The Objectivist Academic Center - Ayn Rand Institute

[urdisturbing]

Objectivism is anti-intellectual. Ayn Rand hated nearly all philosophers and believed that the only person in history who understood truth besides her was Aristotle. Confusingly enough she also said there are no disagreements between rational people. In my opinion, if there are any randroids out there who actually care about philosophy they should pick up Spinoza, then see if they're not ashamed to have ever had Atlas Shrugged on their book shelf.

[LloydMadoff]

Wall Street theology.

[hippotoast]

"For me, Objectivism reduces itself to: I’m on board; pull up the lifeline." - Roger Ebert

[mustang607]

@hippotoast

Sounds like he gets his information from select hearsay and knows little about the subject he is criticizing. It's like saying that Obamanizim reduces itself to, Socialism is great, eliminate the rich and everyone will do better. I wonder how many other stupid things he has said?

[lorddarthstar]

Why a level why not just to Know, you always can find out  for self !

[OxiDemonik]

We are not in direct contact with reality... We perceive electromagnetic waves in the form of electrochemical impulses. We do no experience reality itself, but an idea generated by the brain. If we were in direct contact with reality then we would not be able to perceive each moment as it passed because rather than perceiving visual and auditory snapshots all the information would be merged together and incomprehensible, also we would have the capacity to perceive ultraviolet and infrared rays.

[TeaParty1776]

@OxiDemonik And if you removed your finger from that electrical outlet, what might you experience?



[OxiDemonik]

@TeaParty1776 What you are experiencing is a virtual simulation of what it is like "out there". The shock you receive from an electrical socket is a virtual representation of the interaction with what you perceive as the external world. Your brain processes information, not physical objects, therefore you will always be experiencing a cognitive representation of objects etc, not the actual things themselves. Get me? I recommend you do a little research into human perception and the brain.

[BallsInYourJawsBitch]

Why do kids these days need classes for common sense? Why are kids these days so perplexed by common sense? If you don't have common sense you're most likely of the liberal mindset and classes like these may appeal to you.

To the rest of America, this class looks like day to day life.

[LifeinaRaindrop]

I don't understand why the OAC is non-profit organization feeding from the teat of the government through tax subsidies and credits. Doesn't it go against the core philosophies of Objectivism?

[TheForwardGaze]

Objectivism is pure fantasy, similiar to L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology--pseudo-science. There are no examples of a society based only on individualism and self-interest. There's always some form of collectivism. Beware the road to utopia. It's always paved with extremism, cultism, suffering and death.

[bwood21390]

@TheForwardGaze And before 1776 there wasn't a nation in the world that had ever been based on anything other than a racial/geographic/tribal identity...and then America happened and a national identity based on ideas came to be. Before 1776 if a man spoke out against established religious beliefs in the west, he was exiled or executed, period...and then we established freedom of religion. Lack of precedent does not dictate something's impossible. That's a ludicrous argument.

[theocean1973]

the church of ayn rand haha

[Diosibundo]

Is this a joke?

[xkeltoix]

wow this is propaganda to the max.its like jesus camp but for ayn rand morons

[riverlioness]

Did he say business isn't an intellectual career? The word "academic" would've been the appropriate synonym. Intellectual also means "intelligent and knowledgeable" , which are two qualities required for any successful business person.

[grassinigrassini]

bunch of losers need a college to see reality!

[StayingSain]

@joekidd33

There's more than monetary profit. The profit in spirit and mind are also fine options of payment. They wouldn't have the organization if they didn't gain any benfit from it.

[berglendurch]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by metaphysical ?

[UndecidedAdrian]

Your epistemology sucks, dudes.

[jcomd]

No connection between scientology and Rand. Reason vs alien spirits spewing out volcanoes. Ideas based on reason always trumps mysticism. Basketballbat should do a wee bit of research.

[xTjPx]

great video.

thanks for posting.

[Basketballbat]

Sciiientoloooooogy warning.

[nocturnezero]

No, but about as stupid.

[Juniorskatesemerica]

Bioshock?

[MasterLeeMochow]

Illuminati

[hickok21]

These are the motors that make the world work? Not what I expected. Really don't think the world would miss them so much. Ayn Rand would be disappointed and would lock herself in her room again. Boring and no personality.

[StayingSain]

@hickok21

Do you really think that the only people who follow the philosophy of Objectivism are the people in the video. Everyone has a philosophy whether they know it or not. The people who operate on reason and rationality use a part of the philosophy. If a person uses the whole of it and has never heard of Objectivism they could be called an Objectivist.

