gio

I was there. It was a great week.
I haven't check yet if we can see me in this video. At least the back of my head. 😄

They don't think of him. As far as I can tell, he is virtually unknown, except for very few people among those who are interested in Philosophy.
I think, Ayn Rand is more known (or rather less unknown) in France than Guyau.
You are right about the second one. It's a little summary chapter by chapter, available for free here. The author is a reader of my blog about Objectivism, and since he made that book, I've translated some chapters of The Romantic Manifesto.
The first one is supposed to be a biography of Ayn Rand. It was the only book in french about Ayn Rand since recently. The book was written by Alain Laurent, the publisher of Atlas Shrugged in France, who was also last year in a lecture with Yaron Brook. I was in the public, so was the author of the second book The Esthetic Philosophy of Ayn Rand. And I asked a question. Alain Laurent is also the publisher of The Virtue of Selfishness, but he removed most of the chapters, as I say in my video, including the introduction, to publish his own introduction.
Because he is the publisher of Ayn Rand and because of that book, Alain Laurent is viewed as the "expert" of Ayn Rand in France, so when the french medias talks about her, they have Alain Laurent as a guest. In my opinion, it's a scam, because Alain Laurent doesn't understand Objectivism at all (It's easy to prove, he disintegrates all ideas), commit some errors and is regulary very critical about Objectivism grounded on his non-understanding and errors.
One single example (among plenty): In the book you mentionned, he advocates that Ayn Rand is not a philosopher and that she had never read Kant, and criticize her for never quoting other philosophers. He wrote the same in his introduction of The Virtue of Selfishness, where he also says that Ayn Rand advocate some categorical imperatives. Clearly, he has never read Causality versus Duty.
And it's always like that : He regulary sees "contradictions" in Ayn Rand's philosophy...grounded on his own misunderstanging or ignorance.
As he is the only French voice, visible in the media, who talks about Ayn Rand. Many French people learn about Ayn Rand through him, i.e. through his errors, his fallacies and his superficial understanding. I think that there is no one who does not harm Objectivism in France any more than he does, though I'm pretty sure he views himself as a fair spreader of Ayn Rand. He is also very critical of the Objectivist movement.

They don't think of him. As far as I can tell, he is virtually unknown, except for very few people among those who are interested in Philosophy.
I think, Ayn Rand is more known (or rather less unknown) in France than Guyau.
You are right about the second one. It's a little summary chapter by chapter, available for free here. The author is a reader of my blog about Objectivism, and since he made that book, I've translated some chapters of The Romantic Manifesto.
The first one is supposed to be a biography of Ayn Rand. It was the only book in french about Ayn Rand since recently. The book was written by Alain Laurent, the publisher of Atlas Shrugged in France, who was also last year in a lecture with Yaron Brook. I was in the public, so was the author of the second book The Esthetic Philosophy of Ayn Rand. And I asked a question. Alain Laurent is also the publisher of The Virtue of Selfishness, but he removed most of the chapters, as I say in my video, including the introduction, to publish his own introduction.
Because he is the publisher of Ayn Rand and because of that book, Alain Laurent is viewed as the "expert" of Ayn Rand in France, so when the french medias talks about her, they have Alain Laurent as a guest. In my opinion, it's a scam, because Alain Laurent doesn't understand Objectivism at all (It's easy to prove, he disintegrates all ideas), commit some errors and is regulary very critical about Objectivism grounded on his non-understanding and errors.
One single example (among plenty): In the book you mentionned, he advocates that Ayn Rand is not a philosopher and that she had never read Kant, and criticize her for never quoting other philosophers. He wrote the same in his introduction of The Virtue of Selfishness, where he also says that Ayn Rand advocate some categorical imperatives. Clearly, he has never read Causality versus Duty.
And it's always like that : He regulary sees "contradictions" in Ayn Rand's philosophy...grounded on his own misunderstanging or ignorance.
As he is the only French voice, visible in the media, who talks about Ayn Rand. Many French people learn about Ayn Rand through him, i.e. through his errors, his fallacies and his superficial understanding. I think that there is no one who does not harm Objectivism in France any more than he does, though I'm pretty sure he views himself as a fair spreader of Ayn Rand. He is also very critical of the Objectivist movement.

Formally, it is redundant to ask "why be rational", since the question assumes it is.

