133 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Turnip Root wrote...

There is no such thing as objectivism. Ayn Rand is a free market capitalist, and what she espouses and promotes is free market capitalism.

It's totally not capitalist, because a non-moron capitalist understands problems like negative externalities. 

[Turnip Root]

An Objectivist is the exact same thing as a right wing libertarian except an objectivist is far more smug and obnoxious.

Modifié par Turnip Root, 02 septembre 2011 - 01:05 .

[Chromie]

Turnip Root wrote...

An Objectivist is the exact same thing as a right wing libertarian except an objectivist is far more smug and obnoxious.

Can't tell if your describing yourself...

Modifié par Ringo12, 02 septembre 2011 - 02:17 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Montezuma IV wrote...

Anyone played Bioshock? The underground city was based solely on Andrew Ryan's view as an Objectivist.

No it was not.  It was loosely based on some interpretations of political libertarianism, which is NOT Objectivism.  The aspect of Bioshock that was based on Ayn Rand's writing was the idea of a libertarian-ish figure (Andrew Ryan) trying to abandon society and set up a Utopia of sorts, which is a theme that plays a major role in Atlas Shrugged.  The game then goes on to explore the dystopia that necessarily arises from mistaken utopian views.  All well and good.  It is based on Objectivism in about the same degree that the Qunari are based on the Byzantine empire.  

As for what I think of Objectivism--I'm an Objectivist, and have been for over half my life now.  Why?  Because it's the only philosophical system I've ever encountered that does what philosophy is supposed to do: give men a framework for living.  How does it accomplish this?  By giving systematic validation and proof for every conclusion.

People focus on the Objectivist ethics as if that were the whole of the philosophy, but by doing so they are starting near the end of a long chain of complex reasoning.  (This is also why a great many people are unable to distinguish Objectivism from Nietzsche, and wind up equating the two.)  The place to start is with metaphysics--however much of the Objectivist metaphysics is actually straight out of Aristotle, with the addition of a few specific *formulations* such as the Primacy of Existence.

The major important point of Objectivism, and where it differs fundamentally from any other philosophy lies in Ayn Rand's theory of concepts, or in philosophical circles, her solution to the "Problem of Universals".  The ethical and political aspects all depend on this epistemological point--you cannot grasp them without first understanding this root.  Hence why Objectivism is plagued with misrepresentations, confusions, and outright falsehoods.  Most people do not have the habit of examining the roots of ideas.  They prefer to jump in mid-stream and start arguing about some minor sideline as if it were the entire picture.

As for Atlas Shrugged: it is a work of art.  It is not an academic treatise and not a didactic manual.  The critical backlash against the movie was largely the result of the fact that it was a BAD MOVIE.  (Which it was--a fact that was pretty much inevitable considering how it was made.)  In any case, if you're reading it, read it as a romance/mystery/science-fiction/adventure story, which is what it is.  It will be much easier to understand.

If the story resonates with you--i.e. it matches up with many of your observations of real life--you may find yourself reading a newspaper article and noticing that this businessman sounds just like Orren Boyle.  Or that politician sounds just like Wesley Mouch.  (You are unlikely to find people who sound like the heroes and heroines of the story, unfortunately.)  This is your cue to dig deeper.  To look at what these people do and the consequences of their actions.  Read Ayn Rand's nonfiction, if you are interested.

I could now make a bunch of recommendations on things for you to consider and people you shouldn't listen to, but that's not the point.  The point is that you think for *yourself*.

Notice that "self" there?  That is the root of selfishness.  Not that you do whatever you feel like doing.  But that you do your own *thinking*--because there's nobody else to do it for you.  Your success, happiness, and ultimately survival depend upon your willingness to think, your rigor in ensuring that you think well, and your ability to carry out the results of your thinking.  Oh, you can go around picking up unexamined whatever happens to come out of other people's mouths and hope it works out.  Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but hey, it'll spare you the effort.  If you wind up in jail or dead or in a concentration camp as a result, well, these things just happen, right?

[Turnip Root]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Montezuma IV wrote...