It's more than just a title.

[kurosawa71]

sorry, but on the first look that video looks a bit like a scientology promo.

but on the other hand i like the philosophy of ayn rand. not everything i can agree with, but she has some very intersting positions

[yngbullwnohorns]

In a sense it sort of is a cult. Look at the way cults function ... they take individuals who are not well off in life and give them something that dramatically changes their life. The only difference between a cult and objectivism is that objectivism ACTUALLY does positively change someones life.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

I would be very careful, if I were you, in the way I define "cult." A cult is not, as you suggest, something that conferrs happiness on an unfortunate. (If that were the case, a business which employs a jobless person could be considered a cult.)

In actuality, a cult's distinguishing features are a hierachichal organization of members and rites of initiation; this does not describe Objectivism. (Indeed, most people who identify themselves as Objectivists do not belong to any organizations.)

[criticaljimmk]

ahaha objectivist fuckwits

[haolekillah]

if you choose honest words: ouch! my brain isn't use to thinking, what are these people talking about? why don't i understand? they must be attacking me! no one attacks criticaljimmk! take this (your comment)!!!

you're so dumb that i bet you belief in god.

you're so dumb that you can't even conceptualize meta-ethical principles.

you're so dumb that you don't even think you're dumb

[bma051000]

Well, you've certainly proven your intellectual superiority by demonstrating your flawless grasp of syntax and grammar.

[dluxdoggdlux]

honestly, i initially thought this was a joke - "the objectivist academic center" sounded to haughty and pretentious to be real. but what do you know?! i do think, however, in all seriousness, that if you want to learn philosophical questions, go take a general philosophy course. learn the different philosophical 'methodologies' as opposed to just ayn rand.

travel well!

[RoulfYelrab]

You know what we need?

An Immanuel Kant Institute.

The IKI. That would be cool.

[richardcadbury]

Just like a University then, but with only one viewpoint.

An entire year on one philosopher.

Can't wait to sign up!

[shammy1002]

Richard...u mean like virtually all lefty universities? Harvard, UCB,

[blackbette07]

You are spot on universities are nothing but higher lefty learning. The only conservitive university I know is Hillsdale. Don't know of an libertarian. So a unversity solely on objectivism works for me and I don't totally agree objectivism

[KenMacMillan]

Seems interesting, I wish I could go.

[victor1eremita]

BAHAHA are you fucking kidding me, a church devoted to Rand!

poor bastards, you're right up there with scientology.

[caltrop69]

What's frightening...I agree.

[IronicKismet]

No sane person is going to allow an objectivist to teach their kids.

[444DeanMachine]

no sane person should let closet Marxists teach their kids in public schools, but that's what I'm subjected to.

[IronicKismet]

Ayn Rand's philosophy is laughed at in legitimate universities so these people form their own university. Got to give them credit even though objectivism is asinine. Maybe endurance is more important than truth?

[KenMacMillan]

Why would anyone study under a teacher who tells him or her that they have no indivisual rights? Because basically that's what you are saying. Do you believe that you have no indivisual rights?

[caltrop69]

You spelled, "individual" as "Indivisual" twice...

Didn't the spell checker eat your spleen, or something?

[KenMacMillan]

lol, maybe I should use one.

[thtrgremlin]

I see one small example of free market WITHOUT government regulation in the form taxes, fines, and threat of force: In the Linux world, open standards are devised and accepted or rejected by individuals with value of such 'regulation' being decided by each individual. Rationalism embraces thinking; Linux embraces freedom to think through rejection of censorship. Anyone that can perceive this as communism grossly misunderstands both.

[caltrop69]

How about the fact that I know more about History, Mathematics, Physics, and English then my child's teacher does?

What's communist about kicking the bitch to left field and not paying her...?

[keyboardcatmoon]

I disagree with you. Open standards create just as much bullshit as regulated standards. Look at Wikipedia. Majority of the entries still needs citations. Look at Google's android. In my opinion, Apple iPhone, a regulated device, is way ahead of the game in terms of function and design. So regulation does bring better quality and it keeps the quality good. And it certainly attracts more users.

[keyboardcatmoon]

Alan Greenspan admitted that it was deregulation that caused the economic problems we have today. Government allowed the self-regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market just like how the SEC left Madoff alone for ten years.

I, for one, support a government that will play a more active role in creating a more stronger American middle class.