I just started a Youtube channel. I have a terrible accent and I probably make a lot of mistakes in English. I hope it's understandable. I devoted a video to the following topic: What do the French (in general) think about Ayn Rand? I would be glad to have your feedback.
 
 

I just started a Youtube channel. I have a terrible accent and I probably make a lot of mistakes in English. I hope it's understandable. I devoted a video to the following topic: What do the French (in general) think about Ayn Rand? I would be glad to have your feedback.
 
 

Ayn Rand answered exactly your question in her course The Art of Non-fiction. The question was: "Doesn't free will contradict the idea that man has a specific identity?"
 

I come back to the fundamental question of the topic which is: "Is objectivism consequentialist?" This time I've read most of the topic (not all because a lot of messages seem to deviate from the original subject) and I felt trouble in the force.
Sorry if I made mistakes in English, it's not my primary language.
As 2046 rightly said, the point of Grames (page 5), which says consequentialism is an "empty doctrine" is invalid in itself, because consequentialism is not a moral doctrine as such, but simply a category of moral doctrine. The generally opposite category, deontology, is also "empty" and silent about on what the good is. Grames (and others) makes another mistake in believing that "every theory of good and of the virtues is trivially consequentialist" and that one can "bolt the standard objectivist of value - your own life - onto consequentialism" because Objectivist ethics is actually incompatible with the consequentism, I will explain why. It's pretty simple.
I will use quotations from Rand and Peikoff that have already been given several times in this topic, but which, I think, have not always been clearly understood.
The reasoning of StrictlyLogical (who, if I understand well, thinks that Objectivist ethics is compatible with consequentialism) are sometimes brilliant, but he has just missed a crucial point.
Objectivist ethics can not be classified as consequentialist for exactly the same reasons that Ayn Rand rejected utilitarianism and hedonism.
What is consequentialism? Taking the consequence as the sole standard of good.
YES, the Objectivist ethic deals with causality, so it fully takes into account the consequences (which is why some people seems troubled), BUT it does not consider the consequences as the standard of the good. The pursuit of values does not imply consequentialism.
To know whether Objectivist ethics is consequentialist or not, the crucial question is not: Should the consequences be taken into account in a moral theory? (The answer is YES, of course, otherwise we fall back anyway into the intrincist theory of value). The crucial question is: WHERE does morality lies? In the action? In the consequences of the action? Both ? In the relationship between the two? Or elsewhere?
Here is why, in short, Objectivist ethics is not consequentialist: Consequentialism confuses the consequences of morality with morality itself. In other words, it confuses the standard with the purpose of morality.
Consequentialism says: morality does not lies in action, but exclusively in the consequences of action. Objectivist ethics does not say that.
Think about the relation between morality and consequences like the relation between knowledge and emotions, because it's exactly the same kind of relation. Values are knowledge, and emotions are consequences. Ayn Rand used to say: "Emotions are not tools of cognition." because emotions are consequences of ideas or knowledge and not idea or knowledge by itself. We can also say somehow : "Consequences are not tools of morality".
Back to the fundamental question: Why does man need a moral code? (Any moral code.) In order to guide his action. And action is always a mean. In other words, morality always deals with means.
Of course it is necessary to have a goal, values (to give meaning to the action-means), but the goal alone is not enough (contrary to the consequentialist view), there must be a standard for discriminating actions that are consistent with this goal and actions that are not. In other words, a standard is needed to identify the virtues.
Why do we need a standard? Why do our actions need to be guided by a moral criterion? Because man does not have automatic knowledge. He does not function by instinct, and he is not omniscient, a human being can not fully foresee the future when he acts, he do not know in advance all the consequences. (Which would be a pre-condition of consequentialism ...) So he needs a guide, that is to say a moral code. As it has been said by many of you, we can not evaluate actions post-facto ...
We must therefore identify a standard that accords with the purpose, where we can rationally show the necessary dependency relation between the standard and the purpose as a cause-and-effect relationship (life is the cause, the effect is happiness, as Ayn Rand says in the following quote).
According to Objectivist ethics, life is not the consequence or the purpose of morality, it is the standard. The purpose is happiness.
Life is the ultimate value because it is the condition of happiness. Without life, there is no happiness. But life is not an action. Life is the standard that makes it possible to judge the morality of an action, in other words, whether it is virtuous or not. Moral action is virtue, and it is practiced by choice.
A consequentialist morality such as utilitarianism for instance, says: What is the purpose of morality? Happiness. (We agree.) But then immediately it says: So, everything that makes you happy is good. Happiness is the good.
But it is not happiness that is moral as such. Happiness is a consequence of a proper morality. In other words, happiness is not the good, happiness is a consequence of the good. There is confusion in utilitarianism between standard and purpose.
To say: "the consequences are the moral standard" is a contradiction, it's like saying: "morality is useless" or "morality does not serve to guide action" or "man does not need a guide to action." To say, as consequentialism claims, that morality does not lie in action is to say that virtue does not exist. There is no moral code, no moral principles.
For example, imagine that I am faced with an alternative. To determine how I should act, I will think, "I must choose my action according to such consequence." (happiness for instance) This is the consequentialist morality in its totality. This is not wrong in itself, but there is no morality yet: it is obviously insufficient to guide the action. Then I have to think and tell myself: "What actions would cause this consequence?" How to know? (In other words, what virtues should I practice?) In short: I need a moral code.
In itself, having a purpose (happiness for example) is necessary, but not enough to determine a rational action plan. How do you determine what makes you happy? The moral code (life for example) is used to identify how to achieve this purpose. The purpose of your life.
 

