Leaderboard

Flat no. No author of 'Objectivist literature' would see the need, it is literally a blind spot. By 'the need' I mean a purely pedagogical need to address those who first come to understand math and physics and only later Objectivism or philosophy in general, and so fall into a common and near unavoidable trap in their thinking. For example here is Peikoff in OPAR This is a rationalist argumentation style, it does not address the premises that lead one to believe that the determinism of nature directly and naively applies to man. That volition is axiomatic, that axioms cannot be coherently contradicted is all well and good as a shortcut for those of us who have cleared the hurdle of understanding and accepting what Rand considered axiomatic but most people that are determinists have not cleared that hurdle and so any version of that shortcut is incomprehensible or deeply unsatisfying.

I don't quite understand a world where an objectivist would defend a mystic junk food Buffett, and devalue an engineer who works tirelessly toward technological innovation. If that future Capitalist economy were real I think Musk would adjust his business plan and be very successful in that world. Unfortunately I wonder if there are Objective Capitalists who put themselves in a position to value or make profound investments in technological advancement.