[JStergis]

After analyzing different philosophies, and doing an enormous amount of thinking over the past year or two, I had found the philosophy that echoed my beliefs nearly identically. I had a hard time believing that there was something that was similar to my ideas, which are so very radically different from many other peoples'.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism is this philosophy. A summary is below

Originally Posted by http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won't make it so." 2. "You can't eat your cake and have it, too." 3. "Man is an end in himself." 4. "Give me liberty or give me death."

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Copyright ã 1962 by Times-Mirror Co.

While objectivists are accused of being a cult, they are NOT. Ayn Rand opposed this, and anyone who referred to her ideas as a "cult" was pretty bluntly told otherwise.

I don't like to call myself a follower, as this almost connotes a cult or something religious. I am strongly opposed to religion for reasons I will not get into at this time; and thus I am an atheist. I accept nothing on faith, and think religion is "all bunk" as Thomas Edison would say.

I do, however, subscribe to the idea and see very few flaws, those of which are minor and may not even be considered flaws after debating them.


It should be interesting to see if anyone else agrees with Rand's "philosophy for living on earth." I have essentially been an objectivist as long as I have been alive, but only realized there was a name for it fairly recently.

I suppose this thread will be intended for debate of any Objectivist ideas. Hopefully many will respond and we can get ideas flowing. I am open to all ideas against mine for consideration; except religious ideas. I consider religion so amazingly absurd I refuse to consider it (I have tried for a long time to believe, but it is beyond the power of my mind to understand how people do, again I won't get into that now, there's enough of my rants floating around against religion anyway).

Let's get some posts going!

[linskyjack]

Objectivism is flawed---like any "philosophy" that is based on idealism, not realty. Beyond that, Ayn Rand is one of the most tedious authors in human history. Like acne, most teenagers grow out of objectivism once they mature a bit and figure that there aren't any simple answers and that no system works.

[JStergis]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Objectivism is flawed---like any "philosophy" that is based on idealism, not realty. Beyond that, Ayn Rand is one of the most tedious authors in human history. Like acne, most teenagers grow out of objectivism once they mature a bit and figure that there aren't any simple answers and that no system works.

Oh, I'm not saying it's perfect, it has flaws-one being capitalism. Capitalism allows monopolies to take hold of the economy: Exxon for example. Something would have to change in that system for it to work better. I think anyone can agree that it is better than most other economic systems, though.

I agree with her philosophies on altruism. It is fine, but it is not a "duty" and shouldn't be guilted on people as such. The charity and welfare systems are very much abused. Take the kids from these people and let them live with someone with enough money to keep afloat and let the parents self-destruct. I can't stand lowlifes and without so much charity they would be forced out of existence. Sure, there's people that honestly work hard and use the charity sparingly, but a very large amount (around here at least) abuse the system incredibly.

Not only that, but Rand hated racism, but despised homosexuality. I can't say I'm much different. Given I live in the only state that allows such a thing, I've seen quite enough. It's one of those things I'll never approve of. That is a contradiction, anyway. Even though I won't go the point of hate, just disapproval, Ayn Rand hates it. To hate a group like that is very close to hating a race.

What I focus on is objective reality. What exists exists. We can't invent things or pretend things exist because we went them to (religion, imo).

While not so much noted in objectivism, I agree with a republic form of government as well. Golding, for instance, tried to prove that a dictatorship was the only successful form of government in his novel Lord of the Flies, but I think he did a great job exposing the horrors of a dictatorship at the same time.

I hold to my ideas pretty well, I haven't changed about much of anything in my existence. Rand's ideas were mine, for the most part, before I even knew she existed.

...and I know nothing works perfectly, or very well for that matter, but that doesn't mean ideas can't be explored. Heck, I'd love to see religion wiped off the face of the earth, but it isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever. Ideas are ideas. They're great to throw around. The more people debate and THINK, the better the world might end up in the future.

[TheRobatron]

I agree with the 'What exists exists' part, but I don't agree with anything that encourages prejudice or discrimination of any kind (including religion). As long as they're not hurting anyone, people can do what they like imo. Obviously there have to be boundries and rules, but nothing that will infringe anyone's civil liberties.

