NationStates Jolt Archive

I am the ghost of Ayn Rand, and I am here to discuss Objectivism, THE Philosophy, and thus educate you all.

I, Ayn Rand, characterize Objectivism as a philosophy for living on earth, unlike those toga stuffing assholes like Plato, who wasted their lives talking about life only in Greece, or cunts like Kant, who admits his philosophy is useful principally for colonizing Neptune.

Second, my philosophy is grounded in reality, and aimed at defining man's nature and the nature of the world in which he lives. This differs from other philosophers, like John Locke, who grounds his philosophy in World of Warcraft, and aims at discovering a hack to make his character look like a minotaur dry humping a dwarf, but always viewed from the rear no matter what angle the viewer is at.

The proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest and the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez-faire capitalism. This works out great, because once the individual’s rights are fully respected by the small government, there is no possible other way that happiness, rational self-interest, or rights can be abrogated. And if they are, we’ll have retaliatory courts so the government can use its monopoly on force for good instead of ebil. What could go wrong?

Like Reagan said, the government isn’t the solution, government is the problem. That’s why when he sold missiles to the Iranians to get money fight a proxy war, he used his own privately owned missiles, not tax-payer missiles.

As I explained when alive, “I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.” All those smegma addicted twats like Descartes have lesser philosophies for one reason: they didn’t use reason. If they did, they’d all be objectivists, because it all follows.

To review: I am primarily an advocate of egoism, and reason; I am NOT primarily an advocate of egoism, or capitalism. Not primarily. As you can tell, my acumen for rigorous logic makes me the pre-eminent Russian American philosopher, and you should familiarize yourself with my works.

And remember, to dispute me is to dispute the three axioms, including the Law of Identity, that “everything is what it is”. Once you understand that, college scholarships and government services for impoverished children are suddenly revealed as worse than having the safety pin you were using on your leather cock-helmet come loose on the backstroke.

I leave you with this: “To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem.” Once a man has lots of those three things, its all good! As a Russian American, I can think of no example where highly motivated megalomaniacs who were adequately convinced of their own reasoning have ever led to problems. Give them land, and they will grow my philosophy into a new civilization!

I'm waiting for the meme-fest

ugh try harder please

Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. You funneh.

Apparently you've managed to distill 27 years of afterlife into ... more of the same crap you spouted while you were alive. I enjoyed reading your stuff when I was a collitch boy, but then I left school and grew up.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

You forgot that art is objectively good or bad, one is attracted only to those that personify the values one holds dear(good looks have nothing to do with it), and altruism is evil.

Apparently you've managed to distill 27 years of afterlife into ... more of the same crap you spouted while you were alive. I enjoyed reading your stuff when I was a collitch boy, but then I left school and grew up.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

:eek: your not a libertarian anymore?

Nice.

You forgot that art is objectively good or bad,

This is true. My short story "Vladimir Goes To School And Is Prevented From Curing His Own Leukemia Because The Microscope Was Being Used By Poor Children With Government Science Grants" explains that on page 4.


one is attracted only to those that personify the values one holds dear(good looks have nothing to do with it),

This is also true. For example, abused women have abusive relationships because they hold dear Pabst Blue Ribbon and confederate tattoos.


and altruism is evil.

Yes, I proved that it exists and its evil in my serialized novel "Joan Does Water Usage Research For the County and Is Thus A Dumb Whore Destroying Society", which which will be published in either Reader's Digest or along the bottom of the screen on Fox News.

Gee.... now if only I had a cat in a lawyer suit to explain to me what it all means!

Gee.... now if only I had a cat in a lawyer suit to explain to me what it all means!

Oh, see, I know how this is going. I see what this is. Well you know what? No. No I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do "what's expected". I'm not going to be your monkey any more!

FUCK YOU!

Oh, see, I know how this is going. I see what this is. Well you know what? No. No I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do "what's expected". I'm not going to be your monkey any more!

FUCK YOU!

*Waves a bannana in front of Neo Art*


You no playie? :(

Oh, see, I know how this is going. I see what this is. Well you know what? No. No I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do "what's expected". I'm not going to be your monkey any more!

FUCK YOU!

See, this is why you need to familiarize yourself with my works.

As I've explained, the Law of Identity: a thing is what it is. Whereas "existence exists" pertains to existence itself (whether something exists or not), the law of identity pertains to the nature of an object as being necessarily distinct from other objects (whether something exists as this or that).

You are a cat in a lawyer suit. A = A. Even those dumbass anus-corkers the Greeks agreed with that. After they familiarized themselves with my work.

. . . the pre-eminent Russian American philosopher . . .
More eminent than Igor Yefahfefahfimov? I find that hard to believe.

*Waves a bannana in front of Neo Art*


You no playie? :(

*sigh* fine

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p233/poliwanacraca/aynrandposter3.jpg

Oh, see, I know how this is going. I see what this is. Well you know what? No. No I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do "what's expected". I'm not going to be your monkey any more!

FUCK YOU!
*dangles catnip and a copy of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly* Here, kitty-kitty. :D

Well I think we all know who this guy is...

You forgot that art is objectively good or bad, one is attracted only to those that personify the values one holds dear(good looks have nothing to do with it), and altruism is evil.
The real Ayn Rand would have covered at least the third one in the OP. Very much a fail on our dear "satirists" part.

Works every time.

ugh try harder please

Since your rebuttal reflects such effort, I will comply.

Its all about rational self-interest see. That's how the world really works.

After all, when would self-interest ever distort rationality, or reason?

The world works a certain way, and we humans have to deal with that. I'm saying we should deal with it the way it is, and try to make that work for us.
Us being me.

That's what makes me distinct from other philosophers, who are bunch of asthmatic pussies who want to go play horse-soldier.

See, this is why you need to familiarize yourself with my works.

As I've explained, the Law of Identity: a thing is what it is. Whereas "existence exists" pertains to existence itself (whether something exists or not), the law of identity pertains to the nature of an object as being necessarily distinct from other objects (whether something exists as this or that).

You are a cat in a lawyer suit. A = A. Even those dumbass anus-corkers the Greeks agreed with that. After they familiarized themselves with my work.

... now this is interesting.

Kinda like the driver giving his beercan to a passenger and saying "here, watch me do this"

it's not gonna be pretty.

More eminent than Igor Yefahfefahfimov? I find that hard to believe.

He was merely Russian. I am Russian American. This is Rush'N Attack: http://www.tripletsandus.com/80s/80s_games/rushnattack_java.htm.

*sigh* fine

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p233/poliwanacraca/aynrandposter3.jpg

*Gives Neo Art the bannana peel*


What? I was hungry! :D


Weee! :]

He was merely Russian. I am Russian American. This is Rush'N Attack: http://www.tripletsandus.com/80s/80s_games/rushnattack_java.htm.
And this is a Zerg Rush:

http://www.bloodysushi.com/macro/zerg%20rush.jpg

Where did all the Libertarians come from? I thought they were allergic to the internet because its a network of interconnected networks of interconnected computers that horribly fails if they try to not work as a communal whole.

