Ayn Rand

[opebo]

What statist socialist society ever survived without a military and a repressive police state? Winston's friends in Russia, China, Korea, etc. certainly went out of their way to parade their militaries around.

The capitalist societies are no less police states, Libertas, nor do they fail to parade their power.

But I suppose it is worth pointing out that human beings are social animals, Libertas, just like their siblings the apes and monkeys, so it seems by your definition we cannot but be 'socialist'.

[Phony Moderate]

Statist Socialism is not the same as Socialism, FTR.

[© tweed]

I actually suffered through about 600 pages of Atlas Shrugged this summer.  she isn't a very good author and I felt her basic idea is pretty easy to grasp within the first 20-30 pages and doesn't evolve at all from there.

[Gustaf]

I would really appreciate it if the abomination that is Slavoj Zizek was never quoted again on this board.

That guy is the biggest joke to pass for a philosopher since Rossaeu.

Right, right, right. I notice you didn't touch the article at all.

Oh, please. How many times have I proven you wrong now? 3? How many of those times have you just run away when proven wrong? Arguing Zizek is potentially even less fruitful than arguing with you. This is the guy who think movies that portray American soldiers as human beings should not be made and who openly argues for a fascist police state as a good thing. He's basically a Stalinist.

He is also one of the few who can make Rand look like a decent philosopher.

[Gustaf]

I actually suffered through about 600 pages of Atlas Shrugged this summer. 

I'm sorry.

[Gustaf]

I read the excerpt you posted and I can see why you like Zizek - there is plenty of name-calling and no actual arguments.

[Earth]

I would really appreciate it if the abomination that is Slavoj Zizek was never quoted again on this board.

That guy is the biggest joke to pass for a philosopher since Rossaeu.

Right, right, right. I notice you didn't touch the article at all.

Oh, please. How many times have I proven you wrong now? 3?

I sincerely wish you did, even once.

How many of those times have you just run away when proven wrong?

You wish, Gustaf. I "ran" because conversing with you is like washing my body with one hand; tedious.

I read the excerpt you posted and I can see why you like Zizek - there is plenty of name-calling and no actual arguments.

I'm almost convinced you don't actually understand much of anything, least of all philosophy.

So now instead of trying to have a fruitful discussion, you just focus on me, like you a have a man-crush on some stranger you met online.

[Gustaf]

I would really appreciate it if the abomination that is Slavoj Zizek was never quoted again on this board.

That guy is the biggest joke to pass for a philosopher since Rossaeu.

Right, right, right. I notice you didn't touch the article at all.

Oh, please. How many times have I proven you wrong now? 3?

I sincerely wish you did, even once.

How many of those times have you just run away when proven wrong?

You wish, Gustaf. I "ran" because conversing with you is like washing my body with one hand; tedious.

I read the excerpt you posted and I can see why you like Zizek - there is plenty of name-calling and no actual arguments.

I'm almost convinced you don't actually understand much of anything, least of all philosophy.

So now instead of trying to have a fruitful discussion, you just focus on me, like you a have a man-crush on some stranger you met online.

See, here is your problem. Once again, you just do unfounded accusations. In all our previous debates I've demonstrated clearly why I think you're wrong. Instead of actually countering any of the points I make you run away. In this thread, you seem to think that calling Ayn Rand an idiot is being on topic. It isn't. If you're not ready to actually advance an argument of any kind and back up your assertions you're essentially just a grunting baboon.

In this case you claim that Ayn Rand is an idiot and back this up by quoting Zizek saying she's an idiot. Neither of you actually provides an argument as to why this is. This one time, you do happen to be more right than wrong, but still.

Basically, saying "A is true" and "A is not true" is not compatible. Saying "haha, you're wrong and retarded" is not an argument. This is pretty basic stuff in philosophy, logic, civil discourse, etc. You need to learn it before you can expect anyone to take you seriously.

I've provided my reasons for not respecting Zizek. Feel free to actually argue your point at any time.

[Earth]

See, here is your problem. Once again, you just do unfounded accusations. In all our previous debates I've demonstrated clearly why I think you're wrong.

Are you kidding? You turned that discussion on objectivity into an abortion because you may be too ignorant to actually understand what the hell I was talking about.

In this thread, you seem to think that calling Ayn Rand an idiot is being on topic. It isn't. If you're not ready to actually advance an argument of any kind and back up your assertions you're essentially just a grunting baboon.

Do I need to offer my own ideas as to why she was horrid, or can I just state the way I feel about her ideology, for f*ck's sake? I posted Zizek's take on it because I agree with it wholeheartedly. I didn't expand on my opinion because I don't care enough about Rand's ideas to talk at length about them, that's how little I value her views. I'm not looking for debate on Rand, because in the entire pantheon of topics, she's probably the least interesting to discuss. Time to move on.

In this case you claim that Ayn Rand is an idiot and back this up by quoting Zizek saying she's an idiot. Neither of you actually provides an argument as to why this is. This one time, you do happen to be more right than wrong, but still.

