends most of the debate whimpering and crying. It fails to ever engage the viewer and makes Rand look immature and spurned.

In regards to her actual ideology, I think an anon on /pol/ best described objectivism as "to claim that if the head detached itself from the rest of the body, it would function far better without the rest of your necessary muscles and organs". Great men have existed throughout history and time, but the idea that all the great endeavors of the world have been done only because of such "great men" and not with the help of huge societally and spiritually connected world-efforts by thousands of people marching to the same beat is foolish, and thinking that such unique individuals would be able to create such endeavors alone is foolish still. Not to mention what her measures of greatness are (look how much trains I built, look how much money I've made etc).

That said, if you are interested in learning more about her ideology her actual essays and long manifestos are far better options since she doesn't pussyfoot around, and I do think she's a great essay writer. Her diatribes on the public school system posted here >>13526 is fantastic stuff and I'd definitely recommend giving it a read, but most of her objectivist ideology is just feathered narcissism.

>>14605

>Ayn Rand

>marxist

are you kidding?

>>14669

She's as much a product of cultural destructionist/materialist/whatever ideals as much as Marx was, but they're different sides of the same coin. Libertarianism/capitalism is about production above all else under systems of free commerce. marxism/communism is about production above all else under systems of centralized control. Both are completely abhorrent extremes acting in absence of any true higher meaning, but they're not one and the same.

It's like claiming lettuce is the same thing as a medium rare steak because they're both food. A faulty correlation from a connected basis of logic.

>>14598

Some good things, nothing novel.

Then theres this lmao

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism%27s_rejection_of_the_primitive

truly an irredeemable flaw…

>>14598

Currently on Part 2 of Atlas Shrugged.

So far….

Antagonists are Commies/Socialists.

Protagonists are soulless materialists.

Thus I really can't fully get behind any of the characters so far. Guess its just the WN in me.

Rand herself apparently is a religion hating Jew from Russia so it's what I expect from her.

Book was pretty boring until the protagonists found the motor. Now it's starting to pick up a bit.

Watching the movies helped greatly, though they really had to tone down the protagonists otherwise I think no one who watched the movies would've sided with them.

Interesting to note that I'm reading 1984 at the same time and I'm loving that book much more than Atlas Shrugged. It's written very well and has a much more engaging story. Again watching the movie (John Hurt version) helped greatly (and it follows the book pretty well)

Not to mention it's 200-300 or so pages as compared to over a 1000 with Atlas Shrugged.

shes a fucking kike

>>14598

Rand is one of the first in what will hopefully become a line of thinkers resurrecting Greek, Aristotelian thought in the West. (This would actually save us from decline.)

I have met very few people who criticize Ayn Rand that even remotely understand anything she wrote about. It's like they regurgitate what they're *told* she wrote about, without ever having read the source material themselves.

It's very chic to hate her on both the right and the left.

>>15263

I know of that line of thinking well and believed it for a long time, but what is your response to >>14615 . Isn't true that there has to be something more to unite people? Something spiritual?

>>15264

Something more than *what* to unite people? What do you mean by "spiritual?"

People unite over shared values. How you go about attaining and keeping your values is the definition of a moral philosophy, which is what ties cultures together. There's absolutely nothing mystical (if that's what you mean by spiritual) about this process.

Objectivist moral philosophy is totally secular but instills virtues like honesty, integrity, justice, productiveness, and independence from totally rational grounds; i.e., nothing in the philosophy relies upon "Because God said so."

You strive to be a good person because it makes *sense* to be a good person.

>>15263

>–and the darkest when reason was rejected in favor of mysticism/traditionalism or nihilism.

I wound understand mysticism and nihilism but claiming traditionalism causes society to become less and less prosperous is bullshit. And please don't tell me you are using the "Dark Ages" as evidence.

>>15276

When I say "traditionalism," I mean embracing a set of ideas because they are *tradition,* rather than because they make sense.

Just because you have done something a certain way does not mean that it is the right way, or even the best way.

The rational approach would be to identify: The positive results, how they happened, and the general principles behind how they happened. This allows for improving upon the system.