The real Ayn Rand would have covered at least the third one in the OP. Very much a fail on our dear "satirists" part.

The OP is not the entirety of my works, with which you should famliarize yourself.

As for altruism, its evil is plainly evident, as is its existence.

Think about all the great evils you know of: rape, genocide, child molestation, fat guys in banana hammocks, murder of the elderly...

What's the unifying theme? Altruism.

QED, parasites.

Where did all the Libertarians come from? I thought they were allergic to the internet because its a network of interconnected networks of interconnected computers that horribly fails if they try to not work as a communal whole.

Common misunderstanding.

Objectivists are not against cooperation. We are in favor of it, so long as its voluntary, unregulated, and dependent solely on each individual to be rational in their pursuit of self interest.

Its a golden formula!

Common misunderstanding.

Objectivists are not against cooperation. We are in favor of it, so long as its voluntary, unregulated, and dependent solely on each individual to be rational in their pursuit of self interest.

Its a golden formula!

You hypocritical TCP/IP slave.

Well I think we all know who this guy is...

Referring to me by a male pronoun is a mere ad hominem attack, demonstrating your inability to cogently refute Objectivism (don't worry, its a universal failing).

The fact is, I have no penis, and I resided in the men's dormitory at UoP solely for reasons of rational self-interest.

You hypocritical TCP/IP slave.

This is why we Objectivists wish to free the internet of things like "protocols" and "providers" and "standardization" and other things that crush the Ego.

Each person can, should, and must develop their own data transfer rules, and not let the government tell you what "0" means this and "1" means that.

He was merely Russian. I am Russian American. This is Rush'N Attack: http://www.tripletsandus.com/80s/80s_games/rushnattack_java.htm.
Na-uh. Igor Yeh-fee-fi-foh-fum-I-Smell-The-Blood-of-an-Englishman-imov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Yefimov) was born in Russia and moved to America in the 20th Century. He published multiple works of both fiction and philosophy. Thus, he is your competition.
NOW PROVE YOUR EMINENCE; I DEMAND IT!

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff220/FloridaJudy/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

Objectivism is useful when you don't want to call your mom back without guilt.

Guys...I think this is fake. The OP is claiming to be a ghost.

BUT HOW WOULD A GHOST USE A KEYBOARD?

Exactly. Most ghosts cannot exert force on the physical world, being non-material bodies. And poltergeists? Well, they'd just fling the keyboard about wildly, producing a random combination of letters and a rapidly smashed keyboard.

On this basis, I proclaim the Ghost of Ayn Rand to be a FAKE.

The OP isn't the ghost of Ayn Rand, he's the ghost of Andrew Ryan and he asks us all a simple question: are you a man, or a slave?

Na-uh. Igor Yeh-fee-fi-foh-fum-I-Smell-The-Blood-of-an-Englishman-imov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Yefimov) was born in Russia and moved to America in the 20th Century. He published multiple works of both fiction and philosophy. Thus, he is your competition.
NOW PROVE YOUR EMINENCE; I DEMAND IT!

He was never truly American. Not like me.

Brad Pitt wants to produce and star in "The Fountainhead".


Who wants to star in "Five Talents or One?" I'll tell you who. The other guy from "Charles in Charge".

Eminence proved. In fact, PRE-eminence proved.

Where did all the Libertarians come from? I thought they were allergic to the internet because its a network of interconnected networks of interconnected computers that horribly fails if they try to not work as a communal whole.

The funny thing is many hardcore objectivists hate Libertarians for 'stealing/corrupting' their ideology.

Guys...I think this is fake. The OP is claiming to be a ghost.

BUT HOW WOULD A GHOST USE A KEYBOARD?

Exactly. Most ghosts cannot exert force on the physical world, being non-material bodies. And poltergeists? Well, they'd just fling the keyboard about wildly, producing a random combination of letters and a rapidly smashed keyboard.

On this basis, I proclaim the Ghost of Ayn Rand to be a FAKE.

Its very simple. Reality is objective. It can be understood through the senses and reason, and your actions should be rational self interest.

When I died, I found myself in a giant field...all reality itself presented itself to me through the symbolism of an endless ocean, inviting me to Be and Know and Love and Experience, to a degree unimaginable...all Awareness would have washed over me...

So I said, what about my ego?

And Reality said, well, that doesn't really benefit...

So I said fuck that, and here I am.

And this is a Zerg Rush:

http://www.bloodysushi.com/macro/zerg%20rush.jpg

And here's another Rush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff220/FloridaJudy/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg
I know. The controversial works of Igor Ye-fah-fah-fahfahfahfah-vimov have caused no end of debate here, and I did for a moment question whether it was safe to bring up his name. But some things must be done.
Brad Pitt wants to produce and star in "The Fountainhead".

Who wants to star in "Five Talents or One?" I'll tell you who. The other guy from "Charles in Charge".

Eminence proved. In fact, PRE-eminence proved.
It would be very difficult to produce a filmed version of a political essay.
Still, I suppose I must concede the point. You win this round, Rand's dead deceased ghost, but I'LL BE BACK!!

And here's another Rush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh is a good example of what a man can do when he's got enough purpose and self-esteem.

He should couple with Ann Coulter, who was constructed from various parts, including, flatteringly, my pelvis (although she's not using it as a pelvis).

And here's another Rush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_LimbaughI sense a horrible version of that "last letter-first letter" alphabet game coming on. :'(

I know. The controversial works of Igor Ye-fah-fah-fahfahfahfah-vimov have caused no end of debate here, and I did for a moment question whether it was safe to bring up his name. But some things must be done.

His campus-club parties are good though. They got Smirnoff as a sponsor.


It would be very difficult to produce a filmed version of a political essay.
Still, I suppose I must concede the point. You win this round, Rand's dead deceased ghost, but I'LL BE BACK!!

It is not difficult to transfer political essay to the medium of cinema. I refer you to the health-care politics treatise that became "Last Holiday", starring pre-eminent African American philosopher Queen Latifah.

I sense a horrible version of that "last letter-first letter" alphabet game coming on. :'(

Lets not give the Powers any more reason to lock us, here.

Okay, here's Hush Hush: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/deep+purple/hush_20038799.html

In Soviet Russia, eminent philosophers familiarize themselves with YOU!

Objectivism is useful when you don't want to call your mom back without guilt.

You don't need objectivism for that.

In Soviet Russia, eminent philosophers familiarize themselves with YOU!

As well they should. Plato, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, G. W. F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Herbert Spencer should all do exactly that.

As has been said: "Ayn Rand has brought to the world the knowledge that A is A, and that 2 and 2 equal 4."

Rush Limbaugh is a good example of what a man can do when he's got enough purpose and self-esteem.

