Objectivism, not Ayn Rand's philosophy

[rebelq1]

BTW, doesn't libertarianism mean minarchist and anarcho-capitalist?

You said 'libertarian' with the meaning of minarchist.

[rebelq1]

Here's my morality: Do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others, physically or psychologically. Don't cause any unnecessary and unjust harm. And if you can, do help others who are in need.

[rebelq1]

Does Hedonism/Epicureanism/Objectiv­ism advocate concern with one's own pleasure/well being only or that of others too?

[MrSteveSpears]

...In Virtue Of Selfishness she states that he foundation of ethics is the happiness and survival of the individual. This premise is incomplete, because individuals almost never survive as individuals. Homo sapiens have always survived in groups. Even in modern cities there is undeniable evidence of our interconnectedness. We can argue about where to draw the line between the individual and society, but individualism vs. collectivism is a false dichotomy. They are never mutually exclusive.

[MrSteveSpears]

I appreciate your honesty. Too many would be, thinkers are obsessive about wedding their egos to an ideology, as if the survival of their identity depended upon rabid loyalty to their philosophical "team". I also admire Rand's intellect, although I wish she had been more knowledgeable of other disciplines, such as cognitive psychology, cultural anthropology, or sociology. I disagree with her philosophy because of the premise of her ethics which I will explain in a subsequent post.....

[zieben64]

she does admit she has no right saying its unethical.

[zieben64]

Great video. I believe Rand truely believed anyone who followed Aristotelian logic could have come up with objectivism. I think Rand would agree that it is not "her" philosophy, because if she did this would be an elitist thing to say which is totally contradictory of her philosophy. Nothing she says is elitist, even the whole student of Objectivism. She probably saw many people cherry pick parts of her philosophy. As for sexuality, I have no idea why she would think that is, even though

[GnomesAmok]

You have misunderstood objectivism and been led to false conclusions, congratulations, chump

[Mal1234567]

You are including only one incident out of Rand's entire lifetime of voting. So she believed in voting Republican - at one time. But she refused to vote for Reagan. So, as far as your disappointment is concerned, factor in a person's entire record and not just up to a certain point in time.

[SopLusus]

You're not wrong, evil, nor immoral, good message though. Certainly isn't her philosophy, that's was silly claim with a fancy title.

[iflyboats]

You are not even close to Objectivism. You cannot be a "borderline" Objectivist and still have anarchist leanings at the same time. That is a contradition.

Objectivism is called the philosophy of Ayn Rand because the philosophy is HER brainchild. Admitting this does NOT mean that you have to believe everything that Ayn Rand says; it just means that you arent an objectivist if you disagree.

[iflyboats]

Ayn Rand didn't want s"tudents of Objectivism" to call themselves Objectivists because she knew that they would be prone to misrepresent the philosophy by mixing her ideas with others. The essense of Objectivism is absolutism, and if you accept mixed philosophic systems, you undermine the whole foundation of Objectivism.

[DrCruel]

The curious bit about Ayn Rand's Objectivism - and this is crucial to understanding it - is that it's a variant of Marxism. In a way it's to Marxism what Satanism is to Christianity. Because it is specifically designed as a retort to Marxism, (literally turning it on its head), it in the process incorporates part of the ideological prism of Marxism.

Since Marxism is so deeply flawed, this is a real problem for Objectivism, even as it rejects Marxism, because it does so from within the model.

[TOMsReason]

Who came up with Objectivist Philosophy in the first place ? Ayn Rand did. That's why it is deserved to call Objectivism 'the philosophy of Ayn Rand'. If you have a set of different ideas, why don't you give that set of new ideas a NEW NAME to clearly distinguish it from her ideas (e.g. just take your last name and add 'ism' to it ) ? Otherwise, we talk about 'Objectivism' and noone knows what set of ideas are actually referred to by this label. Lack of distinction will result in confusion.

