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
- 4 replies
- 1003 views
- Add Reply
- 5 replies
- 2072 views
- Add Reply
- 7 replies
- 1197 views
- Add Reply
- 36 replies
- 5526 views
- Add Reply
By Old Geezer,
I have been particularly struck by snippets people have left on this forum... about overcoming adversity, confronting evil etc.... and bragging, when well earned, is respectable within an objectivist social context. If you got em, Id love to hear em.
By Marc K.,
I am interested in a topic I heard raised in Dr. Peikoff’s Ford Hall speech about the war in Iraq. It was also referred to in another thread here though I can’t seem to locate it. Namely: Who allows a tyranny to exist? Who is responsible for its actions? Are there really any “innocents” in a justified conflict? I am under the impression that citizens who continue to live under a tyranny sanction its existence. That it is the right of these people to alter or abolish such government when it becomes destructive of their natural rights. That they sanction its existence by not abolishing it. That they are ultimately responsible for the government they allow to rule them. And that they are perfectly justified in suffering while evils are sufferable. But when another nation is threatened by such a government, and goes to war with it, that it is these same people who must bear the moral weight of every casualty on both sides of the conflict. In his Ford Hall lecture I think Dr. Peikoff was essentially saying the same thing. He complained about how in Iraq we had lawyers along with each platoon. How we allowed terrorists to escape by using human shields. How the only way to really fight a war was demonstrated by the bombing and subsequent firestorms of Tokyo in WWII. That usually it is a small faction of zealots who take over a country because they are very dedicated and vocal about their philosophy. But that the sheep who say “who am I to know what is right”, by pleading ignorance, must accept the consequences of what comes. Yet I was sure I saw someone here write, unchallenged, something to the effect of: citizens living under tyranny cannot be held responsible for their government's actions since they have no rights under that govt. I agree with Dr. Peikoff. Am I understanding him correctly?
Hello: I understand that Rand believed that an embryo is a "clump" of tissues and only has potential, thus does not deserve any rights. Recently, I have heard in the news that a pregnant woman (a week to her due date) was shot and killed along with her unborn child. That man was charged for two murders not one. Do you think that he should be charged for one or two murders? Q
The trial and recent conviction of Martha Stewart got me thinking, now the laws against insider trading might be unjust but most of what she was charged with was lying to the investagators, wich persumably should be a crime. So my question is if you were a jurior in her trial would you have found her guilty of comitting a crime to cover up what shouldn't be a crime?