He should couple with Ann Coulter, who was constructed from various parts, including, flatteringly, my pelvis (although she's not using it as a pelvis).

I always figured Ann Coulter was a Franken-conservative. And Rush Limbaugh is the little engine who could, unfortunately he went up the wrong hill.

You don't need objectivism for that.

You have a record of arguing in favor, in FAVOR, of peer reviewed research and scientific grants.

Thus, you have contributed to the utter and total erosion and slaughter of human civilization.

A REAL scientist would have already moved to Galtville, or having found it to not yet exist, found it.

His campus-club parties are good though. They got Smirnoff as a sponsor.
Indeed.
I would like it noted, for the record, that at this moment I resisted my urge to make fun of Igor . . . we'll just Igor, his name. Though that is my favorite thing about him, I just once erred on the side of maturity.
It is not difficult to transfer political essay to the medium of cinema. I refer you to the health-care politics treatise that became "Last Holiday", starring pre-eminent African American philosopher Queen Latifah.
I don't think that particular sequence of words has ever been uttered in the history of humanity, and I very much doubt that it will ever be uttered again.

I always figured Ann Coulter was a Franken-conservative. And Rush Limbaugh is the little engine who could, unfortunately he went up the wrong hill.

Mock if you will, but he's a deaf man who's made a fortune in radio, and a drug addict who has argued in favor of harsher punishment for drug addicts.

Rush is a non-parasite. What have YOU refrained from parasitizing today?

Indeed.

I don't think that particular sequence of words has ever been uttered in the history of humanity, and I very much doubt that it will ever be uttered again.

Very well...if the phrase "pre-eminent African American philsopher Queen Latifah" is made into an internet meme of even minor and brief magnitude, the one responsible can choose my avatar.

Mock if you will, but he's a deaf man who's made a fortune in radio, and a drug addict who has argued in favor of harsher punishment for drug addicts.

Rush is a non-parasite. What have YOU refrained from parasitizing today?

Absolutely nothing! I'm a proud retiree, parasitizing the system.

Rush is a non-parasite. What have YOU refrained from parasitizing today?

Hell, I work for an on-campus coffee shop as a public employee. I'm pretty sure public-sector employment makes me a parasite, especially considering the utter lack of real competition or incentive to deliver anything more than marginal customer service.

TURN UNDEAD!

[natural 20 rolled]

And there are better things to turn to than her philosophy.

Absolutely nothing! I'm a proud retiree, parasitizing the system.

Retirement is nothing but a Ponzi scheme, where each new flock of slaves have their egos crushed to pay for their irrationally selfless progenitors.

People should work until they die. Its good for the ego.

Retirement is nothing but a Ponzi scheme, where each new flock of slaves have their egos crushed to pay for their irrationally selfless progenitors.

People should work until they die. Its good for the ego.

I like my slaves. I had my ego crushed by my employers, it's someone else's turn now.

Hell, I work for an on-campus coffee shop as a public employee. I'm pretty sure public-sector employment makes me a parasite, especially considering the utter lack of real competition or incentive to deliver anything more than marginal customer service.

Working in the Public Sector, you are already boiling, brewing, and pouring the collapse of mankind.

As for "on-campus", you are shitting from a great height on humanity. Stop it.

TURN UNDEAD!

[natural 20 rolled]

And there are better things to turn to than her philosophy.

As the UberLich Queen of Supra-Academic Philosophy, I can't be turned. Check your monster manual.

As the UberLich Queen of Supra-Academic Philosophy, I can't be turned. Check your monster manual.

I just checked it -- it says that people with "ghost" in their username are, in fact, ghosts and not uberliches.

I just checked it -- it says that people with "ghost" in their username are, in fact, ghosts and not uberliches.

Its a ceremonial title, because I use a lot of nukes in the All-Afterlife Pan-Religious StarCraft Tournament.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2qdv9sg.jpgSeriously.

Its a ceremonial title, because I use a lot of nukes in the All-Afterlife Pan-Religious StarCraft Tournament.

Ah, I remember that one. You'd think Liu Shan would realize that attacks are supposed to have more than one unit, but...

I suspect you are not a ghost at all, but the reincarnation of someone ...

I suspect you are not a ghost at all, but the reincarnation of someone ...

Reincarnation does not fit rational self-interest, unless you can be sure to reincarnate in an Objectivist country to Objectivist parents who have a lot of money, Objectively.

Reincarnation is much more objective than ghosts. I mean, what does it profit the ghost? You can't touch people, you can't get money, no one loves you - really, what's the point?

Whereas with reincarnation, you get a lifetime more of opportunity\ies to be rationally self-interested.

Reincarnation is much more objective than ghosts. I mean, what does it profit the ghost? You can't touch people, you can't get money, no one loves you - really, what's the point?

Whereas with reincarnation, you get a lifetime more of opportunity\ies to be rationally self-interested.

I touch people every day, through my works. You should intimate yourself with them.

I have plenty of money. I made them bury it with me.

I am beyond loved, I am pre-eminent. There are campus groups where college students really get into my philosophy. The fleeting fascination of under-grads is the highest form of Love.

I touch people every day, through my works. You should intimate yourself with them.

I have plenty of money. I made them bury it with me.

I am beyond loved, I am pre-eminent. There are campus groups where college students really get into my philosophy. The fleeting fascination of under-grads is the highest form of Love.

Ah yes, your works. I've read them. The Fountainhead was ok. When I was in college, I wrote a paper debunking your philosophy - got an A. Of course, I also wrote a paper debunking Karl Marx - got an A on that, too.

Ah yes, your works. I've read them. The Fountainhead was ok. When I was in college, I wrote a paper debunking your philosophy - got an A. Of course, I also wrote a paper debunking Karl Marx - got an A on that, too.
The movie was better. It took less time to get through.

The movie was better. It took less time to get through.

And Gary Cooper wasn't bad to look at.

When I was in college, I wrote a paper debunking your philosophy - got an A. Of course, I also wrote a paper debunking Karl Marx - got an A on that, too.
Then let us never speak of Objectivism or Marxism again!

Ah yes, your works. I've read them. The Fountainhead was ok. When I was in college, I wrote a paper debunking your philosophy - got an A. Of course, I also wrote a paper debunking Karl Marx - got an A on that, too.

You should have joined one of my campus Objectivist groups. You would have met girls as hot as me, passionate and ready adulate the Ego of a man.

An "A" paper is no big deal. Does your paper sell 400,000 copies a year? No.

You might ask yourself, by that reasoning, wouldn't Dianetics thus be a valuable philosophy? Well, stop asking that.

Ah yes, your works. I've read them. The Fountainhead was ok. When I was in college, I wrote a paper debunking your philosophy - got an A. Of course, I also wrote a paper debunking Karl Marx - got an A on that, too.

I always thought Lord of the Flies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) was the best summary of Rand's attempts at philosophy.