[MCP2012]

The classic comprehensive overviews of Libertarianism are: (1) John Hospers' (now *finally* back in print!!) *Libertarianism*, and (2) Murray Rothbard's *For a New Liberty*. Still one of the best libertarian anthologies is Tibor Machan's 1974 *The Libertarian Alternative*. The latest entry into the Libertarian or Market Anarchist position, see Canadian Francois Tremblay's *Market Anarchy Explained: ''But Who Will Build The Roads?''* Cheers!

[JimProfitandJulz]

Everyone here is saying "you can have your own ideas and still be an objectivist" No you can't. Have you ever been around objectivists? They're fucking brutal scum who will not allow any variation, any deviance, any insuation that Ayn Rand was less then perfect.

They're liars, they're control-freaks, they're basicaly totaltatarian cunts by any other name. They call themselves individuals but relish in worshipping someone outside of them, as well as keeping nicely gated communities.

[theonlymethod]

if somebody comes up with some way of thinking that inspires you or others, that doesnt mean you have accept everything that person says in order to appreciate the core argument they are making.

[queensboulevaad]

I support the fact that you didn't just eat up everything Rand wrote. While I am a huge supporter of Rand, too many people seem to overlook some of her flaws.

[queensboulevaad]

Sounds like your qualms are not with the Objectivist philosophy but rather with some aspects of Rand's personality. That shouldn't stop you from calling yourself an Objectivist; one can subscribe to a philosophy and still disagree with certain aspects of it. It is our duty when learning about ideas to question them and make our own conscious decisions about them.

[razer7echo]

Objectisism is the philosphy of Ayn rand, but Objectivism is not all that Ayn rand believes. See? She believes many other things, which she explicitly says are not part of objectisism. The romantic philosophy etc. Just chill, you are an objectivist. Its not about Ayn Rand. I think people do want to make sure the word is not thrown around though so people can claim they are objectivists when they are not. They are trying to protect the dilution of the word, which happens with many philosophies.

[LordShivasServant]

You "Objectvists" sound like robots. All of you.

Thanks for that video. I love Any too, but have the same reservations.

[Y6UTU25]

(contd) Most Objectivists I know, myself included, had a "red flag" go up as we came to some point she made. A red flag says, "here is something I need to investigate". After time and mental effort to fully grasp her point and what gave rise to it, we found that, in fact, it was she who had gotten it right, and in the process we were able to detect the flaw(s) in our own thinking.

[Y6UTU25]

My sense, from viewing this video and reading your responses in this queue, is that you admire Ayn Rand because she advocated many of the things that you already held to be "right", but that she also advocated some specific conclusions which clash with your previously (and still) held beliefs. What I suspect is that essentially you stopped there, that you didn't rigorously reevaluate those already held conflicting beliefs. (contd)

[paulk314]

I assume other people have already pointed this out, but in case no one has, Objectivism is *by definition* Ayn Rand's philosophy. When a person founds a new system of ideas, they have the right to name it what they choose, and Ayn Rand chose the name Objectivism. I absolutely agree we shouldn't automatically agree with her, but if you do disagree, it doesn't mean she had the wrong understanding of Obectivism. Objectivism is whatever she said it was, right or wrong, just as Kantianism is [contd]

[brooksyboy22]

The point of objectivism is to further philisophical awareness and thought. This cannot be done in the absence of original and rational thought which is why I believe this new objectivism movement is missing the point. Ayn Rand was essential in the objectivist movement; however, I fear that many, unlike you and I, follow her like an idol and accept any premise she presented without much reasoning. This part of the objectivist movement is defeating the sole purpose of objectivism.

[paulk314]

If that were true, you'd be right that it would be devastating. However, I don't see this with anyone officially associated with the philosophy, such as the Ayn Rand Institute. I think that some people who are new to Objectivism may begin to accept what she says without too much independent thinking, but this is not particular to (self-proclaimed) "Objectivists". There is nothing inherent about Objectivism which prevents people from claiming it as their belief system.