[keyboardcatmoon]

Honestly, do you think a "free market" can prevent that scheme that Madoff played? Do you really think that if America left the middle east or Darfur alone that they would magically regulate itself into not killing each other?

[piscesgutt]

When are you gonna learn that capitalism is not synonymous with crime?

[keyboardcatmoon]

I never said that capitalism is synonymous with crime. You just made that shit up. I just pointed out the fact that Ayn Rand's belief of "unregulated capitalism" is fucking dangerous.

[piscesgutt]

No she believed they should be regulated by laws and a court system, stupid

[keyboardcatmoon]

No she believed they should NOT be regulated AT ALL, stupid

"A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. " - Ayn Rand

In other words, lets give Bernie Madoff ten years top before the government actually decides to step in.

[StayingSain]

@keyboardcatmoon

She also states that the government's only purpose is to protect people from harm and uphold individual rights.

Bernie Madoff indirectly assaulted the individual's rights to earned property by committing fraud. The government should step in and punish him for his actions.

[keyboardcatmoon]

piscesgutt, I don'tt even have to explain anything to you. You're a 9/11 truther. You can spend the rest of your life being a dick and I'll spend the rest of my life progressing.

[piscesgutt]

Yeah I'm a 9/11 truther, and you can spend the rest of your life giving away your liberties for some imaginary security you think you are getting against those evil boogeyman terrorists. I'll keep progressing and you'll keep on jumping through hoops and be insecure in your person and possessions believing 19 arabs with pocket knives defeated the worlds only military superpower.

[keyboardcatmoon]

LOL. Giving away liberties?!!! I'm pretty happy with my life. I don't need anymore freedom. YOU JUST WANT MORE AND MORE AND MORE....Thats why America is so fucking fat. You don't progress. You just complain about everything. I'm the one traveling around the world. You're the one stuck in your little bunker trolling the internet. Good luck with your miserable boring life loser. LOL.

[redcommander27]

You just proved the psychological explanation for conspiuracy theories. People CANNNOT accept that a few unimportnat people can cause a massive tradgedy.

[kurosawa71]

yeah, it would be nice to experience the real reason about the going down of the american influence to the world!?

any ideas?

[deinse81]

Come to think of it, every time you decide to call something other than what that definition so clearly describes Laissez Faire Capitalism, you're building yourself another straw man.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Nothing goes with individualism and non conformity like absolute devotion to a deceased writer who didn't see a problem with Lincolnian draft measures and protectionism, even though she espoused unbridled capitalism.

Although, I enjoyed her two books.

[robertdallago]

Ummm. Did any one think this whole video was bullshit?

[Tyrant9009]

i don't see what the problem is with objectivism too often people will base their actions on emotions and they dont rationally think about the decisions are the consequences But the main thing is she is in support of the following of the Constitution and she is right about a free economy. A free economy wouldn't have been in this mess we have now Look at all the economic plans of the past and present. None of them work, but when they let the economy work itself out then everything will flourish.

[bxjam85]

Your assertion that if we let the economy work itself out then everything will flourish is evidently false. We are in the current economic mess for a number of reasons, one of the most important being the deregulation of the financial markets. We have never had an entirely laissez-faire capitalist system. The federal reserve was created in order to try and stop economic recessions, but it doesn't work because the capitalist system is inherently incompetent and impractical.

[CommodoreV]

bxjam85, firstly it is EVIDENTLY not EVIDENT that a free market would fail, seeing as there is a large chunk of the population that comprehends differently than you. Also, why do you then say: "We have never had an entirely laissez-faire capitalist system." I thought you were opposed to the free market. If there never was an entirely free market, how then do you say that freedom is the cause of this current financial crisis? I will discuss the FR in my second post.

[CommodoreV]

The Federal Reserve as I and other Objectivists see it, was an semi-arbitrary act, whose lack of complete arbitrariness is due to the fact that the system acted as a way for the government to expand its reach into the free market. When the amount of gold you own is no longer an obstacle, you are free to print as much money and to expand your power over the world as much as your imagination limits you to. Also, the assertion that capitalism is "impractical" just doesn't make sense. Continued...

[CommodoreV]

The searchers (the capitalists) must rely on a constant system of accountability and feedback, which informs them on whether or not their business ventures are succeeding or failing. I find it highly impracticable and highly improbable that the top-down planners can come up with any solution that is of any benefit to anybody. Besides, even if they do, they achieve it only through means of a gun and a tax-collector. Thanks for reading my response.