Very good.  I learned what is the point of consequentialism as a category.
edit:  To elaborate, there is the category of intrinsicism, which can be deontological or consequential.

I come back to the fundamental question of the topic which is: "Is objectivism consequentialist?" This time I've read most of the topic (not all because a lot of messages seem to deviate from the original subject) and I felt trouble in the force.
Sorry if I made mistakes in English, it's not my primary language.
As 2046 rightly said, the point of Grames (page 5), which says consequentialism is an "empty doctrine" is invalid in itself, because consequentialism is not a moral doctrine as such, but simply a category of moral doctrine. The generally opposite category, deontology, is also "empty" and silent about on what the good is. Grames (and others) makes another mistake in believing that "every theory of good and of the virtues is trivially consequentialist" and that one can "bolt the standard objectivist of value - your own life - onto consequentialism" because Objectivist ethics is actually incompatible with the consequentism, I will explain why. It's pretty simple.
I will use quotations from Rand and Peikoff that have already been given several times in this topic, but which, I think, have not always been clearly understood.
The reasoning of StrictlyLogical (who, if I understand well, thinks that Objectivist ethics is compatible with consequentialism) are sometimes brilliant, but he has just missed a crucial point.
Objectivist ethics can not be classified as consequentialist for exactly the same reasons that Ayn Rand rejected utilitarianism and hedonism.
What is consequentialism? Taking the consequence as the sole standard of good.
YES, the Objectivist ethic deals with causality, so it fully takes into account the consequences (which is why some people seems troubled), BUT it does not consider the consequences as the standard of the good. The pursuit of values does not imply consequentialism.
To know whether Objectivist ethics is consequentialist or not, the crucial question is not: Should the consequences be taken into account in a moral theory? (The answer is YES, of course, otherwise we fall back anyway into the intrincist theory of value). The crucial question is: WHERE does morality lies? In the action? In the consequences of the action? Both ? In the relationship between the two? Or elsewhere?
Here is why, in short, Objectivist ethics is not consequentialist: Consequentialism confuses the consequences of morality with morality itself. In other words, it confuses the standard with the purpose of morality.
Consequentialism says: morality does not lies in action, but exclusively in the consequences of action. Objectivist ethics does not say that.
Think about the relation between morality and consequences like the relation between knowledge and emotions, because it's exactly the same kind of relation. Values are knowledge, and emotions are consequences. Ayn Rand used to say: "Emotions are not tools of cognition." because emotions are consequences of ideas or knowledge and not idea or knowledge by itself. We can also say somehow : "Consequences are not tools of morality".
Back to the fundamental question: Why does man need a moral code? (Any moral code.) In order to guide his action. And action is always a mean. In other words, morality always deals with means.
Of course it is necessary to have a goal, values (to give meaning to the action-means), but the goal alone is not enough (contrary to the consequentialist view), there must be a standard for discriminating actions that are consistent with this goal and actions that are not. In other words, a standard is needed to identify the virtues.
Why do we need a standard? Why do our actions need to be guided by a moral criterion? Because man does not have automatic knowledge. He does not function by instinct, and he is not omniscient, a human being can not fully foresee the future when he acts, he do not know in advance all the consequences. (Which would be a pre-condition of consequentialism ...) So he needs a guide, that is to say a moral code. As it has been said by many of you, we can not evaluate actions post-facto ...
We must therefore identify a standard that accords with the purpose, where we can rationally show the necessary dependency relation between the standard and the purpose as a cause-and-effect relationship (life is the cause, the effect is happiness, as Ayn Rand says in the following quote).
According to Objectivist ethics, life is not the consequence or the purpose of morality, it is the standard. The purpose is happiness.
Life is the ultimate value because it is the condition of happiness. Without life, there is no happiness. But life is not an action. Life is the standard that makes it possible to judge the morality of an action, in other words, whether it is virtuous or not. Moral action is virtue, and it is practiced by choice.
A consequentialist morality such as utilitarianism for instance, says: What is the purpose of morality? Happiness. (We agree.) But then immediately it says: So, everything that makes you happy is good. Happiness is the good.
But it is not happiness that is moral as such. Happiness is a consequence of a proper morality. In other words, happiness is not the good, happiness is a consequence of the good. There is confusion in utilitarianism between standard and purpose.
To say: "the consequences are the moral standard" is a contradiction, it's like saying: "morality is useless" or "morality does not serve to guide action" or "man does not need a guide to action." To say, as consequentialism claims, that morality does not lie in action is to say that virtue does not exist. There is no moral code, no moral principles.
For example, imagine that I am faced with an alternative. To determine how I should act, I will think, "I must choose my action according to such consequence." (happiness for instance) This is the consequentialist morality in its totality. This is not wrong in itself, but there is no morality yet: it is obviously insufficient to guide the action. Then I have to think and tell myself: "What actions would cause this consequence?" How to know? (In other words, what virtues should I practice?) In short: I need a moral code.
In itself, having a purpose (happiness for example) is necessary, but not enough to determine a rational action plan. How do you determine what makes you happy? The moral code (life for example) is used to identify how to achieve this purpose. The purpose of your life.
 

