MBTI types as schools of philosophy

ISFJ: historicism, the belief that some event(s) or period(s) in history has/have had a pivotal role in the way humans have developed (e.g. believing that the fall of Rome was the turning point of human history)
ESFJ: antipositivism, the belief that human social life does not follow definite laws the way the natural world does
ISTJ: stoicism, the belief that bad and destructive emotions come from poor judgment and that one is most free when they are free from anger, jealousy, and envy
ESTJ: pragmaticism, the belief that practical topics (topics that have real-life applications) are the most relevant topics
ISFP: romanticism, part of which holds that intense emotions like apprehension, awe, horror, and fear are the most beautiful things that humans can experience
ESFP: empiricism, the belief that  knowledge either only or primarily comes from sensory experience
ISTP: objectivism, the belief that reality exists as purely as ever even without conscious creatures observing it but that humans have a connection to reality through their senses
ESTP: critical realism, the belief that some of the senses provide accurate versions of reality, while others do not
INFJ: neohumanist universalism, the belief that extending your love to all living and nonliving beings in the universe allows you to see the ultimate truth
ENFJ: epicureanism, part of which holds that making friends is essential to living a happy and satisfying life
INTJ: solipsism, the belief that the only thing that you can be absolutely sure exists is your own mind
ENTJ: transhumanism, the belief that advanced technology can and should be used to enhance humans’ physical and intellectual abilities
INFP: idealism, the belief that reality as we can know it is purely mental and does not exist outside of our minds
ENFP: ethical egoism, the belief that an ethical deed is, by definition, one done in self-interest, so long as you do not knowingly hurt others in the process
INTP: logical positivism, the belief that all of your decisions, conclusions, and beliefs should be rooted in scientific discovery and evidence
ENTP: structuralism, the belief that human social life functions as a large, overarching system or process

“Fiction isn’t reality! / It’s just fiction”

Buddy, pal… Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged is considered the 2nd most influential book in American History after the Bible itself, which makes it the Most influential Fiction book. Every fiscally Conservative politician has read it and lives by Rand’s objectivism. But it’s ~just fiction~ which is why Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s entire ethos is based almost entirely in Ayn Rand’s philosophy

For context, Ayn Rand believed that Selfishness was a virtue and Empathy was by extension a vice and a form of parasitism. Putting the needs of others above your own needs was the highest form of evil her philosophy. She once described a serial killer as a “Superman” because “other people do not exist to him, nor should they.”

Now back to Paul Ryan, the man behind the gutting of the ACA, he, a conservative, says that the conservative morality is laid out in Atlas Shrugged, and he’s not the only one who believes this. Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, Ron and Rand Paul, and basically every major Libertarian politician all cite Ayn Rand as an influence (and it’s probably why Ron Paul named his son Randall).

The entire objectivist morality is that the government is an anathema to the Individual, which is sacred.

Individuals, especially rich, selfish individuals = good
Government = bad

Sound familiar?

But sure,,,,,, fiction is fiction so it doesn’t affect the way people think,,,,,,, people can tell the difference,,,,,,,, ,,, fiction and reality are totally separate and one doesn’t influence the other,,,,,,,,,,,, obvi

Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

    Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders’ attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man.

—  John Galt’s Speech, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

The first major section of play in Bioshock 2, after completing a brief tutorial, is a tour through Andrew Ryan’s Amusements, an intelligently crafted presentation of the core beliefs and downfall that led to the events of the previous work. By presenting this so early, not only does the game reintroduce the primary elements of Objectivism to the player, it also paints a much less charismatic portrait of Ryan, making the movement in Rapture towards a form of Leninist Communism that much more understandable.

If the primary objective of the philanthropist, his justification for living, is to help others, his ultimate good requires that others shall be in want. His happiness is the obverse of their misery. If he wishes to help ‘humanity,’ the whole of humanity must be in need. The humanitarian wishes to be a prime mover in the lives of others. He cannot admit either the divine or the natural order, by which men have the power to help themselves. The humanitarian puts himself in the place of God.

But he is confronted by two awkward facts; first, that the competent do not need his assistance; and second, that the majority of people, if unperverted, positively do not want to be 'done good’ by the humanitarian. When it is said that everyone should live primarily for others, what is the specific course to be pursued? Is each person to do exactly what any other person wants him to do, without limits or reservations? and only what others want him to do? What if various persons make conflicting demands? The scheme is impracticable.

Perhaps then he is to do only what is actually 'good’ for others. But will those others know what is good for them? No, that is ruled out by the same difficulty. Then shall A do what he thinks is good for B, and B do what he thinks is good for A? Or shall A accept only what he thinks is good for B, and vice versa? But that is absurd. Of course what the humanitarian actually proposes is that he shall do what he thinks is good for everybody. It is at this point that the humanitarian sets up the guillotine.

What kind of world does the humanitarian contemplate as affording him full scope? It could only be a world filled with breadlines and hospitals, in which nobody retained the natural power of a human being to help himself or to resist having things done to him. And that is precisely the world that the humanitarian arranges when he gets his way.

—  Isabel Paterson