Anyone played Bioshock? The underground city was based solely on Andrew Ryan's view as an Objectivist.

No it was not.  It was loosely based on some interpretations of political libertarianism, which is NOT Objectivism.  The aspect of Bioshock that was based on Ayn Rand's writing was the idea of a libertarian-ish figure (Andrew Ryan) trying to abandon society and set up a Utopia of sorts, which is a theme that plays a major role in Atlas Shrugged.  The game then goes on to explore the dystopia that necessarily arises from mistaken utopian views.  All well and good.  It is based on Objectivism in about the same degree that the Qunari are based on the Byzantine empire.  

As for what I think of Objectivism--I'm an Objectivist, and have been for over half my life now.  Why?  Because it's the only philosophical system I've ever encountered that does what philosophy is supposed to do: give men a framework for living.  How does it accomplish this?  By giving systematic validation and proof for every conclusion.

People focus on the Objectivist ethics as if that were the whole of the philosophy, but by doing so they are starting near the end of a long chain of complex reasoning.  (This is also why a great many people are unable to distinguish Objectivism from Nietzsche, and wind up equating the two.)  The place to start is with metaphysics--however much of the Objectivist metaphysics is actually straight out of Aristotle, with the addition of a few specific *formulations* such as the Primacy of Existence.

The major important point of Objectivism, and where it differs fundamentally from any other philosophy lies in Ayn Rand's theory of concepts, or in philosophical circles, her solution to the "Problem of Universals".  The ethical and political aspects all depend on this epistemological point--you cannot grasp them without first understanding this root.  Hence why Objectivism is plagued with misrepresentations, confusions, and outright falsehoods.  Most people do not have the habit of examining the roots of ideas.  They prefer to jump in mid-stream and start arguing about some minor sideline as if it were the entire picture.

As for Atlas Shrugged: it is a work of art.  It is not an academic treatise and not a didactic manual.  The critical backlash against the movie was largely the result of the fact that it was a BAD MOVIE.  (Which it was--a fact that was pretty much inevitable considering how it was made.)  In any case, if you're reading it, read it as a romance/mystery/science-fiction/adventure story, which is what it is.  It will be much easier to understand.

If the story resonates with you--i.e. it matches up with many of your observations of real life--you may find yourself reading a newspaper article and noticing that this businessman sounds just like Orren Boyle.  Or that politician sounds just like Wesley Mouch.  (You are unlikely to find people who sound like the heroes and heroines of the story, unfortunately.)  This is your cue to dig deeper.  To look at what these people do and the consequences of their actions.  Read Ayn Rand's nonfiction, if you are interested.

I could now make a bunch of recommendations on things for you to consider and people you shouldn't listen to, but that's not the point.  The point is that you think for *yourself*.

Notice that "self" there?  That is the root of selfishness.  Not that you do whatever you feel like doing.  But that you do your own *thinking*--because there's nobody else to do it for you.  Your success, happiness, and ultimately survival depend upon your willingness to think, your rigor in ensuring that you think well, and your ability to carry out the results of your thinking.  Oh, you can go around picking up unexamined whatever happens to come out of other people's mouths and hope it works out.  Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but hey, it'll spare you the effort.  If you wind up in jail or dead or in a concentration camp as a result, well, these things just happen, right?

What a bunch of mindless drivel.  You wrote a huge wall of text but didn't actually say anything.  You basically said "this is what objectivism is!" and then proceeded to give us some arcane reference to objectivist theory #101 without actually bothering to explain it yourself. 
I'm thinking you copied and pasted it from somewhere because you keep on bringing up other writers like Nietzche and philosophers like Aristotle talking about how people confused the two even though NOBODY HAS MENTIONED EITHER OF THEM IN THIS ENTIRE FRIGGIN THREAD!  
You could've summed up what you said just as easily by saying
"If you don't agree with objectivism it means you're too stupid to understand it."
Selfishness is not some value that is unique to objectivism.  In fact, in virtually every society that has ever existed dating all the way back to ancient Greece there have been people who have benefitted themselves by being selfish.  Ayn Rand didn't invent that concept, she's just an apologist for it.

