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
- 16 replies
- 2038 views
- Add Reply
- 2 replies
- 1080 views
- Add Reply
- 19 replies
- 1907 views
- Add Reply
- 4 replies
- 1479 views
- Add Reply
According to the Youth for International Socialism site http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/human_nature.asp Now there's tons of arguements in this one quote but I believe the main idea is that Cooperation and Compeition are literally the anti-thesis of each other. How is that true?
Hello. I'm a Catholic student from Washington State. I read Atlas Shrugged recently, at the coaxing of some guys on another bulleting board (Los Soldatos: Los Soldatos ), which has its own small objectivist community at the Stump. (If you try to visit the site, you won't see the Stump; the debate section, among other things, is members only.) So...very interesting philosophy. It's greatly changed my views on economic matters. However, my Catholic beliefs remain the same. In fact, Atlas Shrugged even supplemented it, helping me develop my personal philosophy. Well...I think I'll be swinging by the Metaphysics section later.
In another thread, a troll sneered at the very notion of objective concepts. I would like to use it to talk about the topic. This presumes that cognition is subjective, that any conceivable definition of a word is valid EXCEPT the one offered by Ayn Rand. The problem with dictionary definitions of philosophically important words is that they are often rationally unusable. Package-deals and anti-concepts are what most peopke expect for words like "selfish". You cannot use the mental short circuit that this word connotes for most people, even if you wanted to. A package deal conflates two exact opposites, in this case production and destruction. In a different thread, someone used the word "externality." This word is often used by economists to mean "a secondary or unintended consequence" (www.m-w.com). Pollution is the textbook example. The problem with this word is that it serves to obliterate the concept of "rights". One does not think of the absolute right of property, but the myriad of potential secondary consequences of one's actions. Ultimately, the reference for one's concepts is reality. Do one's mental units subsume essentially similar instances, or do they obfuscate and conflate essential differences? The former is not only necessary for communicating with other people, but also for clear thinking.
In many of her essays, Ayn Rand analyzed different works of art. Did she ever analyze the film version of The Fountainhead? I seem to recall she made mention of the line which was cut from the film. And she has spoken of the comments made by Cooper after filming. But did she ever substantially address King Vidor's directing of her script - meaning more than a sentence or two in passing?