You should have joined one of my campus Objectivist groups. You would have met girls as hot as me, passionate and ready adulate the Ego of a man.

An "A" paper is no big deal. Does your paper sell 400,000 copies a year? No.

You might ask yourself, by that reasoning, wouldn't Dianetics thus be a valuable philosophy? Well, stop asking that.

Why would I want to meet girls? Now Mark Harmon or Adrian Paul...

Really, if you're very objective at all, you should be more observant.

And Gary Cooper wasn't bad to look at.
True. And when the movie got boring, we could amuse ourselves by thinking about all those "True Hollywood" stories about his sex life. Despite her pre-eminence, Ayn Rand never wrote a book that made anyone think about sex. Not even the ones that had sex in them.

I always thought Lord of the Flies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) was the best summary of Rand's attempts at philosophy.

No, see, the problem was, Piggy's low self-esteem. I've tried to explain to you people, Man must worship himself, his ego, his reason, his purpose.

That story was just a case of self-interest, untempered and raging, resulting in the weak being abused by the strong with no recourse. That doesn't happen in real life.

That book was fiction. I write philosophy.

Why would I want to meet girls? Now Mark Harmon or Adrian Paul...

Really, if you're very objective at all, you should be more observant.

Well, I wish we'd met before my freshman year at UoP, when I still had a penis...

Well, I wish we'd met before my freshman year at UoP, when I still had a penis...

Ah, I know who you are now. Ann Coulter.

You should have joined one of my campus Objectivist groups. You would have met girls as hot as me, passionate and ready adulate the Ego of a man.

An "A" paper is no big deal. Does your paper sell 400,000 copies a year? No.

You might ask yourself, by that reasoning, wouldn't Dianetics thus be a valuable philosophy? Well, stop asking that.

No offense, but if they're as "hot" as you are, I think I'll stay single.

Ah, I know who you are now. Ann Coulter.

No, she just has my pelvis. But she's not using it as a pelvis.

No, she just has my pelvis. But she's not using it as a pelvis.

Then who has your penis?

Then who has your penis?

That's a really long story.

Really long.

That's a really long story.

Really long.

I need to know who to avoid.

That's a really long story.

Really long.
I bet it wasn't that long.

I bet it wasn't that long.

The stories are long, the rest isn't.

I bet it wasn't that long.

I can't believe you'd imply that Ayn Rand had a short penis.

Im more of a Battle Royale kinda guy...

I can't believe you'd imply that Ayn Rand had a short penis.

This has got to be one of the single greatest quotes NSG has ever produced.

This has got to be one of the single greatest quotes NSG has ever produced.

Certainly more elegant than the time we got to talking about the Navigators in Dune and somebody called somebody a "giant spicy vagina face".

I can't believe you'd imply that Ayn Rand had a short penis.

you know, I don't think you're really Ayn Rand's ghost.

you know, I don't think you're really Ayn Rand's ghost.

I can't believe you'd imply that Ayn Rand's ghost wouldn't speak in the third person while discussing her short penis.

I can't believe you'd imply that Ayn Rand had a short penis.

This has got to be one of the single greatest quotes NSG has ever produced.
I'm siggin' it.

you know, I don't think you're really Ayn Rand's ghost.
Cynic. :tongue:

I can't believe you'd imply that Ayn Rand's ghost wouldn't speak in the third person while discussing her short penis.

I don't think you're really Ayn Rand's penis

I'm siggin' it.

Oh, good. Someone clearly had to, and it seemed like overkill for me to have two quotes by the same pers-I mean, um, totally different people. ;)

you know, I don't think you're really Ayn Rand's ghost.

Dude, seriously, some guy actually felt the need to present a structured argument about how I'm not Ayn Rand's ghost, and even if I was, why I wouldn't be here.

Oh, good. Someone clearly had to, and it seemed like overkill for me to have two quotes by the same pers-I mean, um, totally different people. ;)

"Don't quote Ayn Rand's ghost. Quote Ayn Rand" - Any Rand's Ghost.

You know, I've heard of Ayn Rand, but never Any Rand."Don't quote Ayn Rand's ghost. Quote Ayn Rand" - Any Rand's Ghost. I'm sure such a famous...wait, what was she again? Some sort of famous something or other. I'm sure whatever she was wouldn't have misspelled her own name.

You know, I've heard of Ayn Rand, but never Any Rand.I'm sure such a famous...wait, what was she again? Some sort of famous something or other. I'm sure whatever she was wouldn't have misspelled her own name.

lol, Rush is the only reference I have for her...

You know, I've heard of Ayn Rand, but never Any Rand.I'm sure such a famous...wait, what was she again? Some sort of famous something or other. I'm sure whatever she was wouldn't have misspelled her own name.

Its a typo. As a ghost, I have to exert tremendous effort to temporarily possess Katganistan and posts these things under a fake account. It makes me tired, tired people typo.

Its a typo. As a ghost, I have to exert tremendous effort to temporarily possess Katganistan and posts these things under a fake account. It makes me tired, tired people typo.
Nice save.

Nice save.

Any Rand is not amused!

I don't think you're really Ayn Rand's penis

Before you discuss what is or isnt Ayn Rand's penis, you should familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand.

Before you discuss what is or isnt Ayn Rand's penis, you should familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand.

Precisely. Then, he can understand, via such vital axioms as the Law of Identity, via which we can conclude that Ayn Rand's Penis is Ayn Rand's Penis.

Before you discuss what is or isnt Ayn Rand's penis, you should familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand.
In which you will learn that:
Ayn Rand's penis = Ayn Rand's penis
by the Objective principle, A = A

Wow. I'm thinking like Ayn Rand's Ghost, simultaneously. Should I be scared?

Its very simple. Reality is objective. It can be understood through the senses and reason, and your actions should be rational self interest.

When I died, I found myself in a giant field...all reality itself presented itself to me through the symbolism of an endless ocean, inviting me to Be and Know and Love and Experience, to a degree unimaginable...all Awareness would have washed over me...

So I said, what about my ego?

And Reality said, well, that doesn't really benefit...

So I said fuck that, and here I am.It took you twenty-seven years to have a two minute conversation?
Its a typo. As a ghost, I have to exert tremendous effort to temporarily possess Katganistan and posts these things under a fake account. It makes me tired, tired people typo.Let us not forget your grammar, either, Ayn Rand. I'm sure such an eminent whatever she was would not have bad grammar. There is no excuse for improper communication of ideas that are asserted to have a deep, meaningful impact on the lives of humans.

It took you twenty-seven years to have a two minute conversation?
Ayn Rand? Definitely. Have you read her books?

Let us not forget your grammar, either, Ayn Rand. I'm sure such an eminent whatever she was would not have bad grammar. There is no excuse for improper communication of ideas that are asserted to have a deep, meaningful impact on the lives of humans.
Oh, no, her grammar sucked. She really was a piss-poor writer. But one hell of an Objectivist.