[brooksyboy22]

I agree with you regarding the issue of defining objectivism as Rand's philosophy. The concept that she was the influential individual who re-enforced a profound propensity for rational thought in the objectivist movement isnt what bothers me; however, the fact that many of her so called "objectivist" followers blindly accept the premises she expresses is quite troublesome. (please read further on my above posted comment)

[reverendtriggafinga]

why is it that only white males are primarily attracted to this bullshit theory?

is it bcuz they face genetic anhilation and the tendency to hunker down is a natural outgrowth of this phenomenon?

objectivism = fatalism

[AshillaBeige]

Something that does disturb me about the kind of "Randian Objectivist" movement is that Rand is sometimes treated more as prophet and not as a philosopher, pioneer or great thinker.

The idea in that sort of objectivist movement that is problematic is that if you disagree with Rand on something pertaining to philosophy, morality, etc. then YOINK, it's like an excommunication.

I dig objectivism, I don't dig the movement. It sometimes strikes me as religious. I love Rand's works, I don't love Rand.

[OdysseyArts]

You are misinformed and have not done enough research. Ayn Rand hated the term "Randism." She DID call it Objectivism. Everything you state is incorrect. Please go watch the Donuhue interview. It is called Realism because it relied on REASON. Your 'confession' is not reasonable.

[GiovanniLW]

You are quite hot.

[cad40324]

Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy. She was the first to create a system of rational morality, which had never been done before. Objectivism is not a continuation of any pre-existing philosophy. Also, you must understand that Objectivism supports intellectual copyright. Objectivism came from Ayn Rand's rational mind, so it is her intellectual copyright. As for the libertarian issue, I feel the same as you. I don't fully understand where the grudge comes from.

[Jazzper79]

Continued

Yes she did not like people who had opposite views, but have you thought about why? - Because she was against force and people who just wanted to be angry about her and not think. And she must have experienced that A LOT, so it is understandable that she just say: "I do not wanna deal with you".

Why do you not want to accept everything Ayn Rand says, it that just something in you who says: "No person is fully right?" -- Which means: "You are not right yourself".

Jesper

[Jazzper79]

Another comment from me:

1)It IS her philosophy, because she puzzled knowledge into a system that is all rational. And ofcourse she did not discover it all herself, but that does not make it wrong. If you invented a philosophy you really know was true, why would you want anyone who said the opposite to be a follower?

2) Ayn Rand is not a liberaterian follower. She believes in Laissez Faire Capitalism.

3) I do believe she has had a good reason for saying that.

More to follow

[Manx123]

I don't care to respond with a video. I can much better express it in words. I suppose I can't change your opinion on Ayn Rand but Capitalism, (or what she was referring to), is not elitist. An elitist is someone who believes in rule by an elite group, or an aristocracy. This was one of the things she was feverishly against, and supported the belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people: egalitarianism.

[Manx123]

Actually, no you're wrong. If you want to know why, you can ask me, but you probably won't.

[melibell21]

brilliant video! it seems that objectivists are accused of cultist support and blind hero-worship of ayn rand. but we are simple followers of the pieces of "her" philosophy that we agree with, a practice which she advocated. she did not want followers. she wanted rational men & women.

your deviation from some of her logic and sound backing and proof of the rest shows how free-minded and rational you are as a man.

even if we don't agree on all points, i respect your thought process and proof.

[Jazzper79]

You do not have to agree with everything she says, but you have to pay in life for the consequences if you are wrong. So the point is to find out if your disagreement is valid.

Jesper 28, Denmark

[hollrahd]

wow. i feel that same love hate relationship with Ayn Rand. i loved atlas shrugged and it change my views on almost everything as well. then i saw phil donahue interview her on youtube. i felt that same broken heartedness that you describe. i think it was mostly because of her apparent intolerance of opposing viewpoints. you remind me alot of myself man. i enjoyed listening to you talk.