Atlas Shrugged was trash.  I didn't read it but the first 100 pages made it so obvious that it was more interested in pushing an agenda rather than telling  a decent story that there is no way anyone could enjoy it unless they already have a slavish devotion to Rand's plagiarized ideas already.

I don't get to establish some sort of cult by promoting socialism do I?  Everything that Ayn Rand has ever promoted has already existed in practice since the beginning of civilization to at least some degree so why do Rand and her Randbot objectivist cultist get to take credit for an idea which has been common practice for centuries?

Modifié par Turnip Root, 02 septembre 2011 - 03:48 .

[Saaziel]

Objectivism is a "feel" good philosophy , justifying hedonistic decadence leaving out the repercussions. Ayn Rand is overrated , barely worth commenting on.

If you want to delve into the raw nature of the ideas espouse by Ayn Rand , you read Max Stirner. Incidentally you'll notice how self contradicting objectivism is.

Modifié par Saaziel, 02 septembre 2011 - 05:49 .

[cJohnOne]

Metaphysics is a big word. What is this Metaphysics of which you speak?

[PsychoBlonde]

Turnip Root wrote...

What a bunch of mindless drivel.  You wrote a huge wall of text but didn't actually say anything.  You basically said "this is what objectivism is!" and then proceeded to give us some arcane reference to objectivist theory #101 without actually bothering to explain it yourself.  

It's Ayn Rand's philosophy--and she's explained it.  IF people are interested, they will read what SHE said about it and form their own conclusions--which was the point of my post.  I am not interested in composing novels for the benefit of people too lazy or disinterested to do their own research.  I simply wanted to weigh in and maybe clear up one or two of the worst misconceptions.  I'm not going to sit around and clear up all of them endlessly, as this is a fools game and a waste of time.  People *can* think and form their own conclusions.  I expect they will do so regardless.

I'm thinking you copied and pasted it from somewhere because you keep on bringing up other writers like Nietzche and philosophers like Aristotle talking about how people confused the two even though NOBODY HAS MENTIONED EITHER OF THEM IN THIS ENTIRE FRIGGIN THREAD!

Anybody authentically interested in philosophy has heard of both Aristotle and Nietzche, and mentioning their work helps provide some context.  It is very similar to someone discussing a new shooter mentioning similarities to Call of Duty or Serious Sam.  Nobody may have mentioned them, but they are worth bringing up if one is interested in providing context.
 

You could've summed up what you said just as easily by saying
"If you don't agree with objectivism it means you're too stupid to understand it."

I'm sorry you feel the need to project your inadequacies upon me, but this is not what I said, in any way, shape, or form.  For those who find a long post intimidating: Objectivism is ultimately about doing your own thinking about reality.  If you interpret this as "if you disagree with Objectivism, you're an idiot!" then you likely are in greater need of psychological help than philosophical.

Selfishness is not some value that is unique to objectivism.  In fact, in virtually every society that has ever existed dating all the way back to ancient Greece there have been people who have benefitted themselves by being selfish.  Ayn Rand didn't invent that concept, she's just an apologist for it.

I didn't say she invented it.  The Objectivist ethics bears striking resemblance both to Aristotle's ideas of Eudaemonia and some surface resemblance to Nietzche's ideas of the "will to power" and the superior man.  In fact, many times in her writings Ayn Rand attributes directly to Aristotle and even Thomas Aquinas (a Catholic), and most academic Objectivists are enthusiastic about a number of ancient and modern philosophers such as Spinoza, Epicurus, John Locke, Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Thomas Paine, Confuscious, Descartes, and even Nietzche has his moments.  The goal of all philosophies being the same (to provide man a framework for living), there is necessarily going to be significant overlap, just as   As I stated in my post, in fact, Objectivism is only revolutionary in a *tiny* area, largely epistemology and the theory of concepts.  It is simply a systematic, integrated, and organized presentation, with each aspect carefully related to fundamentals and given exacting proof and validation. 

