AYN RAND ESSAY CONTEST, WIN 100k!

Ayn Rand?

<3	18.2%	[ 4 ]
</3	81.8%	[ 18 ]
Total Votes:			[ 22 ]

[GunsmithKitten]

I don't think there's really space to post a slightly edited copy of Jennifer Government, because that'd be it.

[GunsmithKitten]

mufasalives

This is where a lot of people misunderstand her writing. I want you to think about it like this.

She embodies selfishness. Which by definition is Doing something for ones self.

She's saying that the human mind only acts out of self gratification.
You have to get something in return, or you wouldn't be doing whatever it is you're doing.

That being said,

Let's say I give a homeless man a 20 dollar bill. That is Selfish.
I did it because in return I got that satisfactory feeling.

ya digg?

I shot my neighbor because he has a bigger TV than I do.

What I did was selfish because I wanted that TV (plus he's annoying).

Can ya digg it?

[Kaosgirl]

The Willow Of Darkness

Kaosgirl

Well, because 'not wanting to survive' has a tendency of erasing itself.

That is just a restatement of the value that things should survive.

If survival is not valued, the fact that something is being erased is irrelevant. Indeed, if the position is "do not survive" erasure is what is desirable.

Indeed. But once erased, there's no one to advocate for it. It's a self-terminating value that ends before it can develop (or be developed) into a moral code.

It's also a negative, and it's an old aphorism that you can't prove a negative :p

[Avgvsto]

Suicidesoldier#1

My Essay:

Ayn Rand is stupid. I've always thought she was stupid. Her philosophies on "objectivism" not only proves she's a complete moron for believing such a thing is true, but also that she's a psychopath for wanting to treat other human beings this way.

I find it despicable that other people would want to spread her word- it's hilarious, becuase wouldn't you keep such information to yourself according to her stuff anyways?


Anyways, her quote.

IT DOESN'T ******** MATTER. Nuff Said.


P.S. a single quote out of context has no value.

can i ask for specific reasons?

[Avgvsto]

GunsmithKitten

mufasalives

This is where a lot of people misunderstand her writing. I want you to think about it like this.

She embodies selfishness. Which by definition is Doing something for ones self.

She's saying that the human mind only acts out of self gratification.
You have to get something in return, or you wouldn't be doing whatever it is you're doing.

That being said,

Let's say I give a homeless man a 20 dollar bill. That is Selfish.
I did it because in return I got that satisfactory feeling.

ya digg?

I shot my neighbor because he has a bigger TV than I do.

What I did was selfish because I wanted that TV (plus he's annoying).

Can ya digg it?

That's not truly selfish because you coveted something that wasn't yours. Her sort of selfishness was really selfish, to the point that your neighbors stuff is worthless because it has nothing to do with you.

[The Age of Lightened]

Ayn Rand is a woman king.

[Kaosgirl]

mixologies

Ayn Rand is a woman king.

The irony is that Ayn Rand (much line Ann Coulter) argues herself out of her own authority.

It's not the main jist of her writings, but her position on women boils down to the notion that they are prizes for good men (that is, men adhering to the philosophy she espouses) to compete for and win, and are not supposed to elevate themselves to having agency of their own.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Kaosgirl

The Willow Of Darkness

Kaosgirl

Well, because 'not wanting to survive' has a tendency of erasing itself.

That is just a restatement of the value that things should survive.

If survival is not valued, the fact that something is being erased is irrelevant. Indeed, if the position is "do not survive" erasure is what is desirable.

Indeed. But once erased, there's no one to advocate for it. It's a self-terminating value that ends before it can develop (or be developed) into a moral code.

It's also a negative, and it's an old aphorism that you can't prove a negative :p

That is the very goal of the value. Morality has been fulfilled in erasure. It was a moral code from its very inception. You are speaking about it capacity to spread.

It is nonsense: you can prove a negative. Though I'm not sure how you were thinking it would apply in this instance, as a moral position is actually a positive claim(it is true X), even when it is arguing that you should not do something.

[Kaosgirl]

The Willow Of Darkness

Kaosgirl

The Willow Of Darkness

Kaosgirl

Well, because 'not wanting to survive' has a tendency of erasing itself.

