Thoughts on the Objectivist Movement

[epicn2l]

When presented with Objectivism, I was relieved that there were ethics based off of reason, logic & reality rather than faith & belief. When presented with truths that go against your fundamentals, take it as a chance to rebuild yourself, learn, grow.

The problem in the world is not enough people learn philosophy & the lack of intellectuals compared to the large amount of people who just follow.

[zieben64]

ARI does more harm than good? what?? talk about biting the hand that feeds. My dad did not raise me on Objectivism, so yeah, ARI is the only worthwhile Objectivism site to use, by far. O-haters are seeing this video and probably validating themselves. Sounds like something personal happened between you and ARI. This video does more harm than good in my opinion...sorry.

ARI ROCK!!

[XOmniverse]

@zieben64 Your comment has no actual substance. Just an empty assertion of "You're wrong!"

[zieben64]

@XOmniverse all I can say is how their webpage has helped me. There is endless knowledge, all of Rands Ford Hall lectures, all her interviews. cmon man, lets look at this objectively. Would you rather have no internet access to this priceless info or, perhaps, no ARI? Appreciate, don't hate. What about all of Yaron Brook's TV appearances? Who cares if people think ARI is too extreme, it's their fault. I am glad ARI doesn't sacrifice their beliefs to be PC, or try to get the most "hits".

[XOmniverse]

@zieben64 Does any of that make the ARI perfect or beyond criticism?

[zieben64]

@XOmniverse na, just don't throw ARI under da bus!! :D

[NewVinland]

My problem is that she talked about enjoying seeing skyscrapers more than nature itself. This contradicted her own ideology. She said we should be proud how we got here. To shun nature is to shun how we got here in the first place. She said many useful things, but there was a lot of poison interlocked into the system.

[valuesone]

Your claims in this video should not be taken seriously.

[valuesone]

Or else you will never be taken seriously.

[XOmniverse]

@valuesone People often take me seriously. Empirical evidence is contrary to your assertion.

[valuesone]

You must explicate the issues you want to address more clearly and have evidence in the form of examples to defend your claims about the ARI and specific Objectivists and their actions. To pause in the middle of your video and ask yourself "where do I want to go with this?" is evidence that you need to think much more about your ideas and claims until they are precise and clear before opening them up to debate, especially since you fear you've comitted a great heresy.

[XOmniverse]

@valuesone "You must explicate the issues you want to address more clearly and have evidence in the form of examples to defend your claims about the ARI and specific Objectivists and their actions."

Or else what? I might get snarky comments from Randroids? I think I can accept that consequence as it has little impact on my quality of life.

[mtb416]

@XOmniverse

As for your problem with Objectivist thought and Rand's practice of shunning the sheep in her books quickly and not giving chance, Objectivism relies heavily upon self-evident Truths. Ask yourself, have you ever encountered an objectivist that seems to be of flat 'average' intelligence? I don't like to stereotype in that way and I am not tooting my own horn, at least directly, ha, but it seems like most Objectivists have a little sharper brain than the 'average' person out there.

[XOmniverse]

@mtb416 I think your claim here could be said of people that are into philosophy in general, not just Objectivists. People that have a solid capacity for abstract thought are more likely to be drawn to philosophy.

[mtb416]

@XOmniverse I agree. Most people who consume philosophy are inherently sharper individuals. But realize that this concerns exactly what I said. You state the problems with Objectivism, problems that you see as apparent, but problems which largely pertain to perception of Objectivism not by you but to the 'normies' (to use Family Guy). You do see inadequacies, as do I, but the outright rejection is not done by 'sharper' individuals typically. Most people do not want rigidity, which is objectivism

[mtb416]

@XOmniverse Philosophical debates over the internet are very, very difficult. ha.

[circa300]

The point of ARI is not to have good PR. They want to spread Ayn Rand's notions and philosophy and create a rational world. All those who have been exposed fully to Objectivism and still think irrationally and say that there is a God are considered, evil, to the extent that they stop the flow of progress towards a better world. This dogmatic view was conceived by Ayn Rand, and since she created this philosophy, those who deny it cannot call themselves Objectivists.

