Ayn Rand was a woman after all, and rather than crediting for discovering some truth, maybe she just unintentionally revealed how women think.

Objectivism has many faults, however the point of this thread is not to acknowledge its faults.  Rather it is to acknowledge that Rand gave us an interior view of the female mind.  Her focus on rational/ethical egoism isn’t an elevation of reason or ethics, but rather that of the ego.

Her “philosophy” is not so much about knowledge but rather should be viewed as evidence of how the “ego” drives female behavior.

Debate and discuss.

It is not possible, either in theory or in practice, to create a logic system that is bug-free. This has been proven using the mathematical laws of formal logic, and it applies to philosophy, branches of mathematics other than logic, and real life computer programs.

Personally, I happen to like the axioms Ayn Rand used to create the Philosophy Objectivism, her logic system. (This might be one of those subconscious impulse things on my part.) I happen to dislike philosophers who lead me into a swirl of word games. (It irritates my subconscious and takes time away from playing fetch with my dog.)

Rand’s axioms are:[2]
* Reality exists as an objective absolute, impervious to our wishes or desires.
* Our capacity for thought gives us the ability to understand reality and the choice to use this knowledge to create the new and the life-sustaining.

I agree with her axioms, and I agree with most of the philosophy she constructed from them.

I have good reasons to disagree with one of her logical conclusions: “To embrace existence is to reject all notions of the supernatural and the mystical, including God.”[3]

So what do I do? Well, I’m glad you asked! I pick and choose among philosophies for what I feel is useful to me. I’m a big fan of the Stoics. I like elements of Neoplatonism, Epicureanism, and a few others. I’m a big fan of Daoism and Buddhism — conceding that they are not philosophies in the Western sense.

If my approach seems like a mishmash, well, it is. I refuse to be bound by a logic system that must be flawed by its self-nature.

Come to think about it, totalitarian states are based on logic systems, or their despotic rulers say they are. This gets us to the question John Doe raised in the OP:
* Yes, it is how Ayn Rand, a woman, saw the world.
— Rand was utterly against totalitarian states.
— Rand was totally in favor of freedom and liberty.
* No, it is absolutely not how most women see the world.
— Modern feminism is demanding a totalitarian state.
— Modern feminism is actively squashing dissent and destroying freedom and liberty.

__________

[1] For computer logic, look up Turing’s Halting Problem and everything that came after it. For all logic systems, look up Godel’s Proof, or Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems. (Godel is correctly spelled with an ‘o’ with two little dots over it. The little dots are an umlaut, but spelling umlaut requires a ‘u’ with two little dots over it.)

[2] Discussed at length on Ayn Rand Dot Org < https://www.aynrand.org/ > and The Atlas Society < http://www.atlassociety.org/ayn_rand >.

[3] The research of Dr. Raymond Moody < http://www.lifeafterlife.com/ > and many others points strongly (irrifutably, I think) to the existence of God. The Rand quote is from Ayn Rand Dot Org.

It is not possible, either in theory or in practice, to create a logic system that is bug-free. This has been proven using the mathematical laws of formal logic, and it applies to philosophy, branches of mathematics other than logic, and real life computer programs.

This is a great point.  I remember taking a symbolic logic class 5+ ago and the professor pointed out the limits of logic itself.  However I do not know whether to view logic as some “incomplete” truth or method   or rather as a philosophical problem in itself.  I often wonder if logic is what limits philosophy.

With that being said I have one small tweak/disagreement

* Yes, it is how Ayn Rand, a woman, saw the world.
— Rand was utterly against totalitarian states.
— Rand was totally in favor of freedom and liberty.
* No, it is absolutely not how most women see the world.
— Modern feminism is demanding a totalitarian state.
— Modern feminism is actively squashing dissent and destroying freedom and liberty.

The above is correct, but limited.  It is my observation, that the female mind equates  yes=no and vice versa.  But you know that already.

Ayn Rand went from university to university advertising her philosophy.  She had followers.  Institutions also promoted her ideas.  She claimed “freedom etc”  but her practices and observations developed a cult like following, in effect creating their own weakly formed institutions.  Those who claim “freedom” always need some form of institution or group to back them up.  She is a walking contradiction that claims to be “rational”

In regards to Rand’s axioms:

Rand’s axioms are:[2]
* Reality exists as an objective absolute, impervious to our wishes or desires.