Ayn Rand? Definitely. Have you read her books? I refuse to pay shipping and handling. None of the local stores within a fifty mile radius carry any book by her, and the local libraries seem to have lost their copies.


Oh, no, her grammar sucked. She really was a piss-poor writer. But one hell of an Objectivist.Was it intelligible enough to make her ideas understood, or was it lacking?

I am the ghost of Ayn Rand, and I am here to discuss Objectivism, THE Philosophy, and thus educate you all.

I, Ayn Rand, characterize Objectivism as a philosophy for living on earth, unlike those toga stuffing assholes like Plato, who wasted their lives talking about life only in Greece, or cunts like Kant, who admits his philosophy is useful principally for colonizing Neptune.

Second, my philosophy is grounded in reality, and aimed at defining man's nature and the nature of the world in which he lives. This differs from other philosophers, like John Locke, who grounds his philosophy in World of Warcraft, and aims at discovering a hack to make his character look like a minotaur dry humping a dwarf, but always viewed from the rear no matter what angle the viewer is at.

The proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest and the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez-faire capitalism. This works out great, because once the individual’s rights are fully respected by the small government, there is no possible other way that happiness, rational self-interest, or rights can be abrogated. And if they are, we’ll have retaliatory courts so the government can use its monopoly on force for good instead of ebil. What could go wrong?

Like Reagan said, the government isn’t the solution, government is the problem. That’s why when he sold missiles to the Iranians to get money fight a proxy war, he used his own privately owned missiles, not tax-payer missiles.

As I explained when alive, “I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.” All those smegma addicted twats like Descartes have lesser philosophies for one reason: they didn’t use reason. If they did, they’d all be objectivists, because it all follows.

To review: I am primarily an advocate of egoism, and reason; I am NOT primarily an advocate of egoism, or capitalism. Not primarily. As you can tell, my acumen for rigorous logic makes me the pre-eminent Russian American philosopher, and you should familiarize yourself with my works.

And remember, to dispute me is to dispute the three axioms, including the Law of Identity, that “everything is what it is”. Once you understand that, college scholarships and government services for impoverished children are suddenly revealed as worse than having the safety pin you were using on your leather cock-helmet come loose on the backstroke.

I leave you with this: “To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem.” Once a man has lots of those three things, its all good! As a Russian American, I can think of no example where highly motivated megalomaniacs who were adequately convinced of their own reasoning have ever led to problems. Give them land, and they will grow my philosophy into a new civilization!

I'm glad you're dead. :)

None of the local stores within a fifty mile radius carry any book by her, and the local libraries seem to have lost their copies.
Best thing I've heard about Alabama in a long time!

All I know is that I've read both Anthem and The Fountainhead, and while they were entertaining, I found it more than just a little convenient that the person Objectivists aren't supposed to be like was written like a douchebag. It seemed to me that Rand couldn't conceive of anyone whose misfortune or lower station in life was not their fault. This from someone who fucked her way into prominence. A bit disingenuous, I fear.

I refuse to pay shipping and handling. None of the local stores within a fifty mile radius carry any book by her, and the local libraries seem to have lost their copies.
You live in a great neighborhood. :D

Was it intelligible enough to make her ideas understood, or was it lacking?
Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "ideas," and "understand." And "intelligible." ;)

EDIT: For clarification, I should state that I do not mean to suggest that Ayn Rand was anything less than the pre-eminent 20th century Russian-American philosopher who established Objectivism in its appropriate place in the human mind, spirit and ego.

It's just that her novels really suck. :D

I refuse to pay shipping and handling. None of the local stores within a fifty mile radius carry any book by her, and the local libraries seem to have lost their copies.
We got ours at Borders.

Was it intelligible enough to make her ideas understood, or was it lacking?

It wasn't well written, it's pretty explicit on what she believes/believed although often at the expense of having believable characters or an actual plot.

All I know is that I've read both Anthem and The Fountainhead, and while they were entertaining, I found it more than just a little convenient that the person Objectivists aren't supposed to be like was written like a douchebag. It seemed to me that Rand couldn't conceive of anyone whose misfortune or lower station in life was not their fault. This from someone who fucked her way into prominence. A bit disingenuous, I fear.
Well, why didn't they fuck their way into prominence, eh? Eh? Laziness, that's why. Parasites do the bad kind of sucking.

(Crap, did I write that last part out loud?)

Ow. I've been immunized to the painful effects of stupidity, but self-righteous preaching still gives me splitting headaches. I need something to drink. So does ghost-lady.

It wasn't well written, it's pretty explicit on what she believes/believed although often at the expense of having believable characters or an actual plot.

She tried to pull what Nietzsche did in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but the key difference is TSZ was actually...you know...intellectually stimulating and worth reading.

Best thing I've heard about Alabama in a long time!You live in a great neighborhood. :D :D


Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "ideas," and "understand." And "intelligible." ;)

EDIT: For clarification, I should state that I do not mean to suggest that Ayn Rand was anything less than the pre-eminent 20th century Russian-American philosopher who established Objectivism in its appropriate place in the human mind, spirit and ego.

It's just that her novels really suck. :DThe more I read this topic, the less I want to read the subject. Objectivism sounds very dull, and, quite possibly, very uninformative.

We got ours at Borders. Farther than fifty miles away.It wasn't well written, it's pretty explicit on what she believes/believed although often at the expense of having believable characters or an actual plot.This is going on the "Do Not Read, Except For Classes" list.

Nothing quite like an over-inflated sense of the importance in your middle-school standard of understanding.

Ayn Rand is dead? :eek: What the hell have I been saving this bottle of champagne for?

*guzzles champagne*

You forgot that art is objectively good or bad, one is attracted only to those that personify the values one holds dear(good looks have nothing to do with it), and altruism is evil.

Less that altruism was evil, more that it didn't really exist, IIRC. At least that's what I got. Altruism to her is really socialism, which is indeed, quite evil in her eyes.

*sigh* fine

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p233/poliwanacraca/aynrandposter3.jpg

Is it me, or does she look like she could be Freddie Mercury's mother? Back before she gave up her pelvis to Coulter to use as something other than a pelvis, I mean.

I always figured Ann Coulter was a Franken-conservative. And Rush Limbaugh is the little engine who could, unfortunately he went up the wrong hill.

There are some liberal political contributors in the greater Minneapolis area who are gonna be piiiiiiissed....

Any Rand is not amused!

Well, perhaps we need a tally of Rands who are amused.

Oh yeah. I went there.

Well, why didn't they fuck their way into prominence, eh? Eh? Laziness, that's why. Parasites do the bad kind of sucking.

(Crap, did I write that last part out loud?)

Yes. Yes you did. That's how you roll, and that's why you rule.

Farther than fifty miles away.This is going on the "Do Not Read, Except For Classes" list.