A similar question came up during a Q&A session of the 1976 Objectivism course. I am quoting the exerpt bellow:
 

This is a transcription of Miss Rand from her initial Columbia University radio broadcast from 11:00 to 16:35 minutes into the program.
I am addressing myself to those who are genuinely interested in ideas, and who therefore, have an authentic desire to understand Objectivism. Those who are making an effort to fail to understand me are not a concern of mine.
Please take the following as an official public notice: The only authentic sources of information about Objectivism are: my own works, the Objectivist Newsletter, a monthly journal dealing with the application of Objectivism to current cultural and political problems.
The above public notice is necessitated by the fact that most of such comments on Objectivism that I have seen in print consist of outright misrepresentations and smears. Some of the misrepresentations may be unintentional, some people find it difficult to grasp new ideas, let alone to summarize them correctly. But most of the misrepresentations are deliberate, since an attempt to ascribe to a writer the exact opposite of her ideas can hardly be attributed to an innocent error. There are many such attempts. Those who created them, deserve them.
If you do wish to understand Objectivism, the one helpful suggestion I can give you is this. Remember that the basic premises from which I speak are not the ones most people take uncritically for granted. It is precisely the basic premises of today’s culture that I challenge. Therefore, do not leap to conclusions and equate my viewpoint with somebody else’s, by assuming automatically that you have heard it before. You haven’t. For instance, do not equate my views with Nietzsche, or Herbert Spencer or Senator Goldwater. My views are not theirs and vice versa. So whether you choose to agree with me or disagree, do not set up a straw-woman. It is a futile procedure, which does not fool anyone except that man who attempts it.
If you wish to disagree with me, you have to start by identifying my basic premises, and then refuting them—if you can. You have to take me up on the issues. None of my antagonists have done it so far, and, I venture to say, none ever will. I say it because the whole case of the mystic-altruist-collectivist axis rests on the evasion of basic issues, on never identifying their own base.
Objectivism holds that:
A.) Men must be guided exclusively by reason.
B.) That man has a right to exist for his own sake. And
C.) That no-one has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others.
In order to refute this you would have to admit and maintain that:
A.) Man ought to be irrational.
B.) That man is a sacrificial animal. And
C.) That you seek to impose your own ideas or wishes on others by means of physical force.
This is what you would have to admit, and then attempt to prove that you have a right to. You see all three of these premises dominating our culture and being practiced all over the world today, but you do not hear anyone admitting it openly. Instead, you hear such things as:
A.) Rationality consists of recognizing that reason is impotent, or, an intellectual is one who denies the existence of the intellect.
B.) To enslave men is to act for their own good, or, to slaughter men by the millions is the proof of one’s love for humanity. And
C.) Freedom consists of obedience to the edicts of the government, or, to compel men to obey by means of physical force and violence constitutes a defense of liberty and entitles one to be called a liberal.
Ladies and gentlemen, I could almost rest the entire case for Objectivism on this kind of pronouncements by my antagonists. The fact that they find it necessary to evade in such manner is one of the clearest [and?] least attractive evidences of the fact that the truth is on the side of Objectivism.