Originally Posted by JStergis

To hate a group like that is very close to hating a race.

It's about the same as hating a race. It's hating a group of people because of one 'characteristic' (is that the right word?). Most of the time people do not choose their sexuality and are just born the way they are.

[RedHelix]

Supporting laissez-faire capitalism is not a 'minor' flaw, haha

[JStergis]

Originally Posted by TheRobatron

I agree with the 'What exists exists' part, but I don't agree with anything that encourages prejudice or discrimination of any kind (including religion). As long as they're not hurting anyone, people can do what they like imo. Obviously there have to be boundries and rules, but nothing that will infringe anyone's civil liberties.

Finally, a debate's brewing a bit!

I say if people want to practice religion, fine, but churches should need to pay taxes at the very least! If atheists made a building dedicated to us, we would have to pay taxes. Why don't churches? That sincerely ticks me off.

Some religions are manipulated to hurt people (of course they're not intended that way, but some take "jihad" the wrong way). I'd love to see organized (forgot to add organized to the last post) religion disappear completely, but that won't happen any time soon. I'd like to see every reference to religion in anything to do with this country disappear ("God" in the pledge, endowed by their creator) The religious seem to get a free ride because of their majority (no taxes, religious references anywhere, general hatred of atheists, etc.).

Eh, anyway, enough on my rant on religion, that's a fairly small part of objectivism.

[JStergis]

Originally Posted by RedHelix

Supporting laissez-faire capitalism is not a 'minor' flaw, haha

True

She had a debate with Donahue and she said in capitalism no monopoly can take hold of the economy because "the free market will destroy you." Phil Donahue simply said "What do you call Exxon?" and she gave a vague rebuttal then in a very long manner somehow changed the subject in a way you couldn't even tell she did. She's ridiculously clever, it's kind of scary. In an instant she can disprove anything anyone says, and if she can't she makes it sound like she can, then changes the subject in an eerie very long way.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Objectivism is flawed---like any "philosophy" that is based on idealism, not realty. Beyond that, Ayn Rand is one of the most tedious authors in human history. Like acne, most teenagers grow out of objectivism once they mature a bit and figure that there aren't any simple answers and that no system works.

Maybe I shouldn't read "the Fountainhead" I don't know if I can do tedious

[TheRobatron]

Originally Posted by JStergis

The religious seem to get a free ride because of their majority (no taxes, religious references anywhere, general hatred of atheists, etc.).

That's why the Pastafarianism (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) was started - to get the preferential treatment that organised religion gets, but for atheists. They get special privilages because it might offend them or be against their religion. So what?!? You're not going to burn in eternal hellfire for not going to church every Sunday. If God is all around us, why do we need to go to a special building to worship him?

Also, I did some more research on Objectivism - it seems like a philosophy saying "Every man for himself". Ayn Rand stated that the purpose of life was is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest". This is all well and good, but what about other people in need? I don't agree that you should be obliged to give up your whole life to help people (I don't have anything against it though) but simple good deeds can help others greatly. Sometimes to do a good deed you need to go out of your way to do so; this seems to be against the philosophy.

[Gabriel]

My only question to Stergis might be....why would you want to find something that echoed your beliefs closely....do you feel that unattached to things.
If so, I can understand wanting to find something grounding.

[JStergis]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

My only question to Stergis might be....why would you want to find something that echoed your beliefs closely....do you feel that unattached to things.
If so, I can understand wanting to find something grounding.

I actually didn't go looking for it. I saw a sign that said "Who is John Galt" one day and was curious, so I ended up finding out all about Ayn Rand and am reading Atlas Shrugged now. I was surprised that her views were so similar to mine, but to be totally honest, I was slightly disappointed, I like being an individual, it's neat to be totally different from the rest of the world, contrary to others' thoughts.