Atlas Shrugged was trash.  I didn't read it . . .

The second part of this statement makes the first part incredibly amusing.  Since you have yourself declared you have no valid or useful opinion on the matter, I shall begin ignoring you forthwith.

I don't get to establish some sort of cult by promoting socialism do I?

You can if you want.  I don't expect anyone will attempt to stop you, and a great many will probably fall all over themselves to fall in line behind them as long as you assure them that they aren't required to do any thinking or make any effort whatsoever on their own behalf.  Sadly, history bears this out.  It does not much bear out the popularity of people being willing to exert effort and do their own thinking.

Everything that Ayn Rand has ever promoted has already existed in practice since the beginning of civilization to at least some degree so why do Rand and her Randbot objectivist cultist get to take credit for an idea which has been common practice for centuries?

Since Objectivism is, as Ayn Rand put it, "a philosophy for living on earth", which everyone in the history of the world has done at least to some extent, I would expect those ideas to be in existence somewhere.  The scientists who study nutrition and recommend to men proper methods for eating don't claim to have invented food, nor do we take umbrage with them because they are simply making use of foodstuffs that have been around for centuries or millenia.  Bringing ideas together into a consistent system is a huge value and should be regarded as such, even if no idea is in itself revolutionary.  However, Objectivism DOES contain ONE revolutionary aspect (as I have indicated--twice), which is a major contribution to the field of philosophy.

You don't have to invent everything from the wheel on up in order to be a revolutionary scientist.  One innovation is enough, if it's the RIGHT innovation.

[PsychoBlonde]

cJohnOne wrote...

Metaphysics is a big word. What is this Metaphysics of which you speak?

Sorry, I hang around with philosophy buffs so much I forget that words like this are technical jargon to much of the population.  If you look up metaphysics you're liable to wind up in the "ghosts and UFO's" section of your local bookstore, too, which is supremely unhelpful.

Metaphysics is a term coined by Aristotle (you can go and read his Metaphysics if you want) when he was talking about the underlying nature of reality.  So now it's used by philosophers to refer to the underlying "rules" of reality.  It's a branch of philosophy, along with Epistemology (theory of knowledge), Ethics, Politics, and Esthetics.

The reason why your bookstore puts ghosts and angels and ufos in the "metaphysics" section is that these all fall under one of the various "magical" worldviews--which is a type of metaphysics.  Or, if you want to be colloquial (and nasty), you could explain this as equivalent to the Cowardly Lion's mantra "I DO believe in spooks!  I DO I DO I DO!!!"

[PsychoBlonde]

Saaziel wrote...

Objectivism is a "feel" good philosophy , justifying hedonistic decadence leaving out the repercussions. Ayn Rand is overrated , barely worth commenting on.

I find this amusing, considering how very disparaging Ayn Rand is of hedonism (both general hedonism and philosophical Hedonism), particularly if you read her essays in Return of the Primitive.

In fact, Objectivism is so anti-hedonism that many newbie Objectivists (not all, but many) are likely to jump into a kind of repressed neo-Puritanism for years and years before finally sorting themselves out, if they ever do.  The political-libertarian sort of "Objectivist" is usually the type who misunderstands "selfish" to mean "whatever I feel like doing" and becomes a loudmouthed angry hedonist.  Sadly, the Objectivists who know better don't have the time, energy, or inclination to spend their lives chasing after these people with a big sign saying "NOT AN OBJECTIVIST!! READ THE ACTUAL BOOKS!! ALSO, STUDY THE PHILOSOPHY FOR 15 YEARS!! THEN YOU'LL KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!!!"

As Ghandi said:  "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."  The sheer amount of misinformation and vituperation directed at Objectivism leads me to think we are somewhere between stage 2 and stage 3. 

[PsychoBlonde]

In Exile wrote...

I don't think you understand subjectivity as a concept. Because no one argues against that, unless there idiot undergraduates that just heard of the idea or something.