How ignorant are you, or did you not read Zizek's article? He's not writing a tirade against Rand, but describing her ideology, and how warped it is. This is why I believe you're full of sh*t; you act as though you have a thoughtful answer to every discussion, yet you write with the vigor of an idiot, constantly diverting the discussion. For example, instead of replying like an adult to my question, you write about me at the bottom of page 2. Get a goddamn life.

You need to learn it before you can expect anyone to take you seriously.

You need to stop constantly trying to prove yourself. You're the only member on the forum I purposefully skip over when I come across a post of yours, that's how little I think you can add to a discussion.

I've provided my reasons for not respecting Zizek.

And you did a terrible job. Calling him an "abomination", and a Stalinist is meaningless, as if by virtue, a Stalinist can't offer anything of substance. But it only serves to mask that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Feel free to actually argue your point at any time.

Where's your scathing critique of Rand? Oh yeah, it's nowhere to be found in this thread.

Go ahead, moderate or report my post if you feel I'm being unnecessarily harsh. I expect nothing less from you.

[Gustaf]

See, here is your problem. Once again, you just do unfounded accusations. In all our previous debates I've demonstrated clearly why I think you're wrong.

Are you kidding? You turned that discussion on objectivity into an abortion because you may be too ignorant to actually understand what the hell I was talking about.

In this thread, you seem to think that calling Ayn Rand an idiot is being on topic. It isn't. If you're not ready to actually advance an argument of any kind and back up your assertions you're essentially just a grunting baboon.

Do I need to offer my own ideas as to why she was horrid, or can I just state the way I feel about her ideology, for f*ck's sake? I posted Zizek's take on it because I agree with it wholeheartedly. I didn't expand on my opinion because I don't care enough about Rand's ideas to talk at length about them, that's how little I value her views. I'm not looking for debate on Rand, because in the entire pantheon of topics, she's probably the least interesting to discuss. Time to move on.

In this case you claim that Ayn Rand is an idiot and back this up by quoting Zizek saying she's an idiot. Neither of you actually provides an argument as to why this is. This one time, you do happen to be more right than wrong, but still.

How ignorant are you, or did you not read Zizek's article? He's not writing a tirade against Rand, but describing her ideology, and how warped it is. This is why I believe you're full of sh*t; you act as though you have a thoughtful answer to every discussion, yet you write with the vigor of an idiot, constantly diverting the discussion. For example, instead of replying like an adult to my question, you write about me at the bottom of page 2. Get a goddamn life.

You need to learn it before you can expect anyone to take you seriously.

You need to stop constantly trying to prove yourself. You're the only member on the forum I purposefully skip over when I come across a post of yours, that's how little I think you can add to a discussion.

I've provided my reasons for not respecting Zizek.

And you did a terrible job. Calling him an "abomination", and a Stalinist is meaningless, as if by virtue, a Stalinist can't offer anything of substance. But it only serves to mask that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Feel free to actually argue your point at any time.

Where's your scathing critique of Rand? Oh yeah, it's nowhere to be found in this thread.

Go ahead, moderate or report my post if you feel I'm being unnecessarily harsh. I expect nothing less from you.

I've never moderated any of your posts. I don't even think I've reported any, in spite of your incessant personal attacks. But, sure keep on slandering.

I don't get why you would enter a topic entitled "Ayn Rand" if it is the leat interesting topic you can imagine? I furthermore don't get why you would read an essay on her if you're so disinterested.

I don't see any question from you either.

You're still not offering any arguments, just personal attacks.

But why don't you either explain what you don't like with Ayn Rand or stay out of the topic on her? Instead of huffing and puffing in the Ayn Rand topic about how you don't want to talk about her.

[Earth]

But why don't you either explain what you don't like with Ayn Rand or stay out of the topic on her?

How about you mind your own goddamn business? I think that would solve a lot.

[Gustaf]

But why don't you either explain what you don't like with Ayn Rand or stay out of the topic on her?

How about you mind your own goddamn business? I think that would solve a lot.

This is a discussion forum, you know. You really seem very confused. Discussing Ayn Rand in a topic named Ayn Rand is not a breach of your integrity.

But I suspect, since you just resorted to a personal attack, that you know full well that I'm right and that you're full of nonsense, just like before, but choose not to recognize that.

Let's give you another chance - please explain why you launched yourself into a topic on Ayn Rand with a quote from an essay on Ayn Rand if you really consider it the least interesting topic on Earth.

And, besides, you're still not really providing reasons for any of your opinions. Like when you called me a retarded down's syndrome child, you didn't really back that up either. Whenever I raise a point you just ignore it. I gave several reasons why I don't like Zizek and you ignored them. When I pointed that out, you mention one of them and calls it irrelevant without really providing reasons as to why.

But to reiterate - someone who thinks, in his own words, that "terror" is a good thing that the state needs to subject its citizens too doesn't instill much confidence in me within the realm of political philosophy. Given that this is a central aspect of his political philosophy I think it is relevant for Zizek's judgement on a political philosopher.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I've been considering how Ayn Rand's philosophy seems unable to deal with the problem of human mortality. With the reality of death, how can individual self-interest be the ultimate value?

[Gustaf]

I've been considering how Ayn Rand's philosophy seems unable to deal with the problem of human mortality. With the reality of death, how can individual self-interest be the ultimate value?

Because the individual has no interests after his or her death?