So no, I didn't want so much to find anything too close to mine, but was surprised and impressed that I did. Generally, I look for ideas against mine to see if I like them better, and over time my ideals have changed very slightly. It's always good to look at other things. I spent a good few months of my life a while back trying to get myself to believe in a superior being because "it is the right thing to do" but that was impossible, I couldn't believe any of it no matter how hard I tried. I've come to realize that it's better to speak out for your beliefs to a certain extent and it's not good to "go with the flow" most of the time, or at least it isn't for me.

Anyway, hold on, someone just arrived, I'll continue my thoughts if possible when they leave.

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Maybe I shouldn't read "the Fountainhead" I don't know if I can do tedious

If you think that is tedious, check out Atlas Shurgged. I think she wrote a short philosophical treatise that is fairly short.

[Gabriel]

Hmmmm....well it all makes me wonder what idealogy(ies) I am like .

Myself, I think I'm still forming, and maybe don't have a strong core belief.
Though I do believe a God exists, but more, I feel the belief.
Much of what I perceive as injustice or wrong, or off kilter, is actually through the solar-plexis, and I act or react accordingly.
Periodically I possess what others say is intuition (and sometimes to an acute degree)...and that is more difficult to express and deal with, as I am sensate and physical rather than intellectual and logical in response. I would like to change that though, or at least swing the pendulum a little more the other way.
Things are more impression like than say organized and with protocol, and I perceive other peoples belief systems especially when they organize them, as an entity. It is hard to separate the person from what they are influenced by, as its influence carries a strong defining tone.

As if that is not bad enough, I can stick to facts for only a short amount of time, as imagination takes over and plays, and makes pictures and scenarios to whatever it is I'm trying to learn or get the gist of.
Then it mixes them with other things.
If a thing from a person actually does penetrate all that, and fall on any part of me that may have formed as consciousness or perhaps conscience, I am blown away. That takes either a very strong inner willed old soul person, or an animal or child or wounded person to do that.

If there is an ideaology that fits that I would like to know is name.

I remember a long time ago I was distraught and vulnerable, and in a group of citizen-like people. I said something to the effect of, "I don't know who I am"....and someone commented, "Look at your drivers license"....and I hung my head and went into a little deeper of despair, as I didn't have a drivers license to look at.

That is a far way to come from with no core strength ideology, but somehow I am making it thru.
The reason I read the thread was because of your talking about Ayn Rand. I read Atlas Shrugged when I was I guess 14. I remember feeling that the author somehow was talking about themselves.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

If you think that is tedious, check out Atlas Shurgged. I think she wrote a short philosophical treatise that is fairly short.

I didn't see this LJ before I posted...sorry. I did read it the longest time ago. I guess it was such a long time ago, it would be like a different person reading it now

[JStergis]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

I am sensate and physical rather than intellectual and logical in response.

I am the opposite, I think people are either one or the other, though. There isn't much of an in-between for that I don't think. It's a good way to classify one's thinking process.

Originally Posted by Gabriel

"Look at your drivers license"....and I hung my head and went into a little deeper of despair, as I didn't have a drivers license to look at.

That is a far way to come from with no core strength ideology, but somehow I am making it thru.
The reason I read the thread was because of your talking about Ayn Rand. I read Atlas Shrugged when I was I guess 14. I remember feeling that the author somehow was talking about themselves.

Off topic, but I'm 16 and you'd think a license is something I'd want, right? Not really. I am considering never owning a car or having a license. It would cut costs enormously. I'd bike everywhere, I'm well capable and it'd keep me healthy. I can get many places about 1/2 as quick as a car can. It'd keep my health up, be free transportation for the most part, and doesn't harm time too much. I drive through the winter as it is here on the mountain bike, and it does fine. If gas goes much higher, I'd be the one running on human-power instead of supporting the oil companies! It's idealistic, but I'd love to live close enough to work and whatnot to do that. As it is, I have a specially built bike with a trailer on it and have frequently hauled around 100 pounds up the mountain on it. It's a heck of a lot of work, but it's great exercise!

As far as I know, Atlas Shrugged is kind of designed to echo the author, I think Rand portrays herself as Dagny thus far, but I'm only a few hundred pages into it, so I haven't seen Galt yet. It is great so far. Within a month I've read several hundred pages, not bad for me.