[MoonLightFacade]

@circa300

Do I believe in man's infinite potential? Yes.

Do I believe man should work for that potential? Yes.

However, ARI has elements which are a dichotomy to themselves. One example is the name itself, because it has many aspects which promote a subjective behavior. Egoism, selfishness, and individuality are just three of these.

ARI is bullshit which has been created by followers who have no individualistic thought; they're no better than your typical church going person.

[Agretalien]

The polarity between staunch objectivists (Rand said if you dissagree with any tenet of Objectvism don't call yourself one) and those who are in opposition, reminds me of the raging opposition of the Atheists and Creationists here on YouTube. Personally I find objectivism quite beautiful in it's obviousness and simplicity but naieve and sweeping in it's treatment of consiousness. Would love to explore this position if you think it worthy.

[ediblepet]

One other thing. I think the logical conclusion of your argument is that objectivists should not expect 100% approval or identification with their views. When faced with disagreement, they should not offer violent indignation to the other person's immediate failure to reject all opposing philosophies, but should rather use persuasion techniques that are calmer, slower, and more effective. The key word here is respect.  And the key phrase is the Socratic method. You must be open and rational.

[XOmniverse]

Agreed in full.

[valuesone]

@ediblepet

When saying you must be open and rational, being open is not an absolute. Being open in my view is only a virtue in the right context. Being open to debate and discussion with someone who believes their highest moral achievement would be killing you provides a situation in which being open would be irrational.

Not all philosophies and ideas deserve respect. I think the violent indignation you speak of represents Objectivism's intolerence for contradictions in their philosophy.

[ediblepet]

Hey, I really love your videos.  You put some really wonderful thought into things. Thanks for posting these!

[87176246]

As for ARI doing harm to Objectivism, I disagree. It may appear so because the brunt of negativity is aimed at them, but they move on and prove themselves over and over. They stand up for themselves with coherent arguments and a courage I can only admire. They have a strong stand, but it is backed up with intellectual firepower. ARI is placing objectivism into the fabric of thought in systematic and effective manner.

[87176246]

With further investigation,while I thought I was fading away, I became more comfortable with objectivism. I regard Peikoff, Brandon, and Kelley very highly. I also regard Brook as man of extreme courage and intelligence. I am beginning to understand their disagreements, but for me, those disagreements hardly matter. I have gained an enormous amount from each of them.

[87176246]

I read Brandon before I knew about ARI and I devoured David Kelley and the objectivist center's material. I became curious about what happened to Peikoff and then I found ARI. My first experience of ARI was an intense debate with Brook about Islamic Totalitarianism. This made me rethink my views and what I was getting into.

[87176246]

1)I came to Objectivism very slowly. While Atlas Shrugged struck me immediately as important, the ideas simply did not fit with my way of thinking. After years of looking at the world with this new lens, these new ideas have replaced the old, making the old seem ridiculous. No one imposed this on me, I have never known an objectivist and up until the past year I never looked into what others said about objectivism.

[pongespob]

Israel may be more "friendly" to the West than the Arab states, but I don't see any way to avoid the fact that Israel is first & foremost a religious entity. Brook supports Israel yet apparently found it unacceptable as a place to live. Its socialist nature would be repudiated in any ARI forum, yet they still tenaciously defend it. Hard not to question the basis of their loyalty.

[pongespob]

Brook is himself difficult to listen to. They have numerous internal squabbles, "excommunication" of long-time insiders. From what I've read Ayn Rand herself was known to turn on long-time friends for perceived slights. Again, Peikoff has been a lightning-rod for criticism which has certainly not helped their cause. There seems to be a feeling among some that his greatest skill isn't as a philosopher but as a tenacious hanger-on.

[pongespob]

The ARI has numerous problems, starting with Ayn Rand herself. Screwed up personal life & died from ignoring reality. Peikoff's style is reactive, caustic & offputting and is just irritating to listen to. They purport to be atheists but there are a lot of Jews in their ranks. I believe Rand herself was born a Jew. During a debate Peikoff states "I'm Jewish for whatever it's worth". Their current executive director Yaron Brook lived in Israel & rabidly defends the pro-Israeli cause. -cont-

[manofoss]

for some reason my comments aren't being posted. why?