[bxjam85]

You're using the term freedom in a very general way. Complete freedom is me being able to kill you without legal repercussions, so don't be so general with that word. The reason why we've never had a complete laissez-faire system is because it doesn't work for the ultimate good. That becomes evident even when we are close to laissez-faire capitalism.

[CommodoreV]

Well, I certainly agree that we do not have the "freedom" to kill one another, but I would hardly call such a barbarous act a "freedom." While I think the term "ultimate good" is a hideous catchphrase, why do you insist that capitalism does not work for the "ultimate good"? Are you not familiar with the 19th century? I would suggest a fantastic book by Stewart H. Holbrook titled: "The Age of the Moguls".

[bxjam85]

I don't think you understand what I meant by ultimate good. Ultimate good means more than just proximate or momentary good. For example, eating a lot of junk may fell good at the time, but eventually you will be sick from gluttony. I'm saying that capitalism doesn't work without checks and balances from the state. Capitalism poses numerous problems that must be balanced or it will collapse in on itself.

[Liberty6500]

Here is the fix.....our dollar tied to a commodity so that there is minimal leveraging and no unchecked spending by the govt. Also the idea of buyer beware, a philosphy that causes people to pay attention when doing things would surplant the govt pretending to fix things by intimidation. The natural market would be the self correction. But that would rob the govt of power.

[BeholdZeus]

I'd rather eat my own balls than take up a scholarship at this place. Worshipping at the shrine of the Iron Lady, popularising her books, transmitting her repulsive ideas: that, to my mind, is nothing but a nightmare. Thank heavens the philosophical establishment still regards her work as pitifully weak and academically insufficient. Her ideas are derivative (cf. Nietzsche) and lacking in rigor (see Nozick on "The Randian Argument" 1997 for further confirmation of this).

[MilitantScience]

Do you think they share coffee in the staff room?

Or is that frowned upon?

[Bigmartinno1]

I wonder why such courses are not available at any university in North America! (or elsewhere, I'd bet my mother)

Come on objectivists, as your're so much smarter than everyone else you should be able to work it out! don't tell me there's a conspiracy!

all of u may find more productive use of your time in joining the Scientologists, Aum Shinri-kyo or better yet Heavens Gate

Who funds these scholarships? Article & Dissertation grants? Do you have to like capitalism or at least pretend?

[12stepfailure]

i bet this aint real and these are those against her. Kinda to make her real writings look like a cult! Kinda lame dudes! Real people who have read her writings would know what you up too(calle rationality bitches). Umm go join something irrational like jehova's whitness.

[shumich]

Objectivism? That philosophy is a joke. Research the marketing and advertising industries and you'll find that consumers' desires are frequently manipulated by experts such as sociologists and psychologists. Some have even done research on how to make children more effective naggers for toys. Marketing and advertising are bureaucracies we can do without. Just like insurance companies. Complete parasites that prove that full blown, consumer capitalism is irrational and inefficient.

[liesha20]

I love how your username refers to 19th century disease methemoglobinemia caused by royal in-breeding.

[fomastephanovitch]

How could Ayn Rand teach anybody how to write? - Her novels are awful!

Objectivism is a great philosophy though

[liesha20]

Actually she is one of the most intelligent writers of the 20th Century. And her book 'How to write Fiction' is a brilliant breakdown of how to overcome any fictional difficulties.

[Spalg]

prefacing with actually doesn't magically make that anymore than a NU UH

[BlackProteus]

Randroids creep me out.

[thepreecher84040]

How dare you blaspheme Prophet Rand, LOL!

[BlackProteus]

What's awesome is they all think they are geniuses, no matter how mediocre they are in actuality.

[thepreecher84040]

Yes- mediocre, fat, pasty, basement dwelling, collectivists who still live with their parents- for starters.

[qtronman]

"mediocre, fat, pasty, basement dwelling, collectivists who still live with their parents... "

Ha-ha, dude, stop describing yourself on other peoples' channels!

[deinse81]

I don't think you have to be a genius to recognize that religion and collectivism are stupid, and that reason, self interest and individual rights are good.

You have to be however really dumb or really depraved to think otherwise.

And you have to be really lazy, if you feel the need to comment on stuff you don't know about, instead of maybe reading up on them first.

[BlackProteus]

deinse81 -

I've read most of Rand's work. I've also taken philosophy courses at university. Rand's ideology has holes in it the size of the Grand Canyon, and her followers treat her philosophy something like a religion. For example, they usually believe any counter argument is "depraved" and that the world is divided into good and evil based on her simplistic political mysticism. Rand was a fiction writer, not an economist or philosopher, and too many people swallow her shaky ideas whole.