[Berenad]

I just built a wooden box. People have made wooden boxes before, and people can add onto my wooden box, but that doesn't change the fact that it is *MY* wooden box. The same with Ms. Rand and her philosophy.

Also, to the poster below, she would NEVER. *EVER* support a democrat (at least not the ones running today). They are completely and totally irrational.

Also, please realize that the republicans she supported are not neo-conservatives, like the ones of today.

[Mammon08]

It's not ridiculous for her to be the authority on Objectivism because she created it with that in mind. It's *her* philosophy, like a product almost.

Also, where are you getting this thing about Rand being a supporter of the GOP? Maybe she was a little bit, but not very gun-ho about it. Given Peikoff's position, if she was alive today, she's be supportive of the Democrats more then anyone.

[MyITRcom]

You either believe that Man is a slave and should be a slave or you don't. It is black and white...

The IRS in existence means we are all slaves..

Go Ron Paul!

There is only one philosophy that paints a very bright and shining future for the planet and that is the philosphy of Ayn Rand. See the vision, study John Galts speech do not judge that world from the perspective of taking this one with it as this one must be dropped in order to have that world and that vision. We can't have both!

[MyITRcom]

I do not seek and argument, for what is to be argued, this planet, this world is the result of the current philosophy, we will either be willing to try a different one or not, but there is no argument about what kind of world the current philosophy produces. It is just the possible world we might all enjoy, if a different one were to be embraced. Ayn Rand saw that world and so do I, if you open your eyes you will see it too, but why would you argue for this world?

[MyITRcom]

Guys come on, how do you expect to discuss this when you are willing to break all the rules of the 20 twenty or so logical fallicies.

Like because Newton Smoked therefore the law of gravity must be wrong etc! If you are not willing to look at your flawed statements, how do you expect to ever understand anything?

[aaron0883]

I just ask for 1, not 20. When people claim that I am using dishonest or immoral tactics I ask that they provide an example. Otherwise it makes me think that they are using very dishonest tactics. Please, back up your claims.

[Manx123]

First point: Completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter who created them as long as you believe them. Just concede that it was her who conceived them.

Second Point: A government would be unable to protect our right under the threat of anarchy. Anarchy is essentially a form of collectivism, saying that as long as more people believe in dethroning a government it's morally right to.

Third Point: She did believe in activism, just not by the initiation of force.

[Manx123]

Fourth Point: She stated numerous times she does not affiliate, agree, or sanction any political group during her life. During her life the main issue was Capitalism vs. Communism, with the Republicans supporting the former and the Democrats supporting the latter. It's not a moral obligation to vote for a specific party, (that would be collectivism), it was a moral obligation to vote for the economic system that was in your own rational self-interest: Capitalism.

[Manx123]

The Ayn Rand Institute actually feverishly supports voting Democrat, due to the fact that the Republican party bases its beliefs on irrational justifications: faith, tradition, and conservatism.

[Manx123]

Fifth point: That's... actually pretty irrational of her. Wow... she really did that? I suppose that was because while she did support individualism, she never wanted to be associated with someone who said something she did not believe in.

[AEVautomatic]

@aaron0883 Ayn rand has little to do with objectivism.

[MyITRcom]

Dude... That was agonizing and really had very little to with the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For someone who claims to have read her material, you certianly have not fully groked it.

[aaron0883]

This comment lacked any content. I made a thesis and supported it ... I made many ideas and assertions. If you can not pick one out and criticize it than don't make general dumb remarks that are likely aimed just to attack someone who disagrees with you.

[MyITRcom]

Yes, but none of them applied to what she brings to the table, your comments only fully revealed your lack of understanding. This is not an attack, just a fact.  You engage in many logical fallicies and non-sequitors.

[aaron0883]

Give me an example. I am well versed in all of the works of Ayn Rand, and I believe I have a very good understanding of it. Please help me cure my ignorance if I am wrong, and point out my logical fallacies and non-sequiturs.

[awesomeation]

Taking highschool math does not make you a mathemetician anymore than reading an Ayn Rand novel makes you an objectivist.

