Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
  • °

    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"
  • Objectivism Online Chat

    Donald Trump

    Skylark1
    By Skylark1,
    What do you guys think about President Trump? Or is it still too early to form an opinion?

    We Should Be Fun People. We Aren't. Let's Change!

    CartsBeforeHorses
    By CartsBeforeHorses,
    Fun is a virtue. Fun is how people connect, how they gain happiness from one another's values through shared experiences. Yes, fun can be misused by maniacal leaders people like Kim-Jong Un. I'm sure that he has lots of "fun" at his job. But it's not good, moral fun; it's parasite "fun." We get to have real fun though, fun as the result of being right and being competent to spread our ideas. Yet we never do have fun. Or if we do, we never show it, with the exception of a few bright sparks on this board like Harrison Danneskjold... who I praise not to exclude anyone else, but just as an exemplary individual who personifies what a fun philosophy should be lived out. Ayn Rand was many things. Brilliant. Visionary. An excellent orator and writer. Right on just about everything. But what she was not? Our prophet, because we're not a religion. It should be okay to criticize her if she deserves it. On the fun aspect, she totally missed the boat. She was often very acerbic and rude in public interviews. "Let her make her point!" the host shouts at the interrupting Rand. Maybe she should've taken Paul McCartney's advice and just listen to what the (wo)man said. She appeared very cheerless for the spokeswoman of a philosophy that promotes happiness in man's life, with life as the standard. She hardly smiled. Those close to her said that she was often miserable at the dark place America was (and still is) heading. Take this with an ocean of salt as I have no idea if it's true or not and the source is highly suspect, but apparently she forbade her early associates from questioning her or listening to the wrong type of music. It's probably not true, but it just shows what a reputation for being a stickler that she got, that she didn't deserve and partially brought on herself. Our beloved babushka was brilliant, but she wasn't always socially aware nor the best spokeswoman for her own philosophy. She imported the cheerless Russian demeanor with her and never quite let it go. Rand was not fun, and Neither was (is) Peikoff or Yawon Bwook, instead preferring to function as ayatollahs who tell people whether it's okay for them to enjoy roller coaster rides or masturbation. The fact that these podcasts even exist is a stain on Objectivism. If you're an Objectivist and you're asking for permission to be happy instead of think for yourself, you're doing it wrong. I fantasize (non-sexually, about fun stuff like flying or "correcting" past mistakes) all the time. I don't care what Peikoff thinks about it. I don't care what other objectivists have to say when they tell me that it isn't real, or that it's pointless. Yeah, I know thanks, but it's fun, my mind is mine, it can be my playground when I want it to be and I'll do with it what I please. You're missing out if you don't fantasize but I won't judge you for not doing so, you have your reasons. So you'd sure better not judge me for doing so or being proud and open about it like I am. The lukewarm responses that I got here and on Reddit after sharing my fantasizing technique are indicative of what a joyless bunch a lot of so-called egoists are. We are not Christians. We are not Mormons. We do not pass judgment on a man for pursuing his own happiness in whatever way he sees or does not see fit, so long as he's not harming others or himself. In fact we should outright seek out new ways to be happy to add variety to life. We need better marketing as a philosophy, and fun is a YUGE virtue in attaining that value. We need to be the fun, energetic philosophy! If you hate Trump, fine, but learn from him. That man has HIGH ENERGY! He looks like he's having fun at the job... and being a leader of a nation like America should be a fun job because we're such an awesome country! He's not faux stoic like Obama was, he's not a joyless sock puppet like Hillary, he's himself and he loves it. We could learn a lot from the man that we are fortunate enough to have as president at the moment, the valuable ally of the constitution's first and second amendment who will preserve our freedom of speech to spread our ideas, and defend ourselves from violent, savage aggressors like Antifa when (if) we decide to take to the streets in peaceful protest. He will not let us turn into Britain which extrajudicially executed a man for putting bacon on a mosque door handle. Yeah. America is truly the last best hope for this world if our truest ally and the author of the Magna Carta has abandoned her reason in favor of blasphemy laws that protect Islam, the Religion of Death. Many of you hate HandyHandle, you see him as a troll. You know what he is that you're not? Fun. His articles, even if you don't agree with them, are informative, engaging, interesting, humorous, and fun to read all at the same time. I don't agree with everything Mr. Hunter says. I think he lessened his support Trump far too soon. I think he's a racist, and given how much I loathe that word and how the left twists it, hopefully you all acknowledge that I'm not him since I'm willing to call out his BS with a term that I RARELY use. But Hunter's blog is fun because he calls out the orwellian-named Ayn Rand Institute for exactly what it's become... a religious organization with Rand as the prophet, Peikoff and Brook as the ayatollahs, and Carl Barney as the swindling crook from Scientology who never f**king changed or had to account for his moral change if he did. Many of you squirmed around this uncomfortable truth when Hunter presented it here. You need to check your biases. First, read this (fun) comic about the backfire effect and then seriously look at the evidence that Mr. Hunter presents, not at him as a person who counts racism among his flaws. Emotions are not tools of cognition. Ad hominem is not a legitimate response to an argument. I don't care if HandyHandle is Hitler reincarnated... wait a minute. HandyHandle. HH. Heil Hitler. Now it all makes sense! That was a joke, and we don't make enough of them. We should. We need to be more fun. We can start by acknowledging our mistakes as a philosophy. Number one, that we've turned ourselves into a religion. Number two, that even in Rand's day before we became a religion, we didn't have fun. We need better marketing as a philosophy. You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. Ayn Rand had much to offer in the way of vinegar, not so much honey. You know why I like Sonic the Hedgehog? Because he's awesomely good and he knows it! Because evil is impotent and he knows it! This makes fighting evil is fun for him, fun for you when you play the video games he stars in. We don't have super speed like Sonic, but we have the lightning fast world of the Internet at our fingertips. Listen to this song in that context. I don't care if Ayn Rand didn't like rock music. This song is my anthem. Because I know we're right and I know that evil is wrong and impotent. Fighting the subjectivist bastards who've hijacked our world should be as fun for us as playing a video game, or reading Atlas Shrugged, or jerking it, or riding a roller coaster, or fantasizing, or whatever floats your boat. I don't care because I'm not an ayatollah. I'm fun. Will you join me?