[deinse81]

I'm sorry, I lost you at the part where she wasn't a philosopher, yet her philosophy is this and that.

Plus, you haven't mentioned a single concept or even idea, you're just coming up with common place metaphores and opinions backed up by nothing.

Guess what, the fact that your mind works in a way that allows you to argue without raising logical arguments is a sign of depravity: however, arguments are not "depraved", only people are.

[BlackProteus]

deinse81 -

"I lost you at the part where she wasn't a philosopher, yet her philosophy is this and that."

Fair enough. What I mean is, none of her ideas are *original* philosophy. She borrowed from previous thinkers. Objectivism is something she cobbled together out of the ideas of others, without adding anything new.

And as to my supposed "depravity" -- again, you revert to the ad hominem. Rand's writing trains people to do this: those who disagree are evil. A dangerous way of unthinking.

[deinse81]

Those who disagree aren't evil. Those who refuse to think are evil.

For instance: the satement "none of her ideas are original" implies that not only do you know all her ideas, but you know exactly who said them first as well.

Think about it a little, and then come back and tell me if you stand by that.

I'd love to take your encyclopedia-like brain for a little test-ride, throw some of said ideas around: other than Locke, Aquinas and Aristotle, who else did she borrow from and what?

[BlackProteus]

deinse81 -

"Those who disagree aren't evil. Those who refuse to think are evil."

Right, and you believe that anyone who disagrees with Rand refuses to think. Ad hominem again. That was the basis of Rand's life's work: attack your opposition as evil people, rather than engaging in criticism of their ideas.

[deinse81]

That's not the basis of Rand's work. Obviously.

I doubt you know Rand's work, or you would've come up with something other than straw men by now, so it would be pointless for me to respond and keep this up.

[BlackProteus]

deinse81 -

It's so strange -- everytime I argue with an Objectivist, they shoot back: You obviously haven't read her work. Again, again, again, this comes from Rand's mysticism -- that you can intuit those who are ideologically wrong. I *have* read her work; why assume I haven't? Oh, because I disagree with it, and you believe it to be ipso facto unassailable. Grow up.

Also, what straw man argument are you claiming I've put up? I haven't: I quoted you, and then refuted your exact words.

[deinse81]

You're not addressing her philosophy at all. You're calling her (and Objectivists) silly names, so I'm assuming you don't know her work.

Otherwise, you'd either dispute or accept the primacy of existence, specific parts of her epistemology, rational egoism or laissez-faire Capitalism, Romantic literature etc.

And I said "those who disagree aren't evil". How the Hell did that, in your version of what I said, become "those who disagree are evil"?

[BlackProteus]

deinse81 -

I didn't call Rand any name at all. I do call her followers Randroids, because I think they often swallow her so wholesale. Not all of them, but most of them that I have met.

We can argue whatever aspects of her philosophy that you like, if you wish. We might start with how her ideas tend to lead to things like the current global economic disaster.

And on the "evil" comment: you are getting the order of statements mixed up. Re-read the thread before getting huffy about it.

[deinse81]

Still not a single substantive complaint, just more namecalling and unsubstantiated nonsense.

I think your ideas caused the Asian tsunami. There you go, a response in kind.

[BlackProteus]

deinse81 -

Not more name-calling, just an explanation of the name I first called you.

Alan Greenspan is a Rand acolyte, and he ushered in an age of anti-regulation in American economics. That allowed the incredibly stupid "credit default swap" chaos. And that is what has turned a small problem (predatory lending) into a global problem. Rand's laissez-faire is foolish.

And I accept your apology for misreading the thread. It was grown up of you to own that. Oh, wait, you didn't. Never mind.

[deinse81]

Ayn Rand was opposed to the government's control of the money supply (or its involvement in the economy in general), on principle.

Alan Greenspan was the chairman of the FED for two decades, in charge of the government's control of the money supply.

Read Ayn Rand's main novel, Atlas Shrugged, before you claim to understand her philosophy: the main character in it refuses, despite being TORTURED, to do exactly what Greenspan did: accept the job of head economic architect for the State.

[BlackProteus]

deinse81 -

Yes, I've read Atlas Shrugged. Again: it is possible to know her work and still (gasp!) disagree with it.