Ill go one step further. If you are ever in a class where you are supposed to read Ayn Rand, drop it immediately.

Ill go one step further. If you are ever in a class where you are supposed to read Ayn Rand, drop it immediately.

Unless the class is something like NeoCon Masturbatory Fantasies 101.

Ill go one step further. If you are ever in a class where you are supposed to read Ayn Rand, drop it immediately.Wow, that bad? Never mind, I do not want to know. Consider your advice heeded. :D

all i have to say is that self esteem is a load of bull. That you respect your self and your actions is more important than how you think people view you.

I can't believe you'd imply that Ayn Rand is anything other than absolutely honest. And pre-eminent. Don't forget the pre-eminence.

By the way: Hello, Hammurab.

all i have to say is that self esteem is a load of bull. That you respect your self and your actions is more important than how you think people view you.

That's kinda what self-esteem is.

I bought the t-shirt!
Go me!

That's kinda what self-esteem is.

I was also confused by that.

Perhaps because I have not properly familiarized myself with the works of Ayn Rand.

What a disappointment. I thought this thread was about objectivism in the proper sense of the word, rather than Randism, which is what this all is.

What a disappointment. I thought this thread was about objectivism in the proper sense of the word, rather than Randism, which is what this all is.There's still time. Perhaps you could offer?

I am the ghost of Ayn Rand...
*Sends (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ4dOoAIeaA&feature=related)*

I was also confused by that.

Perhaps because I have not properly familiarized myself with the works of Ayn Rand.

Given that we're on computers, I can't help but be reminded by this little BioShock inspired bit:

Is a man not entitled to the game he buys?

NO, says the man at SecuRom. It belongs to 2K.
NO, says the man at 2K. It belongs to us.
NO, says the man at Microsoft. It belongs to our license purchasers.

I rejected those answers.

Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...piracy! Where the gamer would not be censored, where the PC owner would not be bound by petty encryption, where the buyer would not be constrained by corporate greed. And with the downloading of your torrents, piracy could become your salvation.

I can't believe you'd imply that Ayn Rand is anything other than absolutely honest. And pre-eminent. Don't forget the pre-eminence.

By the way: Hello, Hammurab.

Thank you! I thought I was the only one.

Ze ghost of ein Rand (http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi?template=pca&Amount=1&From=ZAR&To=EUR)? Das ist aber auch nicht viel Geld... :(

Well I think we all know who this guy is...

Ayn Rand?!?

What a great 5,000th post.

Given that we're on computers, I can't help but be reminded by this little BioShock inspired bit:

Is a man not entitled to the game he buys?

NO, says the man at SecuRom. It belongs to 2K.
NO, says the man at 2K. It belongs to us.
NO, says the man at Microsoft. It belongs to our license purchasers.

I rejected those answers.

Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...piracy! Where the gamer would not be censored, where the PC owner would not be bound by petty encryption, where the buyer would not be constrained by corporate greed. And with the downloading of your torrents, piracy could become your salvation.

:fluffle:

I am the ghost of Ayn Rand, and I am here to discuss Objectivism...

You know, I had never heard of this Rand thingie before. After wikiing her, well, my opinion is that if she was a great philosopher then I'm Napoleon.

I like to discover idiots previously unknown to me: they make me feel more intelligent!

You know, I had never heard of this Rand thingie before. After wikiing her, well, my opinion is that if she was a great philosopher then I'm Napoleon.

Hi Napoleon! :D

Hi Napoleon! :D

Parbleau! Les anglaises! Tirez! ...ou américains? Oops, excusez-moi ;)

No, seriously, how come it is possible for the product of such a disorganised mind to be called "philosophy"? Beats me.

Parbleau! Les anglaises! Tirez! ...ou américains? Oops, excusez-moi ;)

No, seriously, how come it is possible for the product of such a disorganised mind to be called "philosophy"? Beats me.
Really?

Well, try this: Consider some of the opinions you've read here on NSG, especially the ones about poverty and free markets and taxation. Then imagine the people who post those opinions finding some long, dull, preachy novels (which, incidentally, read very much like all of their posts strung together) which say pretty much the same stuff they've been saying. Is it really that difficult to guess how that writer would be hailed as a philosopher?

If so, add in the fact that the writer in question was the first to hail herself as a Big Time Super-Thinker (tm) -- you know, just to get the ball rolling.

Really?

Well, try this: Consider some of the opinions you've read here on NSG, especially the ones about poverty and free markets and taxation. Then imagine the people who post those opinions finding some long, dull, preachy novels (which, incidentally, read very much like all of their posts strung together) which say pretty much the same stuff they've been saying. Is it really that difficult to guess how that writer would be hailed as a philosopher?

If so, add in the fact that the writer in question was the first to hail herself as a Big Time Super-Thinker (tm) -- you know, just to get the ball rolling.

Are we including the Bible in this list?

Really?

Well, try this: Consider some of the opinions you've read here on NSG, especially the ones about poverty and free markets and taxation. Then imagine the people who post those opinions finding some long, dull, preachy novels (which, incidentally, read very much like all of their posts strung together) which say pretty much the same stuff they've been saying. Is it really that difficult to guess how that writer would be hailed as a philosopher?

If so, add in the fact that the writer in question was the first to hail herself as a Big Time Super-Thinker (tm) -- you know, just to get the ball rolling.

How can people READ novels that are long AND dull AND preachy?
Also, realising that "novelist" =/= "philosopher" is just one Merriam-Webster away... *sigh*

You know, she sounds very much like mr."I drive a cool car hence I'm better than you" Valentinasia.

Are we including the Bible in this list?
Only if you consider the books of Ayn Rand to be your Bible.

*hands ticking device to person who feels the irresistable urge to interject their own unrelated pet issue into someone else's point* Hold this for a couple of minutes for me, will you? Thanks. I'll be back soon. Don't put it down, 'k?

How can people READ novels that are long AND dull AND preachy?
That I cannot answer.

Also, realising that "novelist" =/= "philosopher" is just one Merriam-Webster away... *sigh*
Sigh. You clearly have not yet familiarized yourself with the works of the eminent 20th century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. You should, beginning with the maxim A=A.

You know, she sounds very much like mr."I drive a cool car hence I'm better than you" Valentinasia.
I thought he was Rachmaninov.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

Read this. Is all you need to know about objectishitism.

No one who missed out on reading and getting into Ayn Rand in high school can fully appreciate her work.

No one who missed out on reading and getting into Ayn Rand in high school can fully appreciate her work.

This is more worrying than anything. If it only works if you read it in the impressionable formative years its not very good.

No one who missed out on reading and getting into Ayn Rand in high school can fully appreciate her work.

It does seem to appeal to adolescent people.

Sigh. You clearly have not yet familiarized yourself with the works of the eminent 20th century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.
Not that I'm feeling like it, you know.