Having argued this precise issue with many people, I think you are wrong about this.  Many, many, MANY people believe that if they don't know something (or it is, in fact, not possible TO know it), the *actual state* of the *physical objects* could be one or the other.  In short, they believe that knowledge of reality determines reality.  Heck, Augustine used this very principle in his ontological "proof" of the existence of god.  So, sadly, I think that if you're going to talk about subjectivity and indeterminacy, you really do have to sit down and make a disclaimer along the lines of "just because we don't have any means of knowing which is the correct representation it doesn't mean that the actual physical objects are hovering in some kind of flux state where they can be two contradictory things at the same time".
 

Objectivity would say that, beyond there actually being a state of affairs, it's knowable.

This may be correct, since I'm not sure of the sense you're using for the term objectivity here.  It means something very specific in Objectivist epistemology, which is not the same as "small o" philosophical objectivism (that's why Ayn Rand's philosophy Objectivism is a proper noun and should always be capitalized--it doesn't reduce confusion much but at least I can say I tried).  I would assume that objectivity has a very specific meaning in the mathematical/scientific system you're talking about, too.

However, Objectivism does *not* specify that *all* actual states of affairs are knowable, any more than it states what the components of matter or ice cream are.  These are questions for the specific sciences, not philosophy.  What Objectivism (big O) does state is that all knowledge is acquired via some *means*, and that in evaluating an item of knowledge, HOW you know it is just as important as WHAT you know, if not more so.  It is impossible to evaluate validity without evaluating method as well.

Now, personally, I'd say declaring that something is unknowable is a bit premature--we can't know what future means of knowledge may be discovered.  But declaring off the cuff that everything is knowable by means available to humans is likewise premature and both declarations are rather pointless in any case.

Unless you talk about nebulous stuff like morality. But those are all really concepts, and it doesn't make sense to talk about a moral reality at all. 

All human knowledge is concepts, unless you're talking about direct perceptual information.  That doesn't make higher-level concepts like morality "nebulous" or impossible to define.  (Difficult?  Extremely complex?  Yes.)  The difference between an abstract moral concept like "justice" and a much more concrete concept like "table" lies in the number of levels of abstraction from abstraction that are necessary to form and use the concept.  "Justice" requires a huge foundation of further abstract concepts, like "relationship" and "society" and "earn" and "consequence" and "restitution" in order to define it down to the level where you can point at something and say "the word refers to THAT", whereas "table" just requires you to point at a table and say "table refers to THAT".  Every level of abstraction requires a new level of mental rigor to make sure that your concepts stay tied to the concretes they reference.  This is no simple task, but it is the only way to make sure you're not just philosophizing about something you made up in your head or pulled out of your ass.

(As a side note, Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff both have written at length about conceptualization and abstraction, so I don't really feel the need to present the entire Objectivist theory of concepts here.  If you happen to be interested I'm sure you're capable of following up on that yourself and making your own determinations about it.)

Now, if you use the term "moral reality" to refer to, say, a type of Platonic ideal realm of perfect moral action, yes, this is total horse pucky and nobody who speaks of such a thing can claim to be discussing anything that has anything to do with reality.  But if you're talking about the operation of morality in reality--that is, real, physical reality, then yes, there is such a thing as a "moral reality".  It's not some other magic realm of floating philosophical concepts.  It is simply reality, when you're talking about the meaning of people's choices and actions.   

[Homebound]

i dont understand where this political crap is coming from.

from my personal understanding, objectivism is the philosophy that states that reality exist seperate from conciousness and that our perceptions and information we get is real. Sort of the counter-"prove to me this chair is real" arguement.

[PsychoBlonde]

Hellbound555 wrote...

i dont understand where this political crap is coming from.

from my personal understanding, objectivism is the philosophy that states that reality exist seperate from conciousness and that our perceptions and information we get is real. Sort of the counter-"prove to me this chair is real" arguement.

Politics is a branch of philosophy--a derivative branch.  (Actually, it's a derivative of a derivative--politics comes from ethics which comes from metaphysics and epistemology both.)  Being a full philosophical system, Objectivism (big O) does have a politics.  Most people read a bit about the politics, freak out because it contains Big Bad Scary Words like "selfish" and "capitalism" and never bother to examine the roots from which those ideas are derived.