But to follow something out of pure "tradition," which is what the very label of traditionalism implies, *is* mysticism. It's reliance not upon reason, but upon faith in the idea that something "is good because it's tradition."

>>15277

>When I say "traditionalism," I mean embracing a set of ideas because they are *tradition,* rather than because they make sense.

That is the exact point to tradition though, most people won't be able to learn through experience and it would be far too exhaustive to teach every single individual through reason when they are very young, so you make it into a sort of ritual so that they may learn it regardless of whether they understand it or not.

>Just because you have done something a certain way does not mean that it is the right way, or even the best way.

Vague

>The rational approach would be to identify: The positive results, how they happened, and the general principles behind how they happened. This allows for improving upon the system.

That is how it should hypothetically work but you know very well that it is never the way it works, this is much like the Marxist ideal of education, whereby all the problems of society are solved through education somehow.

>But to follow something out of pure "tradition," which is what the very label of traditionalism implies, *is* mysticism. It's reliance not upon reason, but upon faith in the idea that something "is good because it's tradition."

What you are pretty much saying is "Oh, wouldn't it be great if all people were 100% rational? Everything would be solved that way". And if something is by "impure" reason then it is not by reason at all, it is pragmatic in the most optimistic case.

>>15278

I would disagree that it's "too exhausting to teach children how to think properly, so we should therefore make them obey a set of predefined traditions." I would actually argue that this mentality–obedience to duty rather than thinking–is precisely what causes the overwhelming majority of problems in individual life and society at large.

But even assuming it somehow makes sense to teach children this way, *by what method do you arrive at the conclusion that some tradition is the right one?*

Never in the history of humanity has the moral philosophy – the essence of a culture's traditions – remained constant; it is altered by the choices people make in their daily lives, in how they teach their children, in what they choose to support and also reject.

The unspoken and unidentified method behind this process is *reason.* "X and Y make sense. Z does not. Therefore we reject Z, and it will no longer remain in the canon of our traditions."

So it is not the *tradition itself* that makes individuals (and therefore society) better people; it's the *method* behind how good things about a tradition are identified, and propagated. I.e., reason.

>>15278

> whereby all the problems of society are solved through education somehow.

There's no "somehow" about it. If you actually read objectivist literature, they promote very specific methods for thinking properly, and how to teach this. Reason is a learned skill, the the *most impotant* skill. Learning how to learn is the fundamental prerequisite for everything else you will ever do in your entire life.

>>15279

>I would actually argue that this mentality–obedience to duty rather than thinking–is precisely what causes the overwhelming majority of problems in individual life and society at large.

"Obedience to duty" is actually the easiest thing to teach, as these are intrinsic characteristics and not in fact knowledge itself, although knowledge and experience do both contribute to it. As the Marxists do, you seem to imply that humans are inherently rational, thus making such a society of educated individuals possible, their willingness to fall into emotion seems to show otherwise ("Reason is but the slave of the passions" remind you of anything?). This means that they will not be able to reach these conclusions without sufficient experience, unless they are taught them. There is a limited amount of knowledge but an unlimited amount of falsehood.

>But even assuming it somehow makes sense to teach children this way, *by what method do you arrive at the conclusion that some tradition is the right one?*

By natural selection, of course, those that learn impractical and possibly even harmful traits will tend to be naturally selected. The decline of tradition arises from its success, since it ends up eventually improving living conditions enough for INDIVIDUALS to abandon it without facing consequence, which causes eventual decline as a large enough proportion of society sinks into the trap this sort of nihilism brings, as a result we get a negative feedback loop.

>Never in the history of humanity has the moral philosophy – the essence of a culture's traditions – remained constant; it is altered by the choices people make in their daily lives, in how they teach their children, in what they choose to support and also reject.

It changes over time as the environment changes, that being the habitat and other individuals they interact with, by natural selection. It not being constant is exactly what gives its benefit, since if it were to be constant then it would end up carrying values over that are not beneficial at the specific time period.

>So it is not the *tradition itself* that makes individuals (and therefore society) better people; it's the *method* behind how good things about a tradition are identified, and propagated. I.e., reason.