All truth would fundamentally be objective (observable through the senses) in nature.  This is where the axiom contradicts itself.  The axiom can only exist as an abstract truth, meaning that it contradicts itself, by showing not all existence/truth is objective.

* Our capacity for thought gives us the ability to understand reality and the choice to use this knowledge to create the new and the life-sustaining.

In regards to the “new” and the “life-sustaining” she gives no clear cut definition as to what “the new” is along with what “life” is.  This is where I begin to have problems because she expects her premise to be taken on faith without explanation.

So what do I do?

Fan of Diogenes and the brief exposure I had to Husserl.

That issue I had with philosophers is when they are separated from eachother they give to limited of a perspective.  I believe that philosophies/ers have to be read in groups, not as individuals.  For example Aristotle/Plato/Socrates give the impression of being different, however think they compliment eachother in different respects.  There is no reason why philosophies pertaining to ideas/abstract and physical realities cannot work together rather as separate.

Atlas Shrugged is about how a fictional guy named John Galt teams up with his buddies and makes the ultimate MGTOW utopia, Galt’s Gulch.  The inhabitants of Galt’s Gulch (mostly men with a few NAWALTs) go their own way and completely leave society behind.  They are so sick of the parasitic nature of government and other exploiters that they, the smart and capable men of the world, move to a secret hidden community of their own design. “I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine” is their motto. They refuse to be slaves of society, of women, or of government.

The reason Ayn Rand is called an “egoist” is because of that motto.  She believed that men would eventually get disgusted of being used like mules and living their lives for the sake of the “needy”. One of the characters, Hank Reardon, is particularly encumbered by parasites. He marries this total bitch princess who sucks the life out of him, while his brilliant inventions and innovations get regulated and ripped off by bureaucratic fat cats. Hank is a total walking wallet who gets fed up and eventually leaves it all behind. He places his “egotistical” needs over the demands of assholes.

Ayn Rand calls her ideas “objectivism” because she believes in viewing the world the way things objectively are rather than how we would like them to be. Men are not walking wallets.  Man’s nature is to be free.  Mans’ laws and society need to correspond to the nature of Man and not in opposition to it.  “A is A” she said. Men are by nature free of mind and spirit and require a world that promotes liberty instead of enslavement. I don’t live to serve society nor to be a walking atm. Society should exist to foster an environment for ME, a place to find my creativity and humanity, so long as it doesn’t take away the liberty of others.  This is the “ego” that you keep badmouthing, John Doe.  How is not wanting to be a host to parasites a reflection of a female mind? Isn’t going your own way actually egoism?

To John Doe—I realize that reading Atlas Shrugged is quite an undertaking (the copy I’m holding in my hands that I read last summer has 1079 pages). But it is definitely the most MGTOW of her works and the most comprehensive example of her ideology.  (I say ideology, not philosophy, because it mostly concerns the correct distribution of economic resources and is thus more accurately termed political or economic in nature rather than philosophical.) But even if you were to read shorter works like “The Fountainhead” or “Anthem” instead of just parroting the reviews and ideas of others, I think you would realize that this woman was not anti-male nor unethical. I’m not trying to white knight Ayn. I’m just saying you really won’t understand Objectivism until you reach your own conclusions, and that means reading her work.

To RoyDal—Ontological proofs of God just straight up fail. Philosophers for centuries have unsuccessfully tried to create a convincing deductive argument to prove the existence of something that cannot be empirically found.  The “research” you suggest by Dr. Moody is an ampliative argument, so its premises can only AT BEST make its conclusions probable, not “as (you) would think…” irrefutable. The best Christian mind on GodProof, of whom I’m sure Ayn Rand would agree with, was Soren Kierkegaard.  Kierkegaard was a founder of a philosophical movement called Existentialism. He was famous for acknowledging that logic is the wrong tool to use for religious belief, and coined the phrase “leap of faith”. But, to my point, you say that you “…refuse to be bound by a logic system that must be flawed by its self nature”. Then you drop in a reference to computer logic (?) in a discussion where it is irrelevant.   You misuse the term so much that I don’t believe you understand “logic” at all, at least not the way philosophers do. Logic is a framework for critical thinking, that is, making sure that you have good reasons for your beliefs. You call logic flawed. I call it one of the best tools we have for making sense of the world.

