submitted 13 hours ago * by pineappleinacan
I post this here because she is famously typed as INTJ. I am an INTP male by the way
I think she is borderline retarted, in the sense that she (and her "followers") actually has the courage to take the behaviour of "covering up a substantial lack of a super-ego that could have made things make sense for the individual, by a giant, clueless and aimless ego" and give it some legitimacy through calling it "objectivism". That takes a pair of "mentally unorthodox balls" in my book.
I am not counting people's subjective accounts of meeting her personally. Saying "Do whatever it takes to get to the sensation of happiness and success; no rules" would be a fair summary of her ideas. Any story of how she behaved in her real life is irrelevant.
Hers is simply the mindset of a middle school boy, who thinks only in terms of "what they can fuck" and "what can fuck them back".
It is the mindset of a person, who is incapable of realizing that there is a brain similar to theirs, behind every single pair of eyes looking back at them, perceiving them just like how they perceive them.
The mindset of the kid who thinks that "they are the only real human and they are seated inside their cranium like a pilot, operating the body from within the brain."
The mindset of someone, who takes a glance at Nietzche's "master vs slave morality" and goes "I fucking knew it man, it is always strong vs weak, kill or be killed man fuck yeah; my lack of basic human empathy is validated and justified by someone as worthy as Nietzche!"
Forget about my subjective bullshit for a second and listen to the following:
If someone says that they believe "self-interest" is the ultimate motivation and an organism should always act accordingly to its self-interest, either the person saying this is genuine or not.
If they are genuine, then it probably would not matter for them if I calmly waited for them to finish their sentence and sliced their throat for my ultimate self-interest since there is no real basis on what is fair and what is not. (I dont have to personally slit their throat; I can simply make them work 18 hours a day and make other people open fire on them whenever they scrutinied but throat-slitting is graphical and it "cuts" to the point so I stick with that).
You can think of a similar case in someone claiming "the suicide is the only answer". If that person does not then proceede to kill themselves, then they were simply not genuine in their claim the first place.
Basically, if you claim to saying some philosophical shit, you should expect to be taken really serious. You should at least visualize how things would look under your proposed explanation. If it only makes sense for your world,then you can simply fuck off and keep circle-jerking within your "anti-cultism cult" because that is not how philosophy works.
(The only reason this is posted here is again, because of how she is typed as INTJ. Basically, I wonder what you think about Ayn Rand and her being typed as INTJ)
[–]gruia 1 point 2 minutes ago
haha, you are so petty . 1. 70% of what you wrote, the first part, makes no sense and is not related to her. (aka) you dont understand objectivism 2. the last part you get into specifics, and i can prove your logical mistake. - we live in a world where there are laws and rules - to enslave another human means that you will break most of those rules (btw people are already doing it to a big extent) - you need to be very very prepared practically to actually break these rules and receive no negative feedback from the environment - you need to consider the long term investment in that thing ( how that individual grows and offers in return, or how the costs of what you do change / risks - you also need to understand the selfesteem side of things, meaning you have to be very very prepared mentally, and feel no remorse, at worst neutral. - your identity and selfesteem needs to be destructive by nature, your goal is to make shit burn, not create them. for this action to be in sync with your philosophy, so you feel accomplishment 3 . ayn rand said that she thinks its in your self interest to help others , not what you just wrote that is your own interpretation, and a flawed one. and i agree, it is your self interest, because the world does not work in material terms alone, and im not talking about guilt, im talking about the rewards of investing in another human being, its a future investment, and the reward of belonging and actualizing your identity and virtues as someone who makes all things around him functional and optimal. 4 . i think she is the greatest philosopher ive ever read 5 . there are multiple points where i see flaws in her philosophy, not necessarily because she is limited, but because there are concepts she is missing / experience she is missing.
[–]axsis 3 points 3 hours ago
You seem to have a very poor understanding of what Ayn Rand was trying to say. I really doubt you've read more than hit pieces on her and her philosophy.
Morality – Rand viewed morality as objective as being based on human life, that is the inherent right for everyone to live and therefore your own self-interest is not justified by slicing my throat. I am also not at liberty to force someone to work inhumane hours because it would be immoral of me to do so because the measure of morality is man's life and calcifying man's mind by overworking isn't right. However if I did this without knowing the consequences (that is the science simply wasn't there) then it wouldn't be a moral failing but a failure of knowledge. Also if this was the only way for a man to support his ends (living and probably supporting a family) then he has every right to work a dead-end job because it would be better than the alternative. However the employer in that situation is not an objectivist but a tyrant.
Rand's philosophy is almost entirely based on Aristotle with mild influences from Nietzsche. However it does not advocate for trampling on people, or unbridled hedonism but on the respect of the basic rights of man. That the nature of the universe is knowable with the human mind, that reason is the best tool to observe and gain understanding and that freedom is the best method of living. That is freedom to succeed but also freedom to fail.
Now about Ayn Rand,
It's true that her inner circle became a bit of a cult-like entity and that she herself became judgmental, hypocritical and sometimes irrational. This was largely due to her following who elevated her to the cult of personality. Her philosophy by-in-large should be separated from her personal actions. Her singular moral failing was her belief in open relationships and in many ways that helped reduce the 'cult'. In essence what you're so upset about is something that barely exists these days because it was unsustainable without her physically being alive.
So what is Objectivism:
Morality based on the value of human life and the inherent right of people to live without infringing on the rights of others.
Epistemology based on the physical world being knowable through study using man's mind and reason as a tool. There is no free lunch and you can't have your cake and eat it.
Capitalism, a system of free exchange of goods and services without Government intervention. That is freedom to use one's mind to create and sell. (Laissez-faire)
The world is as we see it, wishing otherwise won't change the outcomes only investigating and understanding its nature will.
She may have been an ENTJ but let's treat her as an INTJ for the purpose of this thread. She had a deeply intuitive understanding of the world we can see this in her novels where her villains often mirror what we see in day to day society. Her short story Anthem is a good example of understanding applied through intuitiveness in that instead of Orwell's police state dystopia, Rand understood that if following communism you would usually end up technologically backward and North Korea supports this theory. Rand was not one to show her emotions. She was one to engage in extroverted thinking. She was a moral philosopher (yes we should call her a philosopher because she was in the same way Aquinas is also) who brought a moral argument for laissez-faire capitalism and strived for man to be seen not as a vile creature but as a heroic being capable of every moral and social virtue.
Self interest can be easily explained in a single example: You always have to put on the oxygen mask in a failing Airplane on yourself first before you can help others. That is all self-interest is and it is not selfish or greedy as you seem to understand it.
[–]mikedevans247INTJ [score hidden] an hour ago
I stopped reading at, "I think she is borderline retarted..."
Does it not make sense an INTJ would favor a meritocracy and capitalism over cronyism and socialism?