[Aaron08832]

I agree. I do not call myself an objectivist, and while i agree with all of the arguments I put here, I no longer agree with the thesis. However, I also believe that anyone who would really call themselves an objectivist is submitting his mind, and should not be called an intellectual in any form ... just a follower.

[awesomeation]

It doesn't matter if you "believe in" objectivism or not. It was her (brilliant) attempt at describing the nature of reality. It goes beyond beliefs... similarly it doesn't matter if you "believe in" Einsteins theory of relativity. Just try to understand, or admit that you don't.

[aaron0883]

I like to believe that i fully understand her philosophy. I have great respect for many of her ideas, but I absolutely believe that she has made mistakes. I have made several videos detailing some of them. If I found flaws with Einsteins theory of relativity I would make videos criticizing that also.

[MottullMaelstrom]

Ayn Rand (real name Alyssa Rosenbaum) advocated reason and yet she was a smoker. She also had an extra-marital affair with a man (also married) who was 18 years her junior for 25 years.

[hypnolinks]

Smoking symbolizes the reason of Man's mind! Would you immolate Man's reason upon the alter of real life!?!?

[Jahandaar]

As for voting, I think you misunderstand here. Now, I think voting was a troubling thing for her, because she was torn between wanting to be involved but disliking the choices. She did defend the right to not vote for similar reasons. Often she (like most people) used a "lesser evil" approach to voting, including Nixon, whom she always opposed but reluctantly sided with because she didn't want McGovern. Of course, I've read her critics who've equated this with "whole-hearted" support.

[Jahandaar]

I'm a bit late to the party here, but I thought I'd offer a response. As I understand it, she specifically chose the term Objectivism to name her philosophy. She was so strict about how people used the term, because she wanted to ensure that her ideas would not become diluted by ideas that she may not have agreed with. She disliked terms like "randian" because she did not want people mindlessly following her, or confusing her philosophy for her personal tastes, though some still do that anyway.

[kokobonk]

so.. I was just wondering, if you have such strong opinions about things, why do you choose not to vote?

and I was just curious about your views on egoism and altruism? to you tend to agree with Calvin or Hobbes?

[theluscioussound]

Geez I wish i knew someone like you to have conversations with, because you bring up a number of points that would take me paragraphs to reply in. Im going to to just reply to one.

When it comes to voting rep, she does not believe in charity without reason, or an equal payment. Think of welfare, think of government sponserded programs for children of sub-par intelligence, and many other programs, I believe her stand is against giving to them and not giving to the gifted people. Who deserve it

[kstauffer13]

nice video

[PursuitOfReality]

You would have liked the Neo-Objectivism I was going to present. I just don't want to spend a lot of time defending it.

[RawMeat3001]

I really really dislike her strictness about people calling themselves Objectivists.

I think it's rather absurd.

[priorzola]

We are all have unique experiences and perspectives. No ONE thinker can tell how you should think about your purpose in life. Hero-worshipping, whether it's Jesus, Marx, or Ayn Rand, precludes that these are people who share the same struggles and goals as you do. The often conflicted lives of many of these thinkers reveals that their words and their actions do not always match. Why should you feel obligated to follow the methodologies of people who couldn't always live up to their OWN ideas.

[jordanfullam]

"but yeah I totally disagree with her on voting and ge ge ge ge ge ge ge blah blah blah."

[Aaron08832]

hummm ... I never did think of things from that POV ... good point.

[halizzle]

Please marry me. We have the exact same views. Your book collection is sexy. =]

[aaron0883]

While I think it would be wonderful to marry a girl with the exact same views ... I have a general policy of meeting girls before marriage. It is just a weird thing I have.

[tehknologik]

You make it clear in the beginning that you'd like to separate objectivism and Ayn Rand, viewing her as merely a pioneer. Then I expected to hear your problems with the philosophy but instead I got nothing but problems with HER. She this, and she that. Very inconsistent.