A final note—I don’t really think Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is the ultimate MGTOW way of thought. Nor do I believe Anarcho-Capitalism nor Antitheism nor Existentialism nor any other ideology or bias of mine is the ultimate MGTOW way to think. To believe so would dilute MGTOWs essence, as well as alienate my MGTOW brothers who hold contradictory beliefs.  MGTOW is MGTOW, and shouldn’t be linked to selfish personal viewpoints.  Check out Barbarossa’s article on his new website on this topic. We only bicker among ourselves when we unnecessarily think of our specific way as the only way.

Ayn Rand watched her very wealthy father ruined by the same kind of parasites as she described in Atlas Shrugged..She was not reflecting her mind but expressing what her own father may have been thinking…

Feminism (totalitarians) rule by emotion, and operate in a constant state of hysteria.

MGTOW (individualism) operates by logic over emotion, or “I” (intellect) over “E” (emotions). We use both in a productive way, our fires of emotion are quenched by the cool waters of intellect, creating a viable lifestyle amongst this madness under the absolute rule of feminism (emotion).

Feminism: boys are defective women and are in need of repair.

MGTOW: Women are broken, there logic (emotion) is to remold boys into there conscripts of equality…Rydelin and other psychoactive drugs. These boys grow to be feminized angry men. There minds are damaged by feminism’s attempt to instill “E” over “I” and it’s not the proper order of the male mind “I” over “E”.

Feminism: Fix broken boys by jamming them into female thinking, when it all goes wrong, feminists blame the individual man, and not the source (“E” smashed over “I”). They farther exacerbate the problem with there refusal to examine the issues directly and objectively, they remain in there “E” over “I” by refusing any and all responsibility for the destruction of men on a scale never seen before in the history of man. They ignore the facts and cling to emotion, that’s there nature.

MGTOW logic: Boys have been damaged by feminism, and are in need of restoration to their natural state (I”” over “E”). Feminists continue to defend their madness by blaming and shamming men, instead of looking at “their” reconstruction failure and the collapsing society they have collectivly formed…

MGTOW have seized the subversive contorting of their own minds and “logically” offer it to others to reprogram there thinking back to the natural state (for men) “I” over “E”, restoring men and society in the process. All that is needed is the utter collapse of feminism (reboot) then things can assume a more natural order… Feminism is the nemesis of MGTOW and the collective destruction of men.

Mangina: The broken mind of a damaged man by feminism “confused” to examine the word “confused” when 2 ideologies are fused into one, “con” (with) fused (together).

The Whight Knight: A chivalrous remnant that stands among the ruins in utter denial of the truth. He is confused to feminism and it’s monstrous outcomes, he also becomes damaged and bitter when he realizes (awakes) to the parameters of feminism.

I over E, not E over I, is successful for a cohesive society….Men on top, women underneath.

For now, it is logical and reasonable to allow, promote, and assist in the destruction of “this” feminist society. The fruition of “E” over “I” is destruction…. The insanity of feminism.

MGTOW are sane, all others are under the influence and control of feminism, “E” over “I”.

MGTOW ask: “E” over “I”? Why not “I’ over “E”?

MGTOW: Well where’s my answer?

Feminism: Aahhhhhhhhhahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

The title of this thread is retarded. Sorry man, but not every woman who writes a book is dumb or feminist.

@beware, you’re almost correct! their not dumb or feminist, there dumb feminists! I’m glad to point that out for you….

I’ve never read Atlas Shrugged but I did read a bit on objectivism. The idea seems great to me. This thread seems like another lame attempt by certain people to try and squeeze faith into philosophy threads. They say they don’t push their beliefs on others while ceaselessly bashing anything and everyone here that works without that assumption.