[Homebound]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

i dont understand where this political crap is coming from.

from my personal understanding, objectivism is the philosophy that states that reality exist seperate from conciousness and that our perceptions and information we get is real. Sort of the counter-"prove to me this chair is real" arguement.

Politics is a branch of philosophy--a derivative branch.  (Actually, it's a derivative of a derivative--politics comes from ethics which comes from metaphysics and epistemology both.)  Being a full philosophical system, Objectivism (big O) does have a politics.  Most people read a bit about the politics, freak out because it contains Big Bad Scary Words like "selfish" and "capitalism" and never bother to examine the roots from which those ideas are derived.

so we arent talking about the philosophy and this is a POLITICAL THREAD. ok.


*waits for end of line.*

[Saaziel]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Sadly, the Objectivists who know better don't have the time, energy, or inclination to spend their lives chasing after these people with a big sign saying "NOT AN OBJECTIVIST!! READ THE ACTUAL BOOKS!! ALSO, STUDY THE PHILOSOPHY FOR 15 YEARS!! THEN YOU'LL KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!!!"

And yet , here you are ; Doing exactly that.

Am i to assume that your the kind of Objectivist that doesn't know any better ?

[PsychoBlonde]

In Exile wrote...

Turnip Root wrote...

There is no such thing as objectivism. Ayn Rand is a free market capitalist, and what she espouses and promotes is free market capitalism.

It's totally not capitalist, because a non-moron capitalist understands problems like negative externalities. 

Yes, and if you read any actual Objectivist literature, you'd know that there's an entire body of thought on the jurisprudence regarding so-called "negative externalities", that being a fancy word for "indirect or accidental damage".  But, hey, why bother to do the research when you can just make wild claims.

It is actually not necessary to devote an entire legal code to "negative externalities" (nor is regulation necessary or advisable as a corrective measure) because anyone with a legitimate complaint already has recourse to the courts for restitution.  Nor is this their only option.  The only option they would lack in true laissez-faire capitalism (the system Objectivism endorses) is the ability to force other people to do or not do certain things PRIOR to the commission of any wrongdoing, lawbreaking, or harm.

People talk about how unsightly it is to have a factory in their backyard (which I don't understand, many factories are awesome) and how THEY have to pay the price of this but those dirty capitalists don't, but who pays the price for the factories that don't get built because a couple of jerks don't want their view spoiled?  Who pays for the jobs that don't get created, the wealth that doesn't get created, the greater ease and comfort of everyone who can use the products created by those factories?  If the "negative externalities" people weren't hypocrites, they'd be considering just THAT sort of harm, too.  But of course they don't, because you can SEE a factory but you can't see an ABSENCE of factory.  It's so much easier to rally the troops against something that's rather ugly and perhaps smells bad.  (Btw Frederic Bastiat's treatise "that which is seen and that which is not seen" is excellent reading.)

Everything in life is a tradeoff, but many people aren't willing to bother integrating their values to the point where they're willing to endure a few smokes and fumes if it means they get to enjoy much better employment than they could have otherwise obtained.  People want to eat meat but shrink from doing the butchering.  They want to look like Mr. Olympus but don't want to exercise.  They want to live in a fabulous mansion but don't want to start a company and work 15 hours a day for 30 years.

That's not to say that you should be willing to endure ANYTHING for the sake of a small improvement.  But the nice thing about free-market capitalism is that it's a self-correcting system--if the tradeoff is not in your favor, people stop making it.  The worst businesses go out of business, either because people stop buying from them or they get buried under a landslide of wrongful harm lawsuits.  They don't get declared to be "too big to fail" by the Nanny State and propped up so they can continue their bad policies.