[aaron0883]

My contentions with Ayn Rand's philosophy I make fairly clear. I am an anarchist, she is a libertarian. I disagree with her views on sex, activism, and politics. I only spend about a minute critisizing her actions, which is also somewhat relevent because she claimed to live her philosophy. I don't understand the last comment. Are you calling me inconsistent? If so, please elaborate.

[tehknologik]

OK... you proclaimed your renouncement of certain aspects of objectivism, and I'm sure it's because you have problems with certain aspects of it... if only I could have had heard them given that your description reads "my struggles with objectivism." Instead, it was just a very wordy repudiation.

[tehknologik]

I guess I was just expecting a LITTLE bit more elaboration. I rarely come across people who say they disagree and don't explain why.

[aaron0883]

Okay. My point was more with the struggles of Objectivism as Ayn Rand's Philosophy. However. I make a couple of videos on activism to address my complaints there.  I do not believe that she can address the moral contradictions inherent in her political ideas, Government is force and has no right to monopolize force. I believe that her ideas on sex are unproven and flawed, and I don't believe it addresses peoples natural desire for sex.

[aaron0883]

However ... I do not wish to just bash Ayn Rand. She is a briliant woman that I have great respect for.

[theknightswhosay]

It's impractical to just say, "don't vote." That's the simplest way of halting the progress of socialism. You can believe in no government at all, but if you desire to remove all government, isn't it better to support politicians who want it smaller than others do? That makes removing it easier. That there is no one to vote for without flaws doesn't prove anything. There is no person to talk to without flaws, do you take a vow of silence?

[jwoodswce]

gOat, Your but-everybody-did-it argument about slavery opens MA open to a new line of criticism.

Government, as it evolved to better execute it proper role of protecting individual rights, ended slavery.

However, if the protection of one's rights in a MA is dependent upon one's ability to pay one of the protective gangs, then those that can not pay will becomes slaves in a feudal arrangement where they depend upon their master's property right for protection from others.

[eastocean2000]

You have done what everyone does, dropped context, saying she believes or is what she is not and in general just interpret wrong. It's simple, she constructed a philosophy out of necessity thus proving people with a philosophy for living on earth. Look around, do you think we needed it?

[aaron0883]

What did I interpret wrong? What context did I drop?

[richardshort2001]

ok but your video you sent me to you equate anarchy with the concept that violence is wrong. So only violence by an officially sanctioned state counts?

[jwoodswce]

Richard, Good line of argument that elicited a couple interesting points about the MA rationalizations:

1) MA fails to protect individual rights because according to g0at its purpose isn't to constrain violence by anything other than an internal state,

2) they fail to consider the reasons for which governments were created by men out of self-interest to subordinate force to objective law, and

3) facts from history that they cite upon investigation refute their proposition.

[richardshort2001]

That was more like a series of voluntary Democracies where you could, if you didn't like the policies, break off of one and join another or create your own at will. Of course they still wared with each other, so much for no violence by people in control.

Also they owned slaves. I am willing to bet they used violence to maintain control of them too.

What is slavery, but forced government?

[richardshort2001]

I actually have and I still fail to see any realistic way of getting around one fact.

Chaos breeds despots.

Just because some guy with a bunch of money and guns, who steals from farmers and uses the food supply to control the population isn't recognized as a government officialy, doesn't make it any better.

[richardshort2001]

how is there no use of violence in Market Anarchy?

Would it be impossible to steal anything? Would it completely eliminate both poverty and greed?

Unless you can answer yes to one of those there is still a use for violence, and thus a use of violence.

[Sw33tLiberty]

You know I was going back and forth about what I could say about this, and I realized that I didn't really care that much. I don't care whether someone calls it "Objectivism" or "The Philosophy of Ayn Rand". I mean, point blank, she DID create Objectivism. I don't see how you can argue that. However, I understand the problem of many Objectivists putting her word before truth.