You should, beginning with the maxim A=A.
Having passed Mathematical Analysis 1, Mathematical Analysis 2, Linear Algebra, and Mathematical Methods of Physics, I guess I'm already familiar with the simmetric property of equivalence relations. ;)

I thought he was Rachmaninov.
Yes, but the attitude is about the same, isn't it? Maybe it's correlated to being an emigrè Russian; though Asimov wasn't such a jerk.

Objectivism is the opposite of free market capitalism, which recognizes the subjectivity of value. Ayn Rand was a Jacobin and fascist.

Objectivism is the opposite of free market capitalism, which recognizes the subjectivity of value. Ayn Rand was a Jacobin and fascist.

Jacobin? Nah, too way on the economical far-right spectrum (lassez faire).
Fascist? Nah, too individualist.

Mock if you will, but he's a deaf man who's made a fortune in radio, and a drug addict who has argued in favor of harsher punishment for drug addicts.

Rush is a non-parasite. What have YOU refrained from parasitizing today?

Being a PhD student on a teaching studentship, I can only assume that I am a true paragon of parasitism. After all, if you're going to be a parasite, might as well go all the way

Well, why didn't they fuck their way into prominence, eh? Eh? Laziness, that's why. Parasites do the bad kind of sucking.

*Tries to resist... too easy.... ah what the hell* Clearly that's why they have such trouble fucking their way to prominence. *Baddum tish*

People hate when you make them think. Welcome back! Is it obective or subjective to be on the wrong side of the gun?

Is it obective or subjective to be on the wrong side of the gun?
Exactly as subjective or objective as which side of the gun is the wrong side.

Exactly as subjective or objective as which side of the gun is the wrong side.

That is actually an incredibly profound answer.

That is actually an incredibly profound answer.
Really? I thought I was just poking at semantics.

Oh well. Philosophy is in the audience, I suppose.

Really? I thought I was just poking at semantics.

The outcome of your direction relative to the gun is the field of ballistics, not semantics.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with eminent Russian Russian small-arms designer Mikey "The Cash" Kalashnikov.

The outcome of your direction relative to the gun is the field of ballistics, not semantics.
Pssht. Same thing.

Pssht. Same thing.

Nuh-uh.

In fact, part of the reason that the Eminent Russian American Philosopher Ayn Rand is so eminent, is that she delivered the idea that something can't be another thing that its not. A=A.

Or, as my wiki-shrine puts it:

"Objectivism states that "Existence exists" (the Axiom of Existence) and "Existence is Identity." To be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes."[3] That which has no attributes does not and cannot exist. Hence, the Law of Identity: a thing is what it is. Whereas "existence exists" pertains to existence itself (whether something exists or not), the law of identity pertains to the nature of an object as being necessarily distinct from other objects (whether something exists as this or that). As Rand wrote, "A leaf cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A."[3]"

See. Nobody could have figured any of that out until I explained it.

Given that we're on computers, I can't help but be reminded by this little BioShock inspired bit:

Is a man not entitled to the game he buys?

NO, says the man at SecuRom. It belongs to 2K.
NO, says the man at 2K. It belongs to us.
NO, says the man at Microsoft. It belongs to our license purchasers.

I rejected those answers.

Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...piracy! Where the gamer would not be censored, where the PC owner would not be bound by petty encryption, where the buyer would not be constrained by corporate greed. And with the downloading of your torrents, piracy could become your salvation.

If it makes you feel better, no one who actually does anything at 2K makes much from it, either.

Too bad they can't live on 2K.

Thank you! I thought I was the only one.

Hm? Oh, I was just trying to catch Hammurab's attention, wherever he might be. Obviously you haven't familiarised yourself with the works of the pre-eminent twentieth-century philosopher Ayn Rand. You'd do well to do so. :D

As has been said: "Ayn Rand has brought to the world the knowledge that A is A, and that 2 and 2 equal 4."

Only when big brother wants two and two to equal four.

"Objectivism states that "Existence exists" (the Axiom of Existence) and "Existence is Identity." To be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes."[3] That which has no attributes does not and cannot exist. Hence, the Law of Identity: a thing is what it is. Whereas "existence exists" pertains to existence itself (whether something exists or not), the law of identity pertains to the nature of an object as being necessarily distinct from other objects (whether something exists as this or that). As Rand wrote, "A leaf cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A."[3]"

See. Nobody could have figured any of that out until I explained it.

Damn, you must have been pissed when Quantum Physics came along

"Objectivism states that "Existence exists" (the Axiom of Existence) and "Existence is Identity." To be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes."[3] That which has no attributes does not and cannot exist. Hence, the Law of Identity: a thing is what it is. Whereas "existence exists" pertains to existence itself (whether something exists or not), the law of identity pertains to the nature of an object as being necessarily distinct from other objects (whether something exists as this or that). As Rand wrote, "A leaf cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A."[3]"


Poor attempts at plagiarising Parmenides and the properties of equivalence relations (needed to build equivalence classes, that is, generalisations, and set theories).

I've got an ad that says "Ayn Rand's ideas applied. Get a free sample now!"

I read Atlas Shrugged recently, so I think I have a pretty damn good grasp of Objectivism. It makes some very good arguments, enough that I had to fall back on religion to answer them.

One of the most fundamental tenets of Judaism is "love thy neighbor as thyself". This would seem to run in direct opposition to Objectivism, but this is not the case. Sages agree that the commandment is to value your neighbor's well-being as the same as your own. Not less, and not more.

Judaism teaches that one should give to charity, but only after your own income is secure. The specific value (defined by G-d) is 10% of your income, assuming you can afford to do so. It is admirable to give more, but not commanded. In fact, only Jews are commanded to give charity. Non-Jews are not obligated to give a penny to charity. If we examine the actions of the protagonists of Atlas Shrugged through the lens of the Noachide Laws, we would find that the only sin men such as Henry Rearden committed was adultery. The government, however, is guilty of theft on a grand scale - seizing their private property without just cause.

The sole exception to the above is if human life is at stake. It is a sin to allow a single human being to die if you can help it. In fact, we can make the argument that the protagonists committed this sin by abandoning society when they could have helped prevent starvation. But this does not mean that, in our world where there are people incapable of supporting themselves, we should spend nothing on ourselves until everyone is safe from starvation. Far better to give some of our income to charity, while using the rest to sustain ourselves and increase our ability to produce.

what would happen if all the books of Ayn Rand were 400 pages shorter?

The answer...

http://www.modernhumorist.com/mh/0101/rand/

Objectivism is the opposite of free market capitalism, which recognizes the subjectivity of value.

Entirely separate concepts.

"Objectivism" refers to the idea that reality exists independent of one's perceptions, and that one's perceptions are therefore right or wrong according to whether or not they correspond perfectly with this objective reality.

Metaphysical objectivism is not incompatible with the subjective theory of value in economics. They're two totally distinct spheres of thought.

