Skip to comments.About Objectivism
Posted on 04/22/2003 5:25:25 PM PDT by RJCogburn
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged
In her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and in nonfiction works such as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand forged a systematic philosophy of reason and freedom.
Rand was a passionate individualist. She wrote in praise of "the men of unborrowed vision," who live by the judgment of their own minds, willing to stand alone against tradition and popular opinion.
Her philosophy of Objectivism rejects the ethics of self-sacrifice and renunciation. She urged men to hold themselves and their lives as their highest values, and to live by the code of the free individual: self-reliance, integrity, rationality, productive effort.
Objectivism celebrates the power of man's mind, defending reason and science against every form of irrationalism. It provides an intellectual foundation for objective standards of truth and value.
Upholding the use of reason to transform nature and create wealth, Objectivism honors the businessman and the banker, no less than the philosopher and artist, as creators and as benefactors of mankind.
Ayn Rand was a champion of individual rights, which protect the sovereignty of the individual as an end in himself; and of capitalism, which is the only social system that allows people to live together peaceably, by voluntary trade, as independent equals.
Millions of readers have been inspired by the vision of life in Ayn Rand's novels. Scholars are exploring the trails she blazed in philosophy and other fields. Her principled defense of capitalism has drawn new adherents to the cause of economic and political liberty.
Just wondered, since you brought it up, and since I am not one, assume it must reflect your philsophy.
Am I mistaken about this?
(Was Thomas Jefferson a humanist or an objectivist?)
Oh don't worry, those who have been "socialized" in our public schools wouldn't have the first idea what to do with her. Meanwhile, for someone so easily dismissed, she seems to have a lot of folks working industriously to tarnish her image. Even William F. Buckley's been working on it in his latest novel, which makes me wonder if her influence isn't growing rather than dying.
That is exactly right. I quote, "rational men believe in it, of course," meaning "objective reality". So, we know what that makes all those who do not believe in objective reality, don't we, since, if they were rational, they would believe in it.
Don't bother answering this until you can prove you exist, (or at least that you are rational).
It's dying. In the 1960s an Objectivist speaker could fill a New York hotel ballroom with passionate Randfans, many in costume -- but today? Everybody (incluing the costumers) is across town at the anime convention where he cute girls are. The defenders of Rand today must content themselves with a few esoteric fanzines and websites.
(Besides: compared with real personality cults like Scientology, Objectivism is strictly small potatoes. Rand got the Gary Cooper movie, true, but L. Ron Hubbard was the one that ended up with the security goons, the big boat, and the teenage slaves in sailor suits -- not to mention John Travolta.)
In my limited experience, Objectivism tends to appeal to a certain type of suburban nerd -- the kind of kid who thinks he's John Galt, Heroic Loner, because none of the cheerleaders will date him. Kids like this whom I've known tended to spend a lot of time in their rooms, smoking pot and reading too much into prog-rock lyrics. When the decades-spanning career of Rush draws to a close, I suspect the ranks of Randfandom will similarly diminish. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Unless I am severely mistaken about the philosophy, Objectivism would permit a group of people to form their own community based on religious morality or socialism or anything else, so long as all members were there voluntarily and the community did not violate the rights of any persons outside of that community.
The objectivists might not like that community, but their philosophy would prevent them from using force to rob people of the choice to move there if they so desired.
** The Government **
The government has a responsibility to enforce the laws. But it does much more than that. It sets a moral standard, based on the knowledge that some practices have evil consequences.
Not so. Under our constitution the government is ~not~ empowered to set moral standards.. Or to decree what is evil.
We agree to obey our constitutional rule of law, not to the rule of moralizing men.
Doctors are aware how harmful sodomy is. The intestines were not designed for this purpose, and expensive operations have to be done to repair the damaged muscles and intestinal tissue. Diseases, also, are introduced through sodomy. Practices which are harmful to the practitioners, as well as society, should not be encouraged. Such practices should be frowned upon, and not allowed. It would be cruel to allow people and society to suffer. We have no problem decrying the harmfulness of tobacco. But not sodomy, and other sexual perversions. Why is this so?
Because you are obcessed with sodomy? -- Bizarre point, CJ.
The word "liberal" used to be religious term, denoting generosity of giving. Now, it's a secular term of licentiousness. The vast majority of people are moral and decent. But in all the areas of power in this country, in the media, the advertisers, the entertainment industry, the government, the universities and schools, there are powerful groups of liberals who think if only people would fall into a "let live" attitude in morals, everything would be fine. The whole liberal power-structure is geared to lowering morality, and they see it as a "crusade" to bring "freedom." The bottomline, though, is greed. That is the driving-force behind their campaign against morality. Immorality generates money, and they're right behind, scooping it up.
Another weird little rant CJ, - but what does it have to do with Rand?
But if communities cannot enforce their collective lifestyle mandates with the truncheon of state police power, where's the fun in that?
Could it be that they are already there? (With the exception of the Civil War, of course.)
I don't hate the girl, I was invited, and I invite anyone to this subject:
Far Far better of a conservative is Ludwig Von Mises who basically argued for the free market not from a natural rights approach but from the idea that socialists always would get the opposite of what they were aiming at because of problems of information, calculation and valuation. All his predictions about what would cause the systematic failure of communism came true and he made these back in the early 1920s when Russia had just had it's revolution. He didn't base his arguments on the idea that Communism is immoral, etc. He just said that it was broken in that it would fail miserably to accomplish it's ends for various systemic reasons that he explains in great detail. Go read "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" over at Mises.org and you will be amazed at his brilliance.
Your are right, or would be, if Rand actually said this. In Rand's philsophy, the group has no importance at all. Importance pertains to one only class of existents in this world, beings capable of having purposes and ends, and all importance relates to the significance of things as they relate to each individual's purposes and ends. Groups have no purpose or ends, only individuals do, unless, of course, you are a cow, then the herd (group) matters. Hank
Ends? To what end, Hank? What purposes and ends are those? You mean the individual end we all suffer? What other end is there for an individual?