Objectivism Is The Everyman's Philosophy
In the universe, what you see is what you get,
figuring it out for yourself is the way to happiness,
and each person's independence is respected by all
Rand's Philosophy in Her Own Words
- "Metaphysics: Objective Reality" "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed/Wishing won’t make it so." "The universe exists independent of consciousness"
- "Epistemology: Reason" "You can’t eat your cake and have it, too." "Thinking is man’s only basic virtue"
- "Ethics: Self-interest" "Man is an end in himself." "Man must act for his own rational self-interest" "The purpose of morality is to teach you[...] to enjoy yourself and live"
- "Politics: Capitalism" "Give me liberty or give me death." "If life on earth is [a man's] purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being"
- 7 replies
- 115 views
- Add Reply
- 14 replies
- 173 views
- Add Reply
- 6 replies
- 51 views
- Add Reply
- 81 replies
- 4234 views
- Add Reply
According to Ayn Rand, being succesful is one the greatest virtues man should pursue. It happens very often that succesful people are arrogant towards you. Lots (not all) succesful people think : I am more succesful then you are, hence I feel myself more valuable then you are. It is very annoying when somebody treats you arrogantly. Although, I am fully aware that succesful people are valuable to everybody on this planet, I do not feel very well when they sort of "boast" with their succes. Hence, my question : How to deal with arrogant succesful people ?
hey, I've been a Communist for almost a decade, but have found myself on a sort of journey towards "recovering" from the experience of realising how fragile and fallible human beings are after coming to terms with the reality of violence and atrocity in Communist countries. That's sort of led me to explore other materialist ideas such as Anton Le Vey's Satanism and Objectivism that my provide a much stronger moral compass and make me much happier. I've only flicked through "The virtue of selfishness" and know not much more than I could get off a few Wikipedia pages, so I'm not really in a position to know what I'm looking for. I'm aware that the forum guidelines specify that members cannot spread ideas contrary to objectivism, including Communism, so I thought I'd get straight to the point and ask a few questions. 1. To what extent was Ayn Rand influenced by her experiences in the Soviet Union, particularly given that she was a women educated at a Soviet University? I realise her First Novel "We the Living" was set in the Soviet Union so I'm just curious if it had an effect on her later work given that Objectivism and Marxism are both atheistic and materialist ideologies. 2. Is it possible to have a Socialist Objectivism driven by selfishness? Can Altruism be driven by selfishness (such as the expectation of reciprocity, or the selfish gratification of emotional desires such as love, sex, empathy) or do Objectivists use altrusim more narrowly to refer to only when it is driven by coercion or ideologically as a duty/obligation irrespective of the wishes of the individual? [As its likely to come up, its a common misconception of Communism that it was driven by a sense of "fairness" to achieve "equality of outcome". Marxists only wanted to eliminate those inequalities based on class and attacked such views as "liberal" rather than authentically "revolutionary". In Stalin's Russia, economic inequality was greater in the USSR than in the United States. This was deliberate because, as materialists, Marxists continue to believe in the important of material incentives as a reward for their labour. http://akarlin.com/2012/06/ayn-stalin/ ] 3. Can Capitalism prevent catastrophic climate change through technological innovation or are environmental concerns inherently coercive as altruistic interventions in the marketplace? Do you think Climate Change, whether as a (possibly false) idea to control the people or as a real problem, could encourage a wave of totalitarian mass movements over this century? 4. If free markets lead to free societies, would you agree that it is logical to argue that the freest society would be an Anarcho-capitalist one without a state? Would you expect the future to therefore evolve in the direction of anarcho-capitalism or does the necessity of the state mean that only a "minarchist" society can be achieved? 5. Has anyone here on Objectivism Online actually changed their views from being a Marxist-Communist to an Objectivist? or made the change from Socialism or Anarcho-Communism? What were the experiences that meant you made that shift? Was it something that made you happier and more fulfilled out of respecting yourself more? 6. [...and just for fun ] How many of you watched Wall Street and wanted to be Gorden Gekko as a kid? There is probably more I could ask, but I think they may come up in discussion if this thread goes somewhere. If you want to ask me questions, you're welcome to- but I will try to keep the short and sweet to stay within the forum rules. Thanks in advance.
By Iatan Petru,
Is it immoral and/or should it be considered illegal if I acted to stop a crime that doesn't involve me? ~~~according to Objectivism of course~~~ If, for example, I see a person beating another person and I initiate force against the aggressor in order to stop him, would a proper Government sanction me for that? I know that the current Law system states that if you initiate force in order to stop an illegal action, then you're good.
I'm not one of those people who think that since some police officers are involved in police brutality that all of them are. It's clear to me, however, that police brutality is a problem and the policemen who are involved in it aren't always held accountable. In addition to this, most of the victims of police brutality are black so this just raises questions of racism. What would an Objectivist tell a person, who says violence and rioting is the only way to get change and eliminate police brutality against blacks? Here is my take on it: "By limiting government and specifically ending the war on drugs you'll subsequently limit police brutality. When you riot you damage property of individuals who have nothing to do with what happened. The best way to convince people to limit government is through persuasion because that's the only way to change a person's mind. " I can picture someone saying to this: "Oh there you go, with that nonviolence crap... Martin Luther King was nonviolent and look where that got him... How come it's only an issue when black people riot?... you guys don't say anything when white people riot when their favorite sports team loses. We don't have time to talk it out when our black people are dying, we need change now!" How would someone respond to that? I might play devil's advocate to some of your replies in this thread, if your posts raises further questions in my mind.