Damn, you must have been pissed when Quantum Physics came along

Quantum physics is only a model to understand apparent observations; it is not necessarily how things really are.

So no, quantum physics does not refute Objectivism.

Quantum physics is only a model to understand apparent observations; it is not necessarily how things really are.

So no, quantum physics does not refute Objectivism.

Exactly. The predictive value of mathematically rigorous models like quantum physics, especially when exploring the nature of observation as it relates to the observed itself, is SHIT compared to the brilliance of my explanation that a thing can't be in two states at the same time and you just have to sense right to be right, as proven in my short story "Little Max Planck Wasted His Life Because He Lacked Ego, Reason, and Self-Esteem, And Instead Had Only Uncollapsed Probability Waves."

Exactly. The predictive value of mathematically rigorous models like quantum physics, especially when exploring the nature of observation as it relates to the observed itself, is SHIT compared to the brilliance of my explanation that a thing can't be in two states at the same time and you just have to sense right to be right, as proven in my short story "Little Max Planck Wasted His Life Because He Lacked Ego, Reason, and Self-Esteem, And Instead Had Only Uncollapsed Probability Waves."

Are you still around, Little Strawman Troll anti-Objectivist?

Are you still around, Little Strawman Troll anti-Objectivist?

Little Strawman Troll anti-Objectivsts violate the first principles of the universe. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of emminent Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Are you still around, Little Strawman Troll anti-Objectivist?

Well, we could use our senses and then apply reason! Ayn Rand Objectivism is all about that. Its essentially using our apparent observations, then making reasonable models to understand them.

Oh, wait, somebody once told me, "__________ is only a model to understand apparent observations; it is not necessarily how things really are."

So, you know...

Well, we could use our senses and then apply reason! Ayn Rand Objectivism is all about that. Its essentially using our apparent observations, then making reasonable models to understand them.

Oh, wait, somebody once told me, "__________ is only a model to understand apparent observations; it is not necessarily how things really are."

So, you know...

I think you're pretty off base on this one, Ayn.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of emminent Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

One of the most fundamental tenets of Judaism is "love thy neighbor as thyself". This would seem to run in direct opposition to Objectivism, but this is not the case. Sages agree that the commandment is to value your neighbor's well-being as the same as your own. Not less, and not more.

Objectivism does not hold any tenet to love they neighbor. In fact, its perfectly alright to hate one's neighbors.

Judaism teaches that one should give to charity, but only after your own income is secure. The specific value (defined by G-d) is 10% of your income, assuming you can afford to do so. It is admirable to give more, but not commanded. In fact, only Jews are commanded to give charity. Non-Jews are not obligated to give a penny to charity.

Objectivism is perfectly ok with giving nothing to charity even if one could afford to give away 99% of one's income .

The government, however, is guilty of theft on a grand scale - seizing their private property without just cause.

Clarify please. According to the tenets of Objectivism the state of Israel is seizing private property on a grand with its income tax. Does Judaism agree? How is it different when compared to the government in Atlas Shrugged?

The sole exception to the above is if human life is at stake. It is a sin to allow a single human being to die if you can help it. In fact, we can make the argument that the protagonists committed this sin by abandoning society when they could have helped prevent starvation. But this does not mean that, in our world where there are people incapable of supporting themselves, we should spend nothing on ourselves until everyone is safe from starvation. Far better to give some of our income to charity, while using the rest to sustain ourselves and increase our ability to produce.

Objectivism is perfectly ok with allowing others to die unless there is some contract between both parties to contrary.

Quantum physics is only a model to understand apparent observations; it is not necessarily how things really are.

So no, quantum physics does not refute Objectivism.

Copenhagen interpretation of QP does. When you talk about quantum physics, you have to rewrite epistemology, because the principle of reality fails.

It would be very difficult to produce a filmed version of a political essay.
What about a sequel as a comic?

http://i41.tinypic.com/263zp1w.gif

Mock if you will, but he's a deaf man who's made a fortune in radio, and a drug addict who has argued in favor of harsher punishment for drug addicts.

Rush is a non-parasite.
Wait, isn't advocating harsher punishment = endorsement of state legal actions?

No, see, the problem was, Piggy's low self-esteem. I've tried to explain to you people, Man must worship himself, his ego, his reason, his purpose.

That doesn't sound very objective. :p

Copenhagen interpretation of QP does. When you talk about quantum physics, you have to rewrite epistemology, because the principle of reality fails.

Actually, since quantum physics contradicts correct epistemology, it is quantum physics that fails.

The observations that led to quantum physics--or at least the interpretation of them--are wrong.

Empirical evidence is not axiomatically valid. The Universe is governed by the laws of logic, so if empirical evidence contradicts the laws of logic then the observations are flawed.

Empirical evidence is not axiomatically valid. The Universe is governed by the laws of logic, so if empirical evidence contradicts the laws of logic then the observations are flawed.


Really, and you can proove this?:D

Logic proves itself as the governing principle of the Universe.

Actually, since quantum physics contradicts correct epistemology, it is quantum physics that fails.

The observations that led to quantum physics--or at least the interpretation of them--are wrong.

Empirical evidence is not axiomatically valid. The Universe is governed by the laws of logic, so if empirical evidence contradicts the laws of logic then the observations are flawed.

This sounds vaguely familiar. Similar to a flawed line of reasoning I'm sure people on NSG have heard many, many times.

Oh, that's right:

Actually, since quantum physics contradicts correct theology, it is quantum physics that fails.

The observations that led to quantum physics--or at least the interpretation of them--are wrong.

Empirical evidence is not axiomatically valid. The Universe is governed by the laws of Scripture, so if empirical evidence contradicts the laws of Scripture then the observations are flawed.

The same tired argument, with a new, even more absurd, face.

Logic proves itself as the governing principle of the Universe.
Only in as much as it appears to be consistent. What's to say that A=A will be true tomorrow? We have only induction over the entirely empirical continuum of time to support us on that one.

Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding would make for an interesting read on that line of thought, if you're keen.

This sounds vaguely familiar. Similar to a flawed line of reasoning I'm sure people on NSG have heard many, many times.
Well at least he's not suggesting imposing mechanical rule on us, so it's a step in the right direction if nothing else.

Well at least he's not suggesting imposing mechanical rule on us, so it's a step in the right direction if nothing else.

One step forward, two steps back, really. Given that this sort of "logic is all" handwaving is just as useless as the "god is all" handwaving. It doesn't get us anywhere.

One step forward, two steps back, really. Given that this sort of "logic is all" handwaving is just as useless as the "god is all" handwaving. It doesn't get us anywhere.
Yes, but "Logic is all, therefore do as I say" appeals to a mechanism of logic and is therefore bound by its rules, through which most people will be able to reject the speaker's position, whereas "God is all, therefore do as I say", while still ridiculous, makes a claim to an authority that most listeners will not have an easy refutation to. At least the "logic is all" position is politically impotent.

tl;dr