[manofoss]

PS: The depiction of ARI by the poster of this video is not (exactly) consistent with my impression of it/them. Again I would urge anyone interested to go to their website and see for themselves. The best and most accurate source of Objectivism is of course Miss Rand's own writings.

[Kesshutsu]

Hello. Like you, I was not converted into Objectivism and my father is an Objectivist. However I was never given Ayn Rand's books or had any of the ideas forced on me. For the most part I was left alone regarding religion or philosophy or even any political idea. I chose to read Atlas Shrugged when I was 13 because someone dear to me had told me it was the most important thing to them.

[Kesshutsu]

I must be highly critical of your claims of a dogmatic approach encouraged by ARI. I have vastly seen Objectivism approached as a dogma and I would likely say this is the majority of people claiming to be Objectivists. This however can not be shoved onto ARI as if they did it to them. "ARI turned me into a dogmatic Objectivist, shame on them." This is nonsense, it is their own fault entirely.

[Kesshutsu]

Because someone has an emotional response to an idea is not grounds to suddenly be acting on emotionalist philosophy. If they claim to support Objectivism and then when an idea is properly questioned, they suddenly resort to emotionalism feeling whatever (insecure? attacked?) and take it out on the person, then they are wrong. They are not Objectivists.

[Kesshutsu]

Objectivism is anti-emotionalism and it means primarily regarding psychology and emotions, that in any conflict between what you know to be correct, and how you feel, you act on your mind. I think part of what you've said is because you believe that ARI doesn't take emotionalism into account. I would disagree; I think ARI treats emotionalism with exactly the respect it deserves.

[nine9s]

My experience with ARI regarding a college Ayn Rand club forever soured me on ARI. If we were to accept any materials from them, we couldn't even *talk* about libertarianism (not even to explain ARI's objection to it), and at the first meeting the whole topic of conversation was why we couldn't talk about libertarianism or David Kelley, but presumably could talk about communism and Kant. Also, we had to promise not to accept any materials from the Objectivist Center. It was preposterous.

[shovelcharge]

I find that strange considering that ARI gives copies of Peter Schwartz's "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" to campus clubs. Obviously, they want club members to think about libertarianism.

Sounds like you are describing a individual club's decision, not ARI's.

Libertarianism is good for an advanced topic, but Kelley is not worth the effort.

[nine9s]

There may have been a misunderstanding about discussing libertarianism, but the fact remains that the founder of the club went ahead and tried to enforce that. This is the kind of behavior that gives Objectivism a bad name. It's the kind of mentality that, when trying to find out if something is true, they turn to "what ARI says" rather than looking reality directly in the face.

Have you read "Truth and Toleration in Objectivism?"

[Youhavethebody]

That's odd; I don't think our club currently operates like that.

Though, I think the ARI does reserve the right to decide what other institutes your club can accept materials from, so long as you decide to accept materials and speakers from the ARI. This isn't a problem for me personally: Since I disagree heavily with Kelley, I'll probably disagree and not want to deal with the stuff that comes out of TOC (or now The Atlas Society).

[shovelcharge]

you don't understand Objectivism. Objectivism doesn't claim that you are evil if you don't agree with Objectivism. It doesn't happen immediately. And of course you would kick out people that go against your movement. Why would you stand with people who act against you? A philosophical group must stay consistent to survive.

[XOmniverse]

You don't understand. I DO understand Objectivism. I don't understand the ARI.

Huge difference.

[nine9s]

People who agree with you 97% of the time aren't your enemy. What good does it do to alienate people who are so overwhelmingly on your side?

[shovelcharge]

You don't understand the core of libertarianism and TOC. They aren't 97% in agreement, they are ultimately against Objectivism. Kelley's case is simple, if you have a good grasp of Objectivism (as far as I know), and the only thing I would suggest with libertarianism is reading Peter Schwartz's article I mentioned. I changed my mind for good.

