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

    Objectivism is Rational Centrism

    Skylark1
    By Skylark1,
    In a previous thread I was offered two mentally-stimulating articles to read in order to provide the Objectivist context for political discussion: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2016/07/liberal-right-vs-regressive-left-and-religious-right/ https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/ While I have mentally recorded those articles as defining the Objectivist context for discussion, I thought I should add that I consider it to be wrong. We know from history that the Left/Right distinction had its beginning in the French parliament of 1789. Those who favored maintaining France as a kingdom were seated on the right side of the room; those who favored removing the king by means of revolution were seated on the left side. The basics of right-wing and left-wing politics have made their way into  21st-century America as conservatives and liberals, respectively. Objectivism, which is a relative new-comer, wishes to revive the laissez-faire ideals of the 19th century (which lasted for about 15 years and ended with the publication of the Communist Manifesto). There are many ideological ways to divide right from left, e.g., nationalist vs. one-world socialist. According to late 1960s vernacular, the distinction was between "pigs" and "hippies." In reality, it was a distinction between self-control and extremes of hedonistic behavior. In the words of Timothy Leary, "Turn on, tune in, drop out". Another way of defining the difference is with the words "status quo" versus "change" (whatever is entailed by the word "change," but it usually entails some kind of revolutionary rhetoric). Objectivism redefines this distinction in terms of property rights.  Property rights have long been considered the domain of the political right, while the political left wants to do away with property rights in favor of a more communal idea concerning the individual. The political right maintains a concern with individual rights - although not always strictly and with much hemming and hawing on where to draw the boundaries. The political left considers individual rights to be an outright hindrance to its ends. Ayn Rand placed no such right-wing boundaries on human rights. Her goals and ideals are revolutionary, and so there remains an element of European radicalism, i.e., an element of revolutionary expression exists in her philosophy. But it favors removing the faith-bound orientation of the right-wing and replacing it with a rational basis. While both sides are grounded in variations on faith, whether religious or mystical (right and left, respectively), they are self-defeating principles which relegate the purpose of serving individual happiness to a more-or-less indirect goal, if that. If not a goal on Earth, then happiness (or really, bliss) is at least a goal in Heaven for those on the right. So my take on the political spectrum is at least traditional, and is held by pretty much everybody except Objectivists. The idea that Objectivism is right-wing while all statist approach are left-wing seems to place Objectivism up on a very high perch from which it looks down on various forms of statists fighting toward goals that really aren't in opposition at all because they place the individual in the awkward position of being a slave to the State versus slave to God or some other deity. Either way, the individual is considered to be of relative unimportance. I believe that placing Objectivism in the center, the rational center, that is, at least maintains the right- and left-wing distinction where Objectivism takes whatever is potentially rational on both sides and uses it for its own rational ends.          

    do you guys know what this means?

    Ana Juster
    By Ana Juster,
    last tuesday in class I looked up I saw the girl i liked looking at me & smiling then she looked down at my chest while still smiling. then she looked up at my face while still smiling so I just looked away. then when I was talking to one of my friend I couldn't really hear him cause I had my headphones on & he said justin did you hear what I said & i said no. Then I heard her saying to her friends that I crack her up and said that I was quiet but funny.

    Reblogged:Context vs. "Trends"

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    A typical journalist, courtesy of Pixabay. An article at Inc. admonishes readers not to be fooled by three "trends" (i.e., examples of progress) that have been getting all kinds of coverage by journalists and pundits who are too busy pandering to fear of the unknown to notice that their big stories could easily be demolished by a helping of additional knowledge (historical or not) and a dash of integrative thinking. I'll highlight the third, because it shows that one needn't always necessarily have a knowledge of history to see that there is often no need to panic (or, conversely, become overly-excited) about the new and shiny. Here's the relevant excerpt on the "retail apocalypse":
    Indeed, the executive summary of the article, which is still worth a read in its entirety, might consist of three sentences:
    What is so special about the latest wave of automation that it's going to make us all idlers when every other previous wave has failed to do so? Please name me a business that can operate without some form of access to tangible assets. If Amazon has shown that brick-and-mortar retail is dead, why did it buy Whole Foods? (But I repeat myself.) I appreciate good journalism like this: It gives me something to think about, and learn from. And it gives me hope that there are journalists out there who don't buy the hype that, since panic sells, it's the only thing that can sell. To those journalists, I would say, although really only as encouragement: There is an audience out there for an objective presentation of relevant facts, integrated with other knowledge, and interpreted in a rational manner. We'd like more of the same.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Video: The Most Basic Case For Free Will

    CartsBeforeHorses
    By CartsBeforeHorses,
    I have started a new YouTube channel where I spread philosophical concepts to the masses in plain language, basic videos. This is the first in what will hopefully be a very long series of videos. In this, I make the case for free will and refute common arguments against it.    

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