Indeed, however to be fair, it's not as if C theories such as utilitarianism, hedonism, psychological egoism, etc. don't have an answer to this. The point of the term C was to classify broadly between the relationships of moral terms in various normative theories. Each one of those theories may have its own meta-normative grounding for its theory, but here we are just isolating one aspect. 

I would go so far as to say almost all values (I am adhering here to the objective theory of values) in fact ARE instrumental, imho all but one value is instrumental, instrumental to the only value which is at once both an end in itself and a choice: life.

Sorry for interjecting... your response was to ET, but this is tantamount to arguing against the Objectivist standard of morality itself.
It claims that bad conduct can support life long range... implying that the standard of morality is wrong.  It amounts to saying really, conduct is to be judged as "good" or "bad" according to something which is not the Objectivist standard of morality.  This is an error.  Actions are bad precisely because they are inimical to life, long range, and any action which is not inimical to life, long range simply is not bad.

Well yes, I don't think Helfield is valuing the interview as such, but that's not his purpose. Helfield is a master at employing the Socratic method. He doesn't want to allow his debate partner to obfuscate or dance around the topic using rhetoric or sophisms, he has to pin down an answer to the question. Once a thesis is agreed upon, then you can show how assent to that thesis leads to condradictions with other held beliefs. But the questioner has to stick to questions about that thesis, otherwise the interlocutor will spin rhetoric and avoid the question. Of course Matthews is too politically savvy to answer directly, but in the end, he does get Matthews to agree in some vague "will of the people" and then quits the interview. I'd score that one clearly for Helfield. You can't penalize Helfield for staying on one topic and wanting to drive the discussion, it's a necessary part of the method.

It knows it's entered the same world Chuck Norris lives in...

I think this is a quite reasonable interpretation. Rand seemed to strive at transcending the problematic dichotomies of modern philosophy, and many times appealed to the classical Greeks, or something like them with a modern twist, in doing so. I think one of Rand's and virtue theorists goals to solve the consequentialism vs deontology dualism and it's great to see such appeals firmly grounded in the nature of life and value.

Come in my country if you want to meet much marxists! 

As a significant phenomenon, yes, it is mainly entrepreneurs and businessmen. People who wish to do politics or administration do not leave France, it is the country dreamed for it.
Actually a supporter of mixed economy, you should say. Who is, however, a little more pro-capitalist than what France has known so far (especially from a center-left guy). He's a bit like Tony Blair...
But France has never known her Thatcher.

How the fact that french brains, in business (entrepreneurs), have actually left the country could explain Macron's success? It's seems a poor explanation from someone who doesn't know this country...

Since I'm French, let me keep you informed of what's happening in my country.
Next Saturday, France will have the final result of the presidential election. Since the end of the first round (April 23rd) this result is already known: the next president of France will be Emmanuel Macron. Of course, when I write these lines, he's still competing against Marine Le Pen, but she has absolutely no chance of being elected. Although she's popular in a part of the French, she (and her party) is still extremely unpopular for the vast majority of French. She will not be elected because of what is called in France the "glass ceiling", which means that she can never exceed a certain level in public opinion.
What happened in the first round?
The current president, Francois Hollande, is extremely unpopular and didn't have the capacity to present himself again.
So, in the first round, there were 5 important candidates (the other 6 are insignificant):
 