[nine9s]

I read it a long time ago--I may have to re-read it. But when I read it, my impression was that Schwartz's problem with libertarianism was that it was a political organization and not a philosophy club. According to his arguments, you can't team up with anyone but Objectivists to get anything done in the political realm. Would you ask Objectivists not to vote, on principle, until an Objectivist runs?

[joelmac1983]

Nice critique of the ARI and its Pope.

[rickyPG]

Didn't a lot of this dogmatism come from Ayn Rand herself? She did not tolerate challenges well from what I have seen and read.

[XOmniverse]

That's true.

[0neironaut]

2 questions: Objectivists claim there is only one reality, and it is self evident. From this follows that all other contrary interpretations of the world and the values people hold are false(excuse the brevity)... Then isnt Objectivism necessarily dogmatic? 2) What do you, or any other Objectivists, make of Quantum physics (probability, paradox and randomness)?

[XOmniverse]

(1) Well, the fact that there is only one reality is a fact, regardless of whether the result of that fact is that Objectivists are dogmatic. It doesn't necessarily follow from this that all people who call themselves Objectvists are CORRECT in their understanding of what reality is.

(2) Too long of a topic to discuss in comments. I may do a video later about this, once I educate myself more on the subject.

[0neironaut]

im still waiting for #2!!!!!!!!!!

[XOmniverse]

I still need to read more about quantum physics so I know what I am talking about :P

[0neironaut]

hehe ya its a hefty topic. Dark energy would be a neat theme to consider as well.

[0neironaut]

good video. great points. I think you confess something very important: at their core, worldviews are emotional, poetic, experential, and initially belonging to the passions. It is only later that we cement our convictions with reasons and rational arguments.

[AynRandMotor]

You can tell your father that Her motOR is done and "Well done". Independent (and despite) all that institution/center/society/sph­ere/forum infighting and the mess that it has become...hmmm, almost as if She planned it that way if you really think about it (you know, to 'show' us the I'mpORtance of respecting the Law of Causality) and like the mInd reasonates, this motOR resonates from its own Crystal cORe. Come and "Judge fOR yourself"-June 102AR-"And I mean it"

[gnomehawk]

Why do you capitolize in wiERd places? What does it mean? What is the seCREt?

[AynRandMotor]

There's nothing weird OR secret about it; in fact, She wrote an entire novel on it. It's just that not everyone realized that it was written as a guide towARd a self-fulfilling, philosophical prophecy.

"Isn't it odd? When a politician or a movie star retires, we read front page stories about it. But when a philosopher retires, people do not even notice it."

"They do eventually." (yw'mn:Fd'A\AS\AR)

-stick ARound and eventually you will too-

[gnomehawk]

What novel is that? (yw'mn:Fd'A\AS\AR)-I definitely got that though.Child's play. j/k. I've only known about objectivism for about four days. So I'm pretty ignorant on the subject. I assume the "(AR)ound" is Ayn Rand?

[AynRandMotor]

"Four days?" Man, it took me most of the last century to get where I am. But at least - I am -. And that's all that matters kid. You're young and have a gRand head stARt. Place Reason at the cORe of your existence and you'll be "Here" in 'know' time.

Oh, and did I mention that Her motOR is done? I know this because;

"I'm the one who made it in the first place." *(JG:QD\AS\AR)*

*novice trad:(JohnGalt to QuentinDaniels from AtlasShrugged by AynRand)

[AynRandmInd]

Just fInd;) then be:) yourself 8D!

[noahkg1987]

One issue is that Objectivism is defined as "Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism" and so in that title is an implicit need to acknowledge a debt to Ayn Rand and the philosophy she came up with in her life time. This of course makes it difficult to be "innovative" or challenge those who claim to interpret her works.

[XOmniverse]

The problem isn't the philosophy itself so much as the ARI's attitude that they and only they could possibly know how to apply it to new situations, and that they are not open to the same rational inquiry about their claims as anyone else.

[dduppie]

We're all free to write about our own interpretation of O'ism. Just be accurate about naming it; give it a different name like Neo-Objectivism or Post-Objectivism. This is standard practice in academic philosophy. When Aristotle scholars write about their interpretations of Aristotle, they take great pains to make it clear to the reader which part is Aristotle's and which is their interpretation.