My point stands: Greenspan et al. trended towards deregulation, and even their small amounts of it compared to Rand's total war attitude on regulation was enough to tank the whole economy. Let's focus on credit default swaps, which are at the heart of the mess: they were *totally* unregulated, and Rand would have supported them, as a laissez-faire wet dream.

[deinse81]

Nothing's totally unregulated. All loans from major banks were implicitly guaranteed by the government.

Every single bad decision financial institutions got away with was based on those guarantees.

Freddie Mac and Fannie May were institutions set up by Congress, and leveraged 1000 to 1. Other bailed out investment banks were leveregad 30 to.

None of that would happen if they had no government backing. CDS was over used because of those guarantees, not lack of regulation.

[BlackProteus]

I'm not talking about loans, I'm talking about CDS's, so I don't know why you bring up loans. CDS's aren't loans, and they work totally outside regulation. They are *totally* unregulated. They are pure laissez-faire in action, and they are a total failure.

[deinse81]

You said that. Repeating it five times won't make it true.

Laissez Faire Capitalism is a system of government in which everyone's individual rights to life, liberty and property are enforced by an otherwise limited government.

That is what Laissez Faire Capitalism is, and that's the only thing it is. Butter toast, oranges, CDS's, or any other thing you can think of to call LFC don't fit that very clear and easy to understand definition.

[BlackProteus]

deinse81 -

You're not actually responding to my criticism. I would guess that's because you have no answer for it. I'll put it more simply to you: do you think CDS's should be regulated or not?

[deinse81]

I could care less how the government decides to manage the economy next. It will fail either way, because central planning is impossible to pull off. (and immoral)

Your straw man assigned to Ayn Rand the view that in a mixed economy, any small regulation would harm, and any small deregulation would help. She said no such thing, you're ignoring her definition of Laissez Faire Capitalism and substituting whatever's easy to contradict. You're arguing with yourself.

[BlackProteus]

deinse81 -

You respond like the communist who, when you criticize something the Soviets did, says, "But that's not pure communism." There are such things as principles and exemplars. And CDS's are a principled example of unregulated capitalism at work, free and untouched by the claws of the government tinkering, in microcosm. So it should work, according to your ideals.

Here's the slowest pitch I can muster: In your perfect, fantasy, Randian world, would you support CDS's being unregulated?

[deinse81]

Regarding your analogy: it's not like that- if it were, the analogy would be pointless.

If CDS were their own, untouched microcosm, why would you have a problem with them? According to your own premise, they should only affect the microcosm: the people who used them.

CDS's obviously aren't separate from the rest of the failing, centrally managed economy.

And your claim that the US economy is anywhere near Laissez Faire is ridiculuos: half the economy is gov. spending at this point.

[BlackProteus]

Regarding my analogy: you are quite like that. You dodge criticism by reference to the utopian version of your ideology rather than the realpolitik consequences of motions in its direction.

I didn't say the US is laissez-faire, merely that some parts of its economy are unregulated -- namely CDS's. Is there any reason why you won't answer my question? Is it because to answer it would prove my point?

For the third time: Would CDS's be unregulated in a purely Randian economy?

[caltrop69]

Only stupid people use acronyms, such as "CDS" (What does it mean? Who knows?) to hide their lack of understanding.

Party on...Uh...Both of you..."intellectual" types.

[BlackProteus]

CDS = credit default swap

[caltrop69]

See? Wasn't that so much easier. I'm betting that whoever it was you were discussing this with actually thought you were discussing shiny silvery discs that have prerecorded information on them.

[redcommander27]

Not really, sometimes in a debate after I've alredy said something and I need to repeat I will put it in acronyms for convienence.

[Liberty6500]

Too stupid and ill informed to dialogue with....Suffice to say, you cant see that every regulation is a opportunity for power, the govt is intersted in only that. The idea of govt serving the people was lost long ago. You want a good safe world....Term limits on all reps in govt and we will get people who wish to be custodians of the country, not rulers.

[BlackProteus]

Liberty6500 -

I have no problem with term limits. Sounds like a good idea. I'm not sure why you think you can't talk to me, but that's Randism for you, a kind of self-satisfied know-nothingism, where all who disagree are not worth speaking to.

Do you think regulating CDS's is a good or bad idea? If it's a bad idea, then guess what? You get chaos like the current financial collapse.

Some regulation is necessary. You're a hard-line ideologue based, if on Rand, then on a few maudlin novels.

[FLABoyz904]

Wow just because you supposedly took philosophy in college, doesnt mean it was good or that you understand anything at all. Its ok keep thinking your going through pearly gates and waste your time on earth for a fairy tale. My bad your name suggests you believe in sea gods even cooler.

