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
- 2 replies
- 1691 views
- Add Reply
- 15 replies
- 1794 views
- Add Reply
- 6 replies
- 1538 views
- Add Reply
- 0 replies
- 995 views
- Add Reply
Has anyone seen dr. Tracinski's interview on FoxNews, about Martha Steward. I barely missed it, and I can't find a transcript anywhere. How was it? Any interesting referenced to Objectivism, or ARI? Was there anything different from his "tall poppies" article on ARI's MediaLink?
Hi, I am a long time objectivist from New York. I attend Binghamton University, where I am frequently repulsed by the massive liberal/communist movement on campus. There are two campus papers, "Off," the communist rag, and "The Binghamton Review," the vehicle of conservative dribble. I read both, take what I can, and disregard the rest (they are "free", AKA paid for by ME and the rest of the students in one of the many fees we pay). I am often struck by how these two feel they are juxtaposed. They are two sides of the exact same coin. They are both about coercion, the commies are for the dictatorship of the masses, and the conservatives are for the amalgamation of church and state, a dictatorship of a false morality. I always wonder why either side feels entitled to refer to themselves as champions of "Liberty." I tried to start a paper on campus called "The Freedom Fighter," which would (obviously) defend true freedom, individual liberty, rejecting anything in any political ideology which had no basis in reality and therefore is unable to be detected using rationality, reason. I wasn't allowed to; they said I couldn't be "classified." What a shock! Ha. I also was prevented from starting an Objectivist Club, but this time they were more blatant about their hatred of objectivism and Rand. It's funny, in a very morbid way, how every time I say I love Rand, I get disgusted looks or condescending head shakes, people telling me I'll "grow out of it." Really, they all were Rand fans at some point and COMPROMISED, the vision of a woman of integrity jars their comfortable little sense of conformity and collective betrayl of values. I have experienced this exact phenomenon repeatedly. I always felt the things Rand gave me words for, and I'll never be able to be another way (nor would I want to!). I don't think it is easier to conform, to betray yourself, to be "normal." I can't imagine betraying myself, and no matter how hard the path I've chosen supposedly is, I find the alternative to be simply inhuman, impossible, unfathomable. Besides, I always have me, whereas all these Rand-denouncers have no self; they are nothing but vessels of consensus. I love being able to love myself, and how could I if I was like THEM?! So you see, I don't think our path is the harder one. There is never anything that can rip the "us" away from us; the "me" away from me. We're always safe because we save ourselves, we are our own Lord and Savior. It's the most beautiful life, and I don't understand that other way. I am often baffled. This is my only issue: being totally unable to fully understand those who betray themselves. The problem is they are everywhere.
NeoRand4774, I've been following your argument with DonGalt and I appreciate the way you express your ideas. You are better than I in that respect, but I'm learning. Anyway, you mentioned being a philosophy and poli sci major. There is one subject that I have not found any Objectivist material on, and it has been bugging me because I am unsure of some of my conclusions. Like I said, I'm still learning. And, of course, unlearning a bunch of the false ideas that are floating around out there. So the subject is treason. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the subject. That is, what would be considered treason by an Objective government. Wilderness
I just wanted to make it known that I'm leaving for two months and won't really have access to a computer. Being involved in so many of the debates herein, I didn't want anyone thinking I am not answering their challenges, I am merely going to be absent for a short while. I have been having such a great time here and I look forward to the kind of debates AND discussions I will be returning to. See you soon! (Mid-august, to be exact.)