[Sw33tLiberty]

Some start out liking the ideas of Objectivism because they think they're true, and then end up defending some of the more odd ideas of it just because Ayn Rand said they were right. Obviously that's wrong. However, to say Ayn Rand didn't create the philosophy because she didn't create truth is like saying the architect didn't create a building because he didn't create the materials.

[aaron0883]

It is not saying that at all. A better analogy would be that Newton didn't create gravity, Pathagorus didn't create the hypotinus, and Nabisco didn't create the Oreo. These are all inate truths that were discovered.  Well ... maybe the last one is a bad example. This is a very important question though.

[aaron0883]

If someone calls themself an objectivist and says it is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, than they are irrational and have no concern for truth.  I also have no idea why Rand would have a problem with people calling it Randism, since it would be following her, rather than her ideas. I find this to be a huge contradiction. I don't think someone can be a good follower of her philosophy and call themself an objectivist.

[jwoodswce]

A, here are some more relevant examples related to philosophy:

Is Aristotle a Platonist because he was his student?

Did Aquinas modify Aristotelian philosophy so that it is now pro-Christian?

Is Marxism synonymous with Hegelian?

Is Karl Mannheim a Marxist after recognizing Marx's failed effort to tie his ideas to reality?

Why do we use terms like neo-Platonist and neo-Marxist to distinguish ideas from Platonism and Marxism?

[jwoodswce]

cont...

Why was it necessary to create distinctions for Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism?

This is not an issue peculiar to Rand and Objectivism. As I said before you are confusing definitions.

[aaron0883]

jwood ... I probably am

[Sw33tLiberty]

Well you already know my absolutely pwnerizing response to this because of our AIM chat, so I'll just say my primary premise, which can be accepted prima facie, is that I won't hesitate to punch you in the face. I rest my case.

[aaron0883]

pshh

[jwoodswce]

You are free to disagree with Rand; however, you can not appropriate the use of a value she created--the term Objectivism and the concepts that define it--while modifying it with contradictory ideas.

You are correct to not call yourself an Objectivist and should go further by not insinuating that you are remotely Objectivish. Objectivism is not an a la carte system but an integrated philosophy.

You can still be an admirer of her art, without being an Objectivist.

[XOmniverse]

The label is unimportant. I agree that Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy and has specific principles that one has to agree with to be an Objectivist.

But who cares? We should all be more concerned with truth than who is and isn't a 100% devotee to Ayn Rand's philosophy. There is no honor in believing something simply because Ayn Rand said it.

[jwoodswce]

To say that the label is unimportant is to argue that definitions are unimportant and an endorsement of package-deals.

In fact, individuals have attempted to profit by using this label while at the same time repudiating critical elements of the philosophy.

No individual has to agree 100% with Rand; however, no one that disagrees with critical elements of Objectivism can ride her coat tails by using her name without being a second-hander like Gus Webb.

[XOmniverse]

"To say one specific label is unimportant in a specific context is to reject the importance of all definitions and endorse invalid, conflated concepts."

Yeah, that's a hell of a strawman you built.

I'm saying that one should regard adherence to truth, to the facts of reality, with greater importance than adherence to a single person's self-named philosophy.

[jwoodswce]

X, If you quote, don't change the words as you did do for that would be a strawman.

I performed an evaluation, if you disagreed with my evaluation that by itself does not make my statement a strawman.

BTW, who was arguing that adherence to someone else's revelation was more important than the virtue of honesty? Was that the strawman talking?

[XOmniverse]

I was spelling out the nature of your argument. And I never claimed that you specifically believe things just because Ayn Rand said them.

That being said, the problem with taking an already spelled out philosophy like Objectivism and making a point of adhering to it is that you begin to stop searching for truth yourself; this is the equivalent of a scientist coming up with a theory and then concluding that it is without question truth and never doing any research ever again.

[jwoodswce]

X, Regarding Objectivists who stop searching for truth, who are you talking about?

None of the Objectivists I know are like that. Further, what you suggests violates the Objectivist virtues.