It is the influence of the values inherited through tradition, to me this seems like you making an attempt to redefine the premise to suit the argument. Additionally there is no need for reason in order for tradition to bring about benefit and growth, it could still manage to sustain itself without reason by natural selection, since the entire point to it is to act as a placeholder for it so that the individuals may reach the same conclusion.

>There's no "somehow" about it. If you actually read objectivist literature, they promote very specific methods for thinking properly, and how to teach this. Reason is a learned skill, the the *most impotant* skill. Learning how to learn is the fundamental prerequisite for everything else you will ever do in your entire life.

For "somehow", I mean not that education cannot provide this but that you cannot provide the education that is to provide this. As with the Marxists, this ideal requires the whole of society to be able and willing to do this. Since you do not use the government to enact this, it becomes necessary for all individuals to do this of their own volition, which is what caused the utopic ideal of Marxism impossible to attain. It is indeed very important but the lack thereof does not impede survival or reproduction. You are starting with an ideal and then try to tie it in with reality, instead of building from the ground up.

Also, I am not trying to say you are a Marxist by comparing you with one, but the line of thought used is neither original nor infallible. Libertarians get a lot of shit right in practical terms, but, based on what you have said, philosophically they are a trainwreck.

>>15281

I don't think that humans are inherently rational. I specifically said that reason is a learned skill. People can be rational or irrational; and they're better when they choose to be the former.

>By natural selection, of course

People can choose to ignore "selected" traits in favor of harmful traits. You have to identify a success versus a failure in order to formulate what your preferred "tradition" should be. In humans, that process of identification is fundamentally one of reason.

It *is* a kind of "natural selection" in a way; we try things that work and weed out the things that don't, but because we have reason, millions of years of natural selection turn into mere generations.

But, again, it's not *tradition* that makes something inherently valid – it's what we've identified as being good.

>you cannot provide the education that is to provide this.

Are you seriously saying that it's impossible to teach people how to learn? That's wild! That's the whole purpose of the field of epistemology!

If you take a step back for a moment, you'd realize that this is what you're saying: "Volition doesn't exist and we are slaves to our biology and therefore our traditions; therefore you should choose to accept traditionalism because we have somehow strayed from this biological slavery by means of our own volition and you should choose to come back to this slavery which would make things better."

This is true comedy.

>>15275

Ayn Rand is about selfishness and screwing other people over. It's like Satanism. This is harmful to societies and only kikes support this kind of shit. It is true kikery.

>>15284

Selfishness doesn't mean screwing other people over, and Rand never argued this. She actually promoted the idea of helping good people because it benefits you and everyone else you care about.

Objectivism isn't about putting other people down so you can rise up, or about putting yourself down so other people can benefit. It says: The way we rise is by elevating ourselves, and only then can we truly help others do the same.

>>15282

>I don't think that humans are inherently rational. I specifically said that reason is a learned skill. People can be rational or irrational; and they're better when they choose to be the former.

True, but even then it would require them to act upon and only upon reason, which is used as humans as a tool and not an ideal. Them being better has little to no meaning when they are outbred and possibly even outcompeted by those that don't.

>People can choose to ignore "selected" traits in favor of harmful traits. You have to identify a success versus a failure in order to formulate what your preferred "tradition" should be. In humans, that process of identification is fundamentally one of reason.

You cannot simply dismiss natural selection by simply saying "b-but muh free will". You are trying to state that simply because it is POSSIBLE to diverge, that it is therefore the only possible result. And yet again you are trying to redefine reason as the cause of it, identification can happen without the use of reason and you can easily get the right answer by random chance, those that do get the right answer tend to end up being more likely to have successful offspring. Reason can indeed help with it but you cannot attribute everything positive to reason simply because reason is in itself positive.

>It *is* a kind of "natural selection" in a way; we try things that work and weed out the things that don't, but because we have reason, millions of years of natural selection turn into mere generations.

Natural selection isn't when YOU select, it is when you are selected against a group where the activity of each individual influences the outcome. Additionally you seem to imply that it takes millions of years for it to happen, which it clearly does not. Natural selection works by generations (ignoring genetic drift, which is by random chance) and it has an effect each generation, the effects of which accumulate with each following generation. In real terms you don't need millions upon millions of years, you would need 2 or 4 generations in most cases.