Where people get me really pissed off is when they take a 2-second snapshot and say, but look, we repealed TWO REGULATIONS AND there's STILL an ugly sooty nasty factory in existence!  CAPITALISM WILL DOOM US ALL!!!!  Well of course no system is going to magically and instantaneously turn the world into a perfect utopia with a car in every garage next to a house with a white picket fence and a chicken in the pot, and who the heck would want that anyway, white picket fences are FUGLY.  The argument for free-market capitalism is that it does what is proper and moral for humans: it leaves people free to think for themselves (should they choose to) and to act on the results of their thinking, to the extent that they're not violating the rights of other people to do the same.  They are then free to enjoy the consequences of their acts, good and bad.  If you find factories hideous and city life absolutely disgraceful, you are free to move to the ass end of nowhere and spend your life eating bugs in a cave.  No one will stop you.  They probably won't provide you any help, either, but they won't stop you.  You're even free to try and convince other people to do so.  However, if other people decide that they prefer to live somewhere and do work such that they can afford a modern house with plumbing and some pork chops, YOU can't stop THEM.

That's all it amounts to.  Me, I wonder why people who are so sure they know the right answers wind up believing they have to FORCE other people to accept those answers by turning them into slaves and threatening them with fines, jail, and death.  I mean, what kind of a statement is "I'm making you do this for your own good, and if you don't do it, I'll kill you!"  And I'm supposed to believe that you give a damn about what's good for me?

No political system can fix the ills of life.  Will there be ills under free-market capitalism?  Sure.  What's the difference then?  Under free-market capitalism, people are FREE to pursue SOLUTIONS to those ills.  They have no need to hopelessly resign themselves to misery as the rule and measure of life.

[PsychoBlonde]

Saaziel wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Sadly, the Objectivists who know better don't have the time, energy, or inclination to spend their lives chasing after these people with a big sign saying "NOT AN OBJECTIVIST!! READ THE ACTUAL BOOKS!! ALSO, STUDY THE PHILOSOPHY FOR 15 YEARS!! THEN YOU'LL KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!!!"

And yet , here you are ; Doing exactly that.

Am i to assume that your the kind of Objectivist that doesn't know any better ?

Nah, I have more free time and better tolerance than most (although neither are unlimited).  Plus, online doesn't require much actual running about.

[PsychoBlonde]

Hellbound555 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

i dont understand where this political crap is coming from.

from my personal understanding, objectivism is the philosophy that states that reality exist seperate from conciousness and that our perceptions and information we get is real. Sort of the counter-"prove to me this chair is real" arguement.

Politics is a branch of philosophy--a derivative branch.  (Actually, it's a derivative of a derivative--politics comes from ethics which comes from metaphysics and epistemology both.)  Being a full philosophical system, Objectivism (big O) does have a politics.  Most people read a bit about the politics, freak out because it contains Big Bad Scary Words like "selfish" and "capitalism" and never bother to examine the roots from which those ideas are derived.

so we arent talking about the philosophy and this is a POLITICAL THREAD. ok.


*waits for end of line.*

Hah 

[mesmerizedish]

If we're talking specifically about Ayn Rand's philosophy, called "Objectivism," then I disagree with a lot of it but agree with a lot of it.

If we're talking about objectivism as in "philosophical realism," then it's a tenet that I cling to with every ounce of effort my soul can muster.

[Homebound]

im confused, what r we talking about specifically?

[mousestalker]

I read 'Atlas Shrugged' for the sex scenes. Nothing's hotter than a steel tycoon who believes in the gold standard. Rowr!

[TheBlackBaron]

I don't agree with all of the philosophy, and I don't think the sort of night watchmen ultra-minarchist state that usually accompanies the philosophy is a viable one. That said, at heart I'm a libertarian-conservative, so the core tenets are not all that off from my own beliefs.

[mousestalker]

And for the record, anyone who can stop all other radio and television transmissions to give an untraceable broadcast on the nature and quality of freedom and the folly of governmental intervention, can pretty much have their way with me whenever and wherever they want. If the person who does that happens to be blond and a physicist, then game over baby!

[mousestalker]

An Australian Government body has compiled a comprehensive list of philosophers. Objectivism and its founder, Ayn Rand isn't on it.