[BlackProteus]

FLABoyz904 -

You're a lazy arguer. You assume I believe in God because I think Rand is bunk. Again, this is what Rand's lazy "philosophy" encourages people to do -- to put people in simplistic categories. I'm an atheist and I think Rand's ideological is wrong.

And my handle is just a bloody name for the internet. Of course I don't believe in the Greek god Proteus. Are you seriously that silly?

[shovelcharge]

Do you have any evidence that "they are forced to correct the willing distortions of detractors (semi)regularly."?

[narodniki]

smells like scientology to me

[tedsandyman01]

basically

[shovelcharge]

How so?

[suebyrne6121]

My apologies for jumping to this conclusion; but you are defending objectivism on a recruitment post for the OAC. A missionary institute for a modern secular religion. An institute that claims to teach philosophy at tertiary level but in fact devotes the history of philosophy only about 12 weeks before giving 2 years to Rand as well as running parallel courses about how to effectively spread her ideas.

Obviously you must also be critical of the content of the courses of the OAC?

[suebyrne6121]

so what is your position?

[suebyrne6121]

Are you really saying that objectivism, entirely based on the works of one thinker, is the definitive description of life and that therefore the role of the objectivist is to correct those who get it wrong?

Are you really prepared to live life according to the ideas of one person?

Doesn't it make you suspicious when numerous people, I don't mean academics either, say that Rand has got major things wrong?

Are you that confident?

OMA's statement wasn't nonsense. Yours was.

[moodyjulian]

You prove montabbot's point again. The claim was that objectivists usually don't attempt to justify their postition - and he means theoretically - they just endlessly bang on about how it is superior. That is, they are comparitive (usually with the straw-man of Marxism)and not philosophical.

This is exactly what you do when you complain that they preach because they have to correct misinterpretations. That is not what has been at issue in this arguement. How about a justification of Rand?

[aridiacoyannis]

No. I only call them shitholes if they did one or more of the following.

1. Tried to seperate her from her money.

2. Increased her paranoia by convicing her that someone (the devil/the government) was after her.

3. Told her that those not in the movement were dangerous/deluded.

So for me shitholes are institutions (cults really) that tried to seperate a vulnerable person from any alternative support mechanism as well as using her insecurities in order to manipulate her.

Still LYAO?

[aridiacoyannis]

BEWARE.

My little sis ended up at this ARN place after college. She then got into scientology. Both fucked her up. ARN was worse though. She is a born-again now. Drives me fucken nuts but at least she got away form this poison ARN shithole.

[hapspir]

I'm curious. At what point are you going to help your sister and not just complain about her misadventures? She seems to be desperately seeking guidance.

[aridiacoyannis]

Only some sort of fucked-up objectivist or libertarian - that is only someone who adheres to the nasty belief that the natural condition of man is that he is selfish bastard before all else - would assume that just because someone's friend or relative was in trouble that no effort had been made to help. You are exemplary aren't you.

[hapspir]

I *inferred* from your comment that any help you may have offered her was inadequate. Otherwise she wouldn't still be in trouble, would she? Btw, if you decide to help her again I suggest that you DON'T tell her that you're helping her for "her own good," as a non-selfish person would. Tell her that you really care what happens to her.

[DantesObjective]

Sounds like she was looking desperately for something to cling too. Thats not what Objectivism is about.

[oldmontabbott]

You say you admire intellectual debate; there is no debate as you have your answers already; They are in Rand. Objectivists don't debate; they preach.

With this in mind we can see that The Ayn Institute is not a center for learning; it is at worst a (fundamentalist) church and at best a fanclub.

I can almost understand someone simple enough to be a Hegelian or a Kantian - at least these arguments are coherent and not self-contradictory - but to worship Rand after reading Rand. That is sad.

[squaretriangle]

"You say you admire intellectual debate; there is no debate as you have your answers already; They are in Rand. Objectivists don't debate; they preach."

So to have answers is to preach? In order to debate you must not possess knowledge?

You do realise that your comment was full of preaching, don't you?

"I can almost understand someone simple enough to be a Hegelian or a Kantian - at least these arguments are coherent and not self-contradictory"

Kant is coherent!?

[oldmontabbott]

First, your last comment is fair. To meet the word count I edited; I cut the word 'largely' from between the words 'are' and 'coherent'; I am no Kantian. Furthermore, it must be admitted that with none of his theoretical tools - or depth of argument for that matter - Rand is caught within the Kantian problematic; although she works with nearly a reverse progression to Kant.