François Fillon (The party "The Républicains", the main party of the right in France, the party of Nicolas Sarkozy, who was president between 2007 and 2012. Fillon was prime minister throughout this period. Emmanuel Macron (who was Minister of Economy under President François Hollande, but who launched his political movement since one year only.) Marine Le Pen (The party "National Front", the party considered as extreme right, nationalist.) Jean-Luc Mélenchon (His movement is called "Unsubmitted France", radical left, ideas close to Communism and Marxism.) Benoît Hamon (Socialist party, party of President François Hollande, main party left in France for 40 years.) The result of the first round was as follows:
Emmanuel Macron 24% Marine Le Pen 21.3% François Fillon 20% Jean-Luc Mélenchon 19.6% Benoît Hamon 6.4% This is the first time in a French presidential election that none of the main left-wing (Socialist Party) and right-wing (The Republicans) parties are absent from the second round.
A brief comment on what happened:
Benoît Hamon represented the Socialist Party, the party of the current president, François Hollande. Even if he was part of a faction of this party that was critical of the President, he could not change the fact that he represented a party that had become extremely unpopular, since Francois Hollande was extremely unpopular. More than its predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy (who was also very unpopular). So the score of the Socialist Party is historically low. It was never so low since the 60's.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon has almost doubled his score since the last election (2012). He withdrew the red flags and flags of the Soviet Union in his meetings to replace them with French flags, and he sings "La marseillaise" instead of "L'internationale". He was the most popular candidate for young people (18-24), because formally, he made a very modern campaign (despite his archaic ideas): he made a Youtube channel, he used the Social networks, meetings in holograms, his militants even made a videogame on him ("Fiscal Kombat"). Between Macron and Le Pen, he did not give his opinion for the second round, because for him Macron represents capitalism, and Le Pen represents fascism ...
(In my personnal view, he is the archetypal dictator. He is an admirer of Chavez & Castro...)
François Fillon was destined to win this election. But during the campaign, he was accused of fictitious employment (i.e. misappropriation of public money) for a situation dating back several years ago. This accusation has never been proved, but the presumption of innocence was not sufficient for public opinion to not considered him as guilty and corrupted. Especially since before that, Fillon said that if he was suspected of something, he would not be candidate. Some believe that these accusations have been secretly modeled by the current power in order to make the rival party losing (There are disturbing indications.). Anyway, these accusations made him considerably lower in public opinion, and prevented him from entering the second round.
Politically, this was the first time that a major French presidential candidate said he wanted to significantly reduce the size of the state, reduce taxes, reduce regulations and take care of the public debt. It was also the first time I heard a french politician defending liberty (by using this word) in this kind of election. His speech with regard to Islamist terrorism (which he calls "Islamist totalitarianism") was without concession.
 
Who are Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen?
Politically Emmanuel Macron is center-left. He is supported by people from right, left and center. He governed as minister under the presidency of François Hollande (Socialist Party) but he was always perceived as different, iconoclastic. He is young (39 years old), doesn't have a political background, he had never be elected, he worked as a business banker at Rotschild. He studied philosophy (his thesis was about Hegel). He is in favor of globalization. His popularity in France comes from the fact that it embodies the image of a change, a renewal because:
- He has a different style from most policies and he's young, he has an image of modernity.
- He doesn't have a political career (except as minister during 2 years), he does not come from the traditional parties, he comes from the private sector.
- He was still unknown 2 or 3 years ago.
- He has the image of someone very smart, who knows his files, especially in economy.
For the extreme left and far right, he represents capitalism, i.e. the evil. Actually it's true that when he was minister, his speech and his actions seemed "pro-capitalist" especially for a left-wing man. He's in favor of free trade, globalization, private sector... But since the campaign began, he wanted to show that he wasn't so capitalist, by multiplying social measures, protections, etc ... which makes him a centrist. Or a "pragmatist". Or a "moderate". Someone who want to "reconciliate", mix the hot and the cold, who is agree with everyone. He wants to be pro-capitalist and pro-protection in the same time.

Marine Le Pen (who was the most popular candidate among the workers) is far-right and her economic program is clearly socialist and protectionist. The two main ideas of his party (the National Front) have always been the same since his father created the party in the 70s: "Fight against immigration and insecurity". Its aim is to "re-establish borders", to regain the sovereignty of the country, to fight against "globalized finance", "ultra-capitalism" and, of course, her speech against Islamism is radical. Never has his party and its ideology been so popular in France. But despite this, for many people, Marine Le Pen (and her party) is considered racist and xenophobic. Many also consider it fascist.
She will lose the election, there is no suspense about it.
If you have questions, it will be a pleasure for me to answer to you about this elections.