That is just a restatement of the value that things should survive.

If survival is not valued, the fact that something is being erased is irrelevant. Indeed, if the position is "do not survive" erasure is what is desirable.

Indeed. But once erased, there's no one to advocate for it. It's a self-terminating value that ends before it can develop (or be developed) into a moral code.

It's also a negative, and it's an old aphorism that you can't prove a negative :p

That is the very goal of the value. Morality has been fulfilled in erasure. It was a moral code from its very inception. You are speaking about it capacity to spread.

More of it's capacity to exist long enough to evolve from value to code without paradox. (With paradox, things change.)

The Willow Of Darkness

It is nonsense: you can prove a negative. Though I'm not sure how you were thinking it would apply in this instance, as a moral position is actually a positive claim(it is true X), even when it is arguing that you should not do something.

Would require a rephrase to qualify as a position, rather than a value.

[Princess Creampie]

Ayn Rand was a b***h and whore, so I raped and murdered her.

-The End

[Jessi Danger]

I really liked the fountainhead. I read it my first year of college and really got into it. But atlas shrugged was a bit much for me, a lot of it just drones on and on. Like, I think the peak of the book is just a monolog by the main character. idk that much about her philosophy, she used a lot of words and phrased it poorly. idk if that helps, She was great at writing her stories but not the best at presenting her philosophy outside of those novels.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Kaosgirl

The Willow Of Darkness

Kaosgirl

The Willow Of Darkness

Kaosgirl

Well, because 'not wanting to survive' has a tendency of erasing itself.

That is just a restatement of the value that things should survive.

If survival is not valued, the fact that something is being erased is irrelevant. Indeed, if the position is "do not survive" erasure is what is desirable.

Indeed. But once erased, there's no one to advocate for it. It's a self-terminating value that ends before it can develop (or be developed) into a moral code.

It's also a negative, and it's an old aphorism that you can't prove a negative :p

That is the very goal of the value. Morality has been fulfilled in erasure. It was a moral code from its very inception. You are speaking about it capacity to spread.

More of it's capacity to exist long enough to evolve from value to code without paradox. (With paradox, things change.)

The Willow Of Darkness

It is nonsense: you can prove a negative. Though I'm not sure how you were thinking it would apply in this instance, as a moral position is actually a positive claim(it is true X), even when it is arguing that you should not do something.

Would require a rephrase to qualify as a position, rather than a value.

There is no paradox. The value is the code. It isn't meant to change. Furthermore, things changing isn't actually any argument against the truth of proper action: it is merely people behaving immorally.

No, it wouldn't. Morals are positions that a particular value is true. Without the value you element, you don't have any truth of justified action. Without the truth element, a set of morals cannot act as a justification for why someone should behave a particular way.

[Kaosgirl]

(quotes got messed up, trimming to fix. apologies if context lost.)

The Willow Of Darkness

Kaosgirl

The Willow Of Darkness

That is the very goal of the value. Morality has been fulfilled in erasure. It was a moral code from its very inception. You are speaking about it capacity to spread.

More of it's capacity to exist long enough to evolve from value to code without paradox. (With paradox, things change.)

The Willow Of Darkness

It is nonsense: you can prove a negative. Though I'm not sure how you were thinking it would apply in this instance, as a moral position is actually a positive claim(it is true X), even when it is arguing that you should not do something.

Would require a rephrase to qualify as a position, rather than a value.

There is no paradox. The value is the code.

It isn't meant to change. Furthermore, things changing isn't actually any argument against the truth of proper action: it is merely people behaving immorally.

The value is not the code; it is the base presumption from which the code is formulated.

And when I speak of evolution in this context, I'm referring to the logical process of moving from the value to the code - the process of determining what a given value implies regarding what qualifies as proper (or improper/immoral) action or behavior.

The Willow Of Darkness

No, it wouldn't. Morals are positions that a particular value is true. Without the value you element, you don't have any truth of justified action. Without the truth element, a set of morals cannot act as a justification for why someone should behave a particular way.