I think John Does primary motive at MGTOW is to defend faith. If bashing women meets that end, he’s satisfied. But if we start a thread tearing the s~~~ out of Mother Teresa (which would be easy since she was a vile bitch), he’ll probably s~~~can MGTOW and start white knighting Mother Teresa in servitude to his true master, faith. Whatever he does, it will show him tied up in a knot, since he’s desperately trying to claim MGTOW while dragging the chains of faith. It’s an untenable position. As for Barbarosa, I have no problem disagreeing with him, he still f~~~s women so as far as Im concerned he isn’t an admirable MGTOW either; his apparent endorsement for competing worldviews in MGTOW isn’t admirable either. F~~~ Tolerance. Facts and truth are the only things that matter. Either there is a god and we should all convert to Judaism or THERE ISN”T A GOD AND YOU F~~~ERS KEEP WASTING EVERYONES TIME. If you’re still out there baggin women nonchalantly then you are teaching misandry. You are training women to get free sex from men with no requrement for respect and responsibility. If you are marrying them, then you are willingly entering servitude. That’s the double whammie they have us in. So be my guest, be a hypocrite and still f~~~ women while claiming MGTOW. Chasing ass is not sovereignty. Encouraging women to keep slutting it up and keep abandoning their role in this world does no favor to our situation.

Getting pretty sick of this Christian bulls~~~. Isn’t Atlas Shrugged super conservative? Don’t the Christians love it? So why is a Catholic in here bashing the s~~~ out of a woman who made sense? Because she observes reality accurately by dismissing radical ideas of the supernatural? The motive and bigotry here is obvious.

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

The title of this thread is retarded. Sorry man, but not every woman who writes a book is dumb or feminist.

First of all I said:

John Doe wrote:

Is it possible that the philosophy of objectivism is just a viewpoint of how women see the world?

I asked is it possible then gave a brief reason for my perspective.  I did not state it as truth.

Second, if NAWALT then the fundamental concept of MGTOW disappears for many.  If Rand is right, then she is a NAWALT.  If she is wrong she is giving an in depth view into how the female mind works.

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

Sorry man, but not every woman who writes a book is dumb or feminist.

Then you point out:

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

Did I have some qualms with her rhetoric and a few seemingly feminist remarks, sure.

And then.

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

I regularly state how anatomically and neurologically different women are (by different I politely mean inferior) but I’d be a fool to ignore success stories like Marie Curie and Harper Lee. Despite feminism, certain women have contributed much to the intellectual wealth of the world.

So all women are inferior, and then some aren’t?

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

I’ve never read Atlas Shrugged but I did read a bit on objectivism. The idea seems great to me. This thread seems like another lame attempt by certain people to try and squeeze faith into philosophy threads. They say they don’t push their beliefs on others while ceaselessly bashing anything and everyone here that works without that assumption.

The thread is about objectivism, not atlas shrugged, I clearly stated that in the topic thread..  They are two separate things.  I am literally not squeezing faith into this thread at all.

Don’t preach about the benefits of Atheism and truth, on a thread that has nothing to do with either, and then start lying.

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

I think John Does primary motive at MGTOW is to defend faith. If bashing women meets that end, he’s satisfied. But if we start a thread tearing the s~~~ out of Mother Teresa (which would be easy since she was a vile bitch), he’ll probably s~~~can MGTOW and start white knighting Mother Teresa in servitude to his true master, faith. Whatever he does, it will show him tied up in a knot, since he’s desperately trying to claim MGTOW while dragging the chains of faith. It’s an untenable position.

No. I am pointing out the obvious.  Men use faith and reason.  Don’t drag separate topics into this thread.

I don’t have to claim MGTOW,  just look at my intro.  I even talked with key master before I joined the site.

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

Getting pretty sick of this Christian bulls~~~. Isn’t Atlas Shrugged super conservative? Don’t the Christians love it? So why is a Catholic in here bashing the s~~~ out of a woman who made sense? Because she observes reality accurately by dismissing radical ideas of the supernatural? The motive and bigotry here is obvious.

Uhh, I didn’t promote anything on this thread in relation to religion or faith.  It is strictly about Objectivism.  And it asks a question.  It is not about critiques on Atlas Shrugged or anything else.  It is about objectivism and asks the question of is it how women view the world.  You are literally dragging other thread topics in.  You talk about how you hate Christians wherever you go, and this thread is not about Christianity.  Am I missing something?