    Is objectivism consequentialist?

    aequalsa
    By aequalsa,
    Would it be fair to characterize Objectivist ethics as consequentialist in the sense that if one wants to live a flourishing life one ought to behave in a self interested way? Reason I ask is that I went to see Craig Biddle speak last night and he made a comment(which I have heard before) along the lines of "in Objectivism there are no thou shalts." This would seem to imply that one could choose a sort of bohemian lifestyle-live in a yurt, smoke pot, and play x-box- rather then live a heavily productive life and that it may be perfectly moral for some individuals to do so since there is no moral imperitive that you must live a flourishing life.. It seems like that what make objectivism subjective at the level of the ultimate choice to flourish as much as possible or only enough to sorta get by.

    Is Social Awareness a Value, a Virtue or a Second Class "Goodness"

    Easy Truth
    By Easy Truth,
    Is the nature of Man to be Narcissistic? By Social Awareness I mean knowing that others exist, knowing that you are not alone. Not just a thought, knowing the truth that you are not alone.
    Isn't human companionship a requirement for survival and an ethical value and virtue. My purpose of this thread is to get clarification on it. I also wonder if it is not acknowledged and declared enough in Objectivist circles. We know that David Kelly has sort of debated the chairman of whole foods about it. But the debate is more like "chill out, reword altruism, do the Philosophy a different way". Isn't this particular social context (the awareness of others) have to be part of one's personal ethics? Knowing how to choose people around them, best practices etc. I argue that social awareness is necessary for survival. Not being aware that others exist can be a matter of life and death. And yet the pitfalls of doing so: "There's a point at which "social awareness" would cease to be healthy, benevolent coexistence and turn into second-handedness (trying to think through another brain, see through their eyes and do whatever you think they'd most approve of); beyond that point human beings stop being helpful or uplifting for each other's lives and gradually become codependent and monstrous." Harrison "Trying to define the ultimate standard and purpose of ethics in social terms will prevent you from being able to define that cutoff point." Harrison I wonder if prevent is too strong a word, for now, I can see it hampering and causing confusion. And then there is the related issue of the value of others which is derivative: "A rational man does not forget that life is the source of all values and, as
    such, a common bond among living beings (as against inanimate matter),
    that other men are potentially able to achieve the same virtues as his own
    and thus be of enormous value to him. This does not mean that he regards
    human lives as interchangeable with his own. He recognizes the fact that his
    own life is thesource, not only of all his values, but of his capacity to value.
    Therefore, the value he grants to others is only a consequence, an extension,
    a secondary projection of the primary value which is himself.
    “The respect and good will that men of self-esteem feel toward other
    human beings is profoundly egoistic; they feel, in effect: ‘Other men are of
    value because they are of the same species as myself.’ In revering living
    entities, they are revering theirown life. This is the psychological base of
    any emotion of sympathy and any feeling of ‘species solidarity.’ ”" (Virtue of Selfishness, p 42)

Portal by DevFuse · Based on IP.Board Portal by IPS
×