>But, again, it's not *tradition* that makes something inherently valid – it's what we've identified as being good.

Yes but I am stating it as a tool for societal progress, while you are stating it as a hinderance for an ideal tool.

>Are you seriously saying that it's impossible to teach people how to learn? That's wild! That's the whole purpose of the field of epistemology!

Are you retarded? We are talking about the practical application of it on a societal level, not among individuals. No society has ever managed to form a fully rational populace, nor is it possible them. You are using a hypothetical ideal, which has never occured in practice, and then stating it to be the way that a society shall reach another hypothetical ideal of a utopia. There is no evidence that it is possible to form a society that is purely logic-based, you are using what SHOULD be and are proclaiming it to be possible simply because you want it to be.

>"Volition doesn't exist and we are slaves to our biology and therefore our traditions; therefore you should choose to accept traditionalism because we have somehow strayed from this biological slavery by means of our own volition and you should choose to come back to this slavery which would make things better."

Our willingness and ability to use reason and logic is determined entirely by our passions, meaning that logic and reason are not intrinsic qualities of the human mind, they are controlled by our emotions and desires, making it impossible in PRACTICAL terms to make any individual wholly rational, let alone a population of a couple million inhabitants, especially if they are to do so of their own will, which does not act by pure reason and logic but by their wants and needs. So even if we were to suddenly reach that point, any change in the conditions would result in people acting irrationally. You also seem to enjoy labelling tradition as some sort of satanic figure that enslaves all these poor people, even though I am clearly stating that it is there to ensure the propagation of specific desirable values, even if temporarily. These values are desirable/undesirable regardless of whether these individuals are rational or irrational, yet you enjoy claiming the lack of reason to make them undesriable or inferior.

>>15286

What would you act upon besides the results of your thinking? If those results are correct, based on logic, it's reason. If not, then it's incorrect.

What, you think humans act on something besides what is in their brains?

>You cannot simply dismiss natural selection by simply saying "b-but muh free will".

I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying the reason why humans advance so much more rapidly than by biological natural selection alone is because we can reason–we can think *faster* than nature can through reproduction and natural selection.

>Yes but I am stating it as a tool for societal progress, while you are stating it as a hinderance for an ideal tool.

I'm saying tradition, in and of itself, is not what makes societies prosper. *Good* things about tradition makes socieities prosper, and traditions change over time because humans identify good things through some rational process.

But some traditions are stupid, which is why we reject them.

The savior of societies is not tradition, but reason.

>Are you retarded? We are talking about the practical application of it on a societal level, not among individuals

Are *you* retarded? You can't teach "societies" without teaching the individuals that comprise them. There is no such thing as a society disconnected from the individuals. Society does not form individuals; the reverse is true.

>Our willingness and ability to use reason and logic is determined entirely by our passions

So you get your passions from where? Magic? Passions come from our values, which are things we ultimately choose. Whether or not we choose our values through a rational process depends on the individual; but ultimately, passions are a function of values, which are a function of our minds.

>>15288

>I'm saying tradition, in and of itself, is not what makes societies prosper. *Good* things about tradition makes socieities prosper, and traditions change over time because humans identify good things through some rational process.

>But some traditions are stupid, which is why we reject them.

this is actually why any argument based on tradition is bad…

why do traditionalists have any audience at all?

>>15288

>What would you act upon besides the results of your thinking? If those results are correct, based on logic, it's reason. If not, then it's incorrect.

Results of thinking =/= reason ("I want to throw shit at the wall, therefore I shall throw shit at the wall" is not what most would associate with reason, although it is consistent)

Correct =/= logical and reasonable

>What, you think humans act on something besides what is in their brains?

Brain =/= logic and reason

It can be used to come up with a logical and reasonable answer, the problem lies in the fact that it likes to come up with answers that are neither logical nor reasonable and it prefers the latter over the former, which is why emotion can control a person's ability to reason but reason cannot control a person's emotions.

>I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying the reason why humans advance so much more rapidly than by biological natural selection alone is because we can reason

It is because we can solve problems, which the ability to think helps greatly with but "pure" logic and reason plays no role in it, only "impure" logic and reason.