Is your statement really about how O's think that market anarchy is an idea unworthy of serious consideration because its deductions fail basic validation against reality? Instead of talking down Objectivist politics, invest effort in finding evidence from reality for your conclusions.

[XOmniverse]

I have yet to have an Objectivist coherently explain to me how a state can exist without initiation of force, or concede that initiation of force is sometimes ok. As contradictions cannot exist, this sounds like failure of validation against reality to me.

But despite having exceptionally weak arguments, they rarely conclude that Objectivism holds a contradiction with reality in this regard. This is what I mean about holding Objectivism in higher regard than truth.

[jwoodswce]

X, Did you read "The Nature of Government"? Rand answers your question there.

A proper government "is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control--i.e., under objectively defined laws." Where is the initiation of force you suggest?

Also, you argue about taxation but in a proper government financing is voluntary.

[XOmniverse]

The initiation of force comes about if I want provide the same service the state does, but perhaps for a lower price, or more efficiently, etc and the state has to stop me to maintain its position as a state, even if I have not initiated force myself.

[jwoodswce]

X, What service is it that you are looking to provide?

Currently, private arbitration and mediation are services that are encouraged by statute and courts enforce those private agreements.

[XOmniverse]

Please want and respond to my Objectivism and Anarchism video to continue this. I address the issue in more detail there.

[theknightswhosay]

"enforce", interesting choice of words. Someone who can privately or publicly enforce an agreement can also enforce an injustice. People will always want to accumulate more, wealth and power included. That's why communism doesn't work, and that's why complete anarchy does not avoid all force. The non-govermental "system" operates very similarly to the governmental one.

[aaron0883]

I don't get this ... someone explain it to me. How can someone create truth? Someone discovers it. If objectivism claims to be the proper perspective on truth than it needs to have the focus on truth rather than Ayn Rand. Otherwise it is more hero worship rather than rational thinking. In order for someone to call themself an objectivist they must never detour from Ayn Rand? Maybe you are right ... but than I wouldn't hold respect for someone who would call themself an objectivist.

[jwoodswce]

A, Consider the following definitions:

"Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality." ITOE, p. 63.

"Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence." PWNI, p. 2.

"The name I have chosen for my philosophy is Objectivism." FNI, viii.

A philosophy can be true but it is not truth.

[jwoodswce]

cont...

Ayn Rand is not Objectivism, but Objectivism is the body of Ayn Rand's philosophic work. Not all of Rand's work and statements are Objectivism as some were applications of the philosophic ideas.

[theknightswhosay]

So supporting Richard Nixon was integral to objectivism too? You can accept some of the conclusions of a philosophy without all of them.

For example, I buy the premises of Kant's metaphysical philosophy, but that does not mean I come to all the conclusions that Kant does while applying the predicates that he sets out (for example, because lying would be bad if everyone does it does not mean that lying in certain situations would be bad if everyone did it only then).

[kylben]

I'm with you. It's like insisting on calling calculus the "Mathematics of Newton"

[AynRandMotor]

So, MrAaA: you fInd yourself in that 'Hank/Dagny' transition phase that, I guess, we all have to get past. I can pass on a hint that should solve it for you:

Moral Code : Motive Power : Motor Unit

This was only 2/3 solved in Her lifetime but fully realized now - $8O

[AynRandOeuvre]

"...sorry to be so long. Thank you for waiting." (RH:DT\AS\AR)

[aaron0883]

Are you charging me for your comment? I refuse to pay!

[AynRandMotor]

(:$ No charge or payment required nor requested $:)

Just an enhanced awareness expression from one of those Egoïsts from the other side of the ray screen who

"..choose to wear the sign of the dollar on our foreheads proudly, as our badge of nobility..." ( :$ OK:DT\AS\AR $8 D

Apologies, if it causes confusion or trauma.

btw- compliments on opening up healthy, factual discussion; which always leads to truth and eventually- to Atlantis.