This is the worst philosopher in the world. If you know anyone who likes her, bop them over the head with a foam hammer and then back away quickly. If you don't know anyone who likes her, keep it that way.
This is the worst philosopher in the world. If you know anyone who likes her, bop them over the head with a foam hammer and then back away quickly. If you don't know anyone who likes her, keep it that way.
Here are all the articles you need if you ever meet someone who likes Ayn Rand:
The Unbearable Badness of Ayn Rand
The Virtue of Stupidity: A Critique of Ayn Rand and Objectivism
What Happens When You Take Ayn Rand Seriously?
Mrs. Logic
The problem with Ayn Rand? She isn't a philosopher
Column: This is what happens when you take Ayn Rand seriously
I quite like some of her insights. "Immanuel Kant is responsible for college students doing dope" might be my favorite.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I don't really know a lot about her, but from the extracts I read, I don't get why she gets labelled as a philosopher(in Greek: lover of wisdom). That's as absurd as calling TV show hosts or Hollywood stars performance artists. I would argue that her work doesn't aim to make people think, but to make them experience thought("Immanuel Kant is responsible for college students doing dope" ); like some TV show you watch in the evening when all you need is a good laugh, not some deep analysis of what makes a joke funny. Her polemic positions make for good entertainment.
My typing:
Rand: delta ST so-last
Ppl that take her too seriously: gamma SFs
She reminds me of the political commentators that go on tv and argue relentlessly that they are right and everyone who says otherwise is wrong. They make everything into a debate that only they are supposed to win and act like they are intellectually superior when any criticism is voiced. They are incapable of listening and learning from people that disagree with them. She would fit in nicely in the modern world, especially on social media.
Ayn Rand is NOT Gamma. Gammas reject absolute truth and prefer liberalism. The antithesis of Ayn Rand's work.
Gammas don't reject absolute truth but systemic units of knowledge, giving preference to "redactive" lines of direct information.
Let's colloquially say Alphas and Betas prefer schematics of how something works while Gammas and Deltas prefer Instructions/guides of how something works.
There's no model A correlation with ideology. In Model G there seems to be but anyone familiar with politics and political philosophy in theory and praxis as me for example, having engaged in political groups and the like, interacted with ppl from opposing political fields (which most of the times are very similar in personality) will easily dismiss such a claim. Political beliefs are evidently nurtural.
Btw wasn't Rand a liberal "enlightened" writer?
If I'm not answering you, I'm either procrastinating a response, or I've judged the conversation as fruitless/already settled prior to the debate for me.
Plausible types; INxP>INxj>ENxp>ENxj
If I'm not answering you, I'm either procrastinating a response, or I've judged the conversation as fruitless/already settled prior to the debate for me.
Plausible types; INxP>INxj>ENxp>ENxj
Gammas reject absolute truth as absolute truth is coherent to L-based quadras; Alphas and Betas. Moreso Betas but that's because they value F.
I wouldn't even say Gammas prefer 'instructions/guides'. They figure things out on their own. They are highly individualistic people.
Rand was critical of classic liberals, so no.
IMs are not things in themselves. Axioms and absolutes can be acknowledged by logics of any orientation, the difference being how these absolutes/axioms are organized.
Relativism is an intellectual choice, not a personality orientation. It is also absurd because if axiomatic truth does not exist then the claim that axiomatic truth doesn't exist (which requires itself to be an absolute claim to apply) nullifies itself. Absolute truth is a necessity for anything to exist and be recognized, be it as a thing or a reflection of a different thing.
Gammas are Te/Fi Ni/Se. P-based quadras prefer information organized in a P-manner, while L-based quadras prefer information organized in L-manner.
Schematics = L
Description = P
Libertarian is a better word for her ideas.
Last edited by RBRS; 08-09-2022 at 02:27 PM.
If I'm not answering you, I'm either procrastinating a response, or I've judged the conversation as fruitless/already settled prior to the debate for me.
Plausible types; INxP>INxj>ENxp>ENxj
Ok but you do know that instructions/guides/descriptions are born out of L? Right?
Personality orientation, especially sociotype orientation, absolutely determines intellectual choices. Nothing has to be absolute truth for it to be recognized or exist? That's just reality. Absolute truth is born out of L, once again. It's born out of schemes, rules, and structural logic. The "absoluteness" is born out of structural logic, not pragmatism.
No they're not. Actually although there's a preference for certain forms of information organizing in each logical orientation the logical orientations themselves are only a perception of a different aspect of information. L is all about external field statics, meaning static, objective connections between information units/objects.
Instructions/guides/descriptions are more related to external object dynamics (AKA Te).
Sociotype can influence the process behind an intellectual choice, but not the choice itself.
Absolute truth/axioms are just a concept, this is, an information unit of the logics realm to be understood by the two orientations of logics.
And relativism makes no sense because the inexistence of axioms is an axiom in itself. It is completely absurd.
If I'm not answering you, I'm either procrastinating a response, or I've judged the conversation as fruitless/already settled prior to the debate for me.
Plausible types; INxP>INxj>ENxp>ENxj
Absolute truth to you is not the same as absolute truth to me, which is why I'm saying it's born out of L which is inherently subjective, and not objective (pragmatism; P). Explain this:
Structural logic (L): creating schemes, constructing, analyzing; following laws, instructions, plans; keeping composure, emotional control; skeleton, bones
Business logic (P): calculation of profitable actions; work, benefit, profit, money; automatism, desire to movement; cardiovascular system
Where in P does it say anything about instructions/guides/etc.? In fact, it says it in L.
Gamma Te: this information may not be the absolute truth, but it's the most close to the absolute truth we have right now, so we better make use of it to create more profits as we can, until the scientists find out better answer.
Te doesn't needs a true answer, it needs the best answer for the giving momment. So it doesn't care much about absolute truth nor denies it.
Last edited by Renna; 08-09-2022 at 04:48 PM.