Second, I would say that a 'school' that only teaches the work of one thinker can be fairly said to preach a gospel.

[suebyrne6121]

i think I know what you means. Do you mean that A. Rand starts from 'what is man' rather than from looking for the conditions of possibility for knowledge?

[oldmontabbott]

That is exactly what I mean. They still begin, a la Knat, by establishing an a priori to guide their questioning; but they don't argue for it; instead they pluck it out of the air as self-evident.

[suebyrne6121]

OK. And isn#t it the most dreary a priori too. They assume what Kant argued against Hume for except with complete purity. And now I understand why it follows that you call objectivism a religion. I would probably rather call it a dogma because of its lack of criticality.

[oldmontabbott]

Maybe I am being too cheeky calling it a religion. But four obvious things strike me just off the top of my head...

1.) single founding figure.

2.) it certainly seems soteriological

3.) the resentment (a la Nietzsche's criticism of Christian morality)

4.) the mysticism of the hidden hand of God (not via miracles this time but via Adam Smith

[aridiacoyannis]

Wow. Off the top of your head my ass. That is the best summary of Libertarians I have seen. I used to be a committed libertarian; it is very cultish. These guys are very scared.

[squaretriangle]

I shouldn't have asked.

[oldmontabbott]

You are right. If you want to ignore debate you shouldn't ask. If you want to entrench your own position you shouldn't challenge others; or more saliently, yourself. If you want your head in the sand then don't engage. In this way you can be an exemplar of most of the objectivists that I have met.

[squaretriangle]

You want me to address you again? Thought you would have learned your lesson already.

I happily admit that I am powerless to answer stupidity. I'm not going to even think about what your statements mean.

How's that?

[moodyjulian]

Aren't objectivists objective.

Paradox; if you refuse to think about what his statements mean then how can you call them stupid.

Objectivist should be redefined to mean someone who objects to everything they disagree with without providing qualifications.

Aren't you sick of making these banal ad hominen arguemnts. Everytime someone disagrees with you - and that guy was clear about what he disagreed with - you call them stupid. Maybe this is why he is calling you a fundamentalist.

[aridiacoyannis]

Thank you. That is fine.

You argue that...

...people who don't agree with you are by definition 'stupid'.

...if you tell a stranger something in cyberspace then it should be gratefully recieved as a 'lesson'.

...that you will not bother to think about statements when you don't understand what they 'mean'.

How very objective.

Well since you have written me off, have a nice day and I guess you'll move on to making personal attacks on someone else who dares to disagree with you.

[shovelcharge]

"They are in Rand. Objectivists don't debate; they preach.

With this in mind we can see that The Ayn Institute is not a center for learning; it is at worst a (fundamentalist) church and at best a fanclub."

Do you have any evidence that:

1. Objectivists by their nature don't argue

2. ARI doesn't teach anything

[oldmontabbott]

In reply to #1.

My evidence is anecdotal. The objectivists that I know and see (semi)regularly don't argue. That is, they argue that objectivism is the new meta-narrative; but they don't argue FOR their position; they assume it. Faith for a position held uncritically = religion.

In reply to #2. I am sure that ARI is a fine institution of teaching (preaching) but then again so was the hitler youth. Pedagogy is not to be admired in itself; content/method/rigor is what should be admired.

[natdavi]

Objectivists argue all the time. I don't know oldmontabbott or his acquaintances but either he's mistaking those objectivists' confidence for faith or they're not objectivists in the same way that an atheist who attends church every sunday isn't a christian. Maybe he should get out more?

[moodyjulian]

If you read what he said he didn't say that objectivists didn't argue. What he said was that although they argue for the superiority of objectivism they do not provide justificatory arguments; that is they do not argue theoretically (eg. epistemologically) for objectivism. I happen to think that he is almost right. That is, in my experience, some objectivists do make these arguments. The OAC teaches them. But these arguments are shot full of holes. Maybe this is why they are seldom used.

[shovelcharge]

1. Ok, so you talks to some idiots. Doesn't mean a thing about the nature of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

2. What content is to be admired? Is ARI really similar to the Hitler youth?

[dduppie]

It's "not for profit" in the legal sense, that's all. Dr. Brook, for example, is well-paid and loves the work. Sounds like profit to me!

[Madwolfkiller]

No.

[duke1duke1]

Nope