You do not eat food because it is the rational thing to do, you do it because you want to eat food.

You do not sleep because it is the rational thing to do, you do it because you are tired.

You do not have sex because it is the rational thing to do, you do it because you become horny.

You do not raise your children properly because it is the rational thing to do, you do it because you want them to succeed in life.

Reason did not cause every single one of your ancestors to do all these things, irrational urges and desires caused them to do all of this.

>we can think *faster* than nature can through reproduction and natural selection.

No, we simply managed to outcompete all other life forms on Earth. Indeed, we attained it through superior intellect, but we are where we are today simply because every other life form was incapable of competing against us. Reason in itself is not as special as you consider it to be for survival and especially for reproduction.

>The savior of societies is not tradition, but reason.

Well if it is the saviour, then how is it that no society has ever managed to reach a purely rational society? It is because reason is not what saves societies, what saves societies is that those that doom it also doom themselves, resulting in only those that can sustain one remaining.

>Are *you* retarded? You can't teach "societies" without teaching the individuals that comprise them. There is no such thing as a society disconnected from the individuals. Society does not form individuals; the reverse is true.

PARTICULAR individuals, not individuals in general. Do I really need to hit you in the face with an English textbook whenever you fail to understand anything that isn't stated explicitly? You could teach one individual or even two, possibly even a couple thousand, but it is impossible in a practical sense to educate ALL individuals and have them educated PERFECTLY on top of that. If you are still having difficulties understanding this, try to imagine how successful re-education camps in the USSR where and then try to apply it here where people can simply choose to ignore you.

>So you get your passions from where? Magic?

So you get your reason from where? Magic?

>Passions come from our values, which are things we ultimately choose.

Just like you choose to be hungry when you haven't eaten for 3 days.

Just like you choose to be tired when you haven't slept for 3 days.

Just like you choose to be thirsty when you haven't drunk for 3 days.

Just like you choose to have intense stomach pain when you haven't shit for 3 weeks.

Just like you choose to be cold when you are in -30 degrees Celsisus conditions without any clothes on.

Just like you choose to feel hot when you are in a sauna.

Just like you choose to feel disorientated when you are drunk.

There are passions that exist beyond personality and moral conviction, faggot. Doesn't take a genius to understand this.

>Results of thinking =/= reason

I agree. Not all of our conclusions are rational. Reason requires adherence to reality, and it's not easy or atuomatic. It's a learned skill, as I keep saying. But just because humans can make bad choices does not mean that we cannot or do not reason, nor does it mean that reason is not unattainable.

Some men choose to go without food while hungry. Some men choose to eat while hungry.

Men, once poor and starving, became wealthy because of the choices they made.

Some men choose to sleep when tired, others choose to stay awake. Some men, tired on a night watch, stayed awake to help win a decisive battle in a war that determined the future of humanity.

Some men drink when thirsty, others go without water. Some men, knowing they can find more water, choose to help a fellow human in need because it makes life better to help people.

The reasons for each of these things are rooted in values, which are rooted in the mind. And whether the values are rational depends entirely upon the process a man has used to arrive at his conclusions.

There is nothing mystical or religious about this process.

>>15293

>but not the entirety of society, at least not in practice.

The entirety of society doesn't need to be rational in order for the pursuit of reason to be a valuable. It's like you're saying: "Everyone, everywhere, can't be perfectly rational, so therefore reason can't exist." It's absurd.

>Yes but your passions cloud your judgement

You completely ignored my argument. Passions come from values you already have, which come from the mind. Your passions – i.e., your values – might not be rational, but ideally they are.

You aren't making any sense.

>>15294

>but not the entirety of society, at least not in practice.

"People sometimes make mistakes and get into car wrecks. Therefore, driving makes no sense. We should all go back to the horse and buggy."

That's what you sound like.

>>15294

>The entirety of society doesn't need to be rational in order for the pursuit of reason to be a valuable. It's like you're saying: "Everyone, everywhere, can't be perfectly rational, so therefore reason can't exist." It's absurd.