This is getting semantic, but:
'morals' are not just "positions that a particular value is true," but also the implications that stem from that position. Without the implications, you have just a value that is disconnected from any behavior, and thus is not acting as justification or opposition.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Kaosgirl

(quotes got messed up, trimming to fix. apologies if context lost.)

The Willow Of Darkness

Kaosgirl

The Willow Of Darkness

That is the very goal of the value. Morality has been fulfilled in erasure. It was a moral code from its very inception. You are speaking about it capacity to spread.

More of it's capacity to exist long enough to evolve from value to code without paradox. (With paradox, things change.)

The Willow Of Darkness

It is nonsense: you can prove a negative. Though I'm not sure how you were thinking it would apply in this instance, as a moral position is actually a positive claim(it is true X), even when it is arguing that you should not do something.

Would require a rephrase to qualify as a position, rather than a value.

There is no paradox. The value is the code.

It isn't meant to change. Furthermore, things changing isn't actually any argument against the truth of proper action: it is merely people behaving immorally.

The value is not the code; it is the base presumption from which the code is formulated.

And when I speak of evolution in this context, I'm referring to the logical process of moving from the value to the code - the process of determining what a given value implies regarding what qualifies as proper (or improper/immoral) action or behavior.

The Willow Of Darkness

No, it wouldn't. Morals are positions that a particular value is true. Without the value you element, you don't have any truth of justified action. Without the truth element, a set of morals cannot act as a justification for why someone should behave a particular way.

This is getting semantic, but:
'morals' are not just "positions that a particular value is true," but also the implications that stem from that position. Without the implications, you have just a value that is disconnected from any behavior, and thus is not acting as justification or opposition.

Oh, I see.

That is the point in this instance though, the value of "everybody dead" is supposed to stand without people(as the are meant to be dead). The final goal of this position it to have it so that there is a truth of value without anyone implementing what is required to achieve it(as the goal, death, is achieved).

Value isn't actually disconnected from behaviour at all here. Whenever there is something that behaves, it obligation it is clear: it must behave to end its life. All that is the car here is that, when the goal is achieved, there are no moral actors and so practical application of morality falls out of use. This is perfectly fine though, as it is both the goal of the position(everyone is meant dead) and whenever there is something that can act, it is obligated.

[Kaosgirl]

The Willow Of Darkness

Kaosgirl

(quotes got messed up, trimming to fix. apologies if context lost.)

The Willow Of Darkness

Kaosgirl

The Willow Of Darkness

That is the very goal of the value. Morality has been fulfilled in erasure. It was a moral code from its very inception. You are speaking about it capacity to spread.

More of it's capacity to exist long enough to evolve from value to code without paradox. (With paradox, things change.)

The Willow Of Darkness

It is nonsense: you can prove a negative. Though I'm not sure how you were thinking it would apply in this instance, as a moral position is actually a positive claim(it is true X), even when it is arguing that you should not do something.

Would require a rephrase to qualify as a position, rather than a value.

There is no paradox. The value is the code.

It isn't meant to change. Furthermore, things changing isn't actually any argument against the truth of proper action: it is merely people behaving immorally.

The value is not the code; it is the base presumption from which the code is formulated.

And when I speak of evolution in this context, I'm referring to the logical process of moving from the value to the code - the process of determining what a given value implies regarding what qualifies as proper (or improper/immoral) action or behavior.

The Willow Of Darkness

No, it wouldn't. Morals are positions that a particular value is true. Without the value you element, you don't have any truth of justified action. Without the truth element, a set of morals cannot act as a justification for why someone should behave a particular way.

This is getting semantic, but:
'morals' are not just "positions that a particular value is true," but also the implications that stem from that position. Without the implications, you have just a value that is disconnected from any behavior, and thus is not acting as justification or opposition.

Oh, I see.

That is the point in this instance though, the value of "everybody dead" is supposed to stand without people(as the are meant to be dead). The final goal of this position it to have it so that there is a truth of value without anyone implementing what is required to achieve it(as the goal, death, is achieved).

And there we have the paradox: this goal of "everybody dead" cannot be achieved without an individual acting immorally - by living, either to spread the value or to enforce compliance.

One must die. But one must also ensure others die as well.