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
- 0 replies
- 1544 views
- Add Reply
- 3 replies
- 2040 views
- Add Reply
- 5 replies
- 869 views
- Add Reply
- 26 replies
- 3008 views
- Add Reply
There will be an Objectivist conference in London in September (24-27). Among the speakers are John Ridpath, John Lewis, Tore Boeckmann, Rob Tracinski and Scott McConnell. Check it out at http://www.icognition.biz/iCon2004 If you know any Objectivists in Europe, it might be a good idea to alert them.
Thanks to a $1,000,000 gift(multi-year) to the UNC philosophy department from the BB&T Charitable Foundation, a "BB&T Visiting Assistant Professor" (among other things) was created. Dr. Amy Peikoff will hold it during the 2004-2005 academic year.
First off, this is my first post. I am very new to the philosophy of Objectivism. It's highly probably that I will ask stupid questions as my base of knowledge on this topic is very rudimentary at this point. None the less, the philosophy is interesting to me. Of the few concepts I have read to date, I can "relate" to virtually all of them right off the bat. My objective on this forum is to increase my understanding of this philosophy in order to determine if indeed I may have been somewhat of an objectivist all along, and never really knew it. A bit of background. I'm 40 years old, have in the past been a Christian which I later abandoned in the direction of Agnosticism. I have been a Police Officer for 18 1/2 years though I do not agree with the nature or justification of many laws that are on the books. I have always sought to understand that which is going on around me, to which the concept that my senses are my only possible learning tool makes a lot of sense. So, on to the first question... Is there anything inherently incompatible with being an Objectivist AND being a Law Enforcement Officer? Thanks in advance for your reasoned responses. VES
I am curious as to any thoughts on this topic; e.g. is it unethical to legislate against monopolies where public interest is a prime factor; is it foolish not to? To wit: I live in the Chicago suburbs, and in Illinois, the phone giant SBC has been directed to lease out its networks to competitors at greatly reduced prices. I am not fully aware of the details of the matter, but that is semantic anyway. As I see it, SBC built the networks, and as such, despite that it benefits me directly, I disagree with this policy. Compete or crumble. However, this gives me pause to consider the flipside. If SBC did control 90% or more of the telephone business (a veritable monopoly), how would this affect the individual? With no competition, customer service becomes a non-factor, prices become arbitrary. There are some who may not conisder phone service a public interest, but I dare any of them to survive in the contemporary world without one for a month. Worst-case scenario, 911 is not available. Furthermore, what of other services, such as natural gas, electricity, medicine? While I can appreciate the Objectivist stance on individual deserts, I can't resolve for a dismissal of life in its stead; e.g. no human being should be deprived a life-saving surgery due to financial constraints. While a rational, ethical individual could responsibly manage a monopoly, I think it presumptuous and foolish to afford such a berth; to disregard the practices of Kenneth Lay and his constituents, for example, is to deny reality. So while I do not support the concept of legislating monopolies ethically, I cannot refute the practice rationally. Is this due to an error in my own logic? What is the implied "ought" to this "is"?