And you are extrapolating my claims into absurdity, kinda explains how it may seem absurd. I never claimed the pursuit of knowledge to be useless, you put those words into my mouth yourself. Trying to make a rational society won't work, so basing your belief system on a rational society is outright delusional. Libertarianism can work fine but that doesn't mean the philosophy behind whatever the fuck you are talking about is sound.

>"People sometimes make mistakes and get into car wrecks. Therefore, driving makes no sense. We should all go back to the horse and buggy."

>That's what you sound like.

How ironic though, you proclaim yourself to be an advocate of reason, yet you indulge yourself in ridicule and mockery. Should I explain how a strawman is ridiculous or can you figure that out on your own?

>You completely ignored my argument. Passions come from values you already have, which come from the mind. Your passions – i.e., your values – might not be rational, but ideally they are.

Your CHOICES come from your mind, your passions are what affect your mind. You cannot choose to be hungry (external influence that you do not control with your mind) but you can choose to not eat (free will). Passions are not values, your values are what you choose to do when faced with a dillemma, since something that you do not choose has no value. Fear is not a value and it does not have a value of its own, what you do when affected by fear, however, does have value, given there is a choice. Yet again you are trying to define shit to suit your argument and not the other way around.

>>15296

>Trying to make a rational society won't work

Why? Because you say so? You're basically saying, "We can't teach people how to think, so we must make them obey instead." It's absurd. I'm instead saying, "The reason why the West is in decline is because people refuse to think, and seek instead to either command or obey."

>yet you indulge yourself in ridicule and mockery

There's nothing irrational about mockery.

>our passions are what affect your mind.

All of the things you call "passions" are not the same as being hungry or thirsty. You're mixing definitions.

The things humans are passionate about are ultimately grounded in values, which are in some fashion volitional. You might not choose to be hungry, but you choose how to satiate the hunger. Etc.

You're repeating yourself now.

>>15297

>Why? Because you say so?

No, I am saying we can't have one simply because YOU say so, you have to give reasoning for it and have to be able to explain why we don't have it now.

>You're basically saying, "We can't teach people how to think, so we must make them obey instead."

Except that I never stated this, you are the one to bring this up, not me.

>I'm instead saying, "The reason why the West is in decline is because people refuse to think, and seek instead to either command or obey."

You don't need to be a genius to be independent. You can even be mentally retarded and still manage to do it.

>There's nothing irrational about mockery.

There is if you try to use it to prove a point.

>All of the things you call "passions" are not the same as being hungry or thirsty. You're mixing definitions.

Passions are the desires you have that arise from these sensations, so no, I am not mixing anything.

>The things humans are passionate about are ultimately grounded in values, which are in some fashion volitional. You might not choose to be hungry, but you choose how to satiate the hunger. Etc.

>You're repeating yourself now.

Except that you simply rephrased the last paragraph I wrote, so, in fact, you are actually repeating what I said.

>>15298

>whines about being mocked, implied someone was retarded earlier in thread

Pure Judaism.

>No, I am saying we can't have one simply because YOU say so, you have to give reasoning for it and have to be able to explain why we don't have it now.

I'll re-phrase what I've already written several times. It's a conscious choice to be rational. Reason a method of thinking that you employ in your daily life. People can choose to be rational, but the importance of reason and applying it to the entirety of one's life has fallen almost completely out of Western culture over the past 500 years. It's so bad that no one even understands the meanings of basic words like "rational" or what a "rational society" would look like. Creating a more rational culture is a function of restoring the philosophy.

>You don't need to be a genius to be independent. You can even be mentally retarded and still manage to do it.

Who said only geniuses use reason? Your level of intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you are, in principle, using the method of reason.

>Passions are the desires you have that arise from these sensations, so no, I am not mixing anything.

What you are essentially trying to argue is that instincts (what you're calling "passions", which is a horrible mangling of the concept of passion) override your ability to reason. I'm saying that this is ridiculous, because whether or not you use reason is entirely a function of choice. I can choose to use reason even if I am starving; in fact, if I *don't* use reason while starving, I will probably die! (Reason is man's only means of obtaining the things he needs to survive–we don't come with any automatic knowledge.)