OK, so let me boil this down to an informal line of reasoning that I can ponder and scrutinize:
 - Things exist. A=A.
 - Living things exist and act in order to live.
 - People exist and act on the basis of thoughts.
 - A person's values is the object of his actions--what a person acts to gain or keep.
 - Values would be meaningless without life, but life gives values meaning.
 - Values are moral if they are in line with life.
 - Since people are only individuals, this judgment applies to individuals.
 - The individual's own life is his own ultimate value.
 - Achieving one's values is the way to happiness.
 - Humans must use volitional and abstract thinking to survive.
 - Observation is required, gaining knowledge.
 - We must integrate our observation into concepts, generalizations, and principles that correspond to reality so that we can act.
 - Only physical force (including fraud) from others can prevent such action and cause us to act otherwise, to act in bondage.  A human life is a life guided by the judgment of one's mind.
- Government should exist to prevent such force and not to initiate such force itself.
Did I miss anything?  Where are the logical leaps in the above?  I shall ponder it further.

As I said, the big problem with Macron is that when he makes speeches, it's so blurry, so general ideas, that you have no precise ideas where he wants to go.
He was often mocked because of this, and many commentators said that he didn't have a program, or that we didn't know what he will going to do.
I can tell you he was not elected for his ideas. He was elected because he is new, fresh, he doesn't have a political background from the mainstream party, he looks different, modern smart, and competent.
For example, you can watch this video, very instructive, which was made by a Marine Le Pen supporter. The guy is asking Macron's supporter what are Macron's ideas :
 I'll translate you :
First person
 — You support Macron.
 — Absolutely.
 — Why?
 — Because he's hot! No seriously, because he represents the fresh, the renewal, and so on.
 — The renewal, what do you mean?
 — I mean he's not an 70 years old guy. He is less than 40.
 — He was in Hollande government.
 — Exactly. No problem.

Second person
 — This is a new vision.
 — What vision?
 — Gather people who do not agree. That does not mean it's blurry or...
 — Gather people on what ideas? What are the ideas?
 — What are the ideas? Julien, help us!
 — Julien, what are Macron's ideas?
 — I don't want to answer.
 — We'll see at the meeting.
 — OK, so in fact you don't know.
 — Yes I know, but I don't want to talk now...lol.
 — Thank you. I will seek for Macron's ideas.
 — You'll find it quickly I think!
— I hope! I doubt... Hey mister! What are Macron's ideas?
— I don't know.
— You don't know? 
— No.
Third person
 — What are Macron's ideas?
 — LOL. Am I obliged to answer?
 — Not at all.
Fourth person (with round glasses)
 — What are Macron's ideas?
 — Euuuuuuuuhh... eeeeeeeuuuuh.... [looking around] I don't know... eeeeuuuuuhhh... well... they're good!
Fifth person (young guy)
 — What are the political ideas he advocates for, concretely ?
 — Very good question. Euuuuuuuuuuhhh........... I don't know. Honestly, very complicated question. Moreover, I didn't understood everything. Euuuh....how can I say? Euuuuh.....
Last person
 — I must admit that I have very recently become acquainted with the various points. I watched some videos and...that's it.
Of course you can tell this is a political video where they show only people who did this kind of answer, but I think it's representative of most people who voted for him unfortunately.
What I can say about him if you ask me few of Macron's signature positions (but I don't say he usually mentions them in his speeches. His speeches are blurry.) :
He is open to globalization and free trade. Pro-EU. He wants to free the work. More freedom for the private sector. But counterbalance with some protections. He wants to gather different opinions. (He presents himself as pragmatic.) He wants to "moralizing" and renewing French political life. New faces, new methods, new practical. The school also has a recurring place in its speeches, he wants to reform it and develop the training. And he wants also to fight against terrorism, but this is not particular to him, almost every politician say the same about.
In his first year as president, he's supposed to focus on reforming the labor code, "moralizing" political life and on reforming school I think. And pursue the fight against terrorism.
If you want, you can watch the debate he made against Marine Le Pen, there is voiceover in english :
 

As I told you, Emmanuel Macron was widely elected. I regret not to have given you my prognosis before because I had bet on 65% Macron 35% and this is pretty much the result.
Now to answer Nicky, what do I think of Macron as a person? Well ... it's hard to answer, because we don't know him well, and his personality is hard to identify.
My first impression about him (but I have to be careful and be aware that this can change) is pretty positive. He gives the image of someone more rational and honest (or sincere) than practically all the French politicians I've known so far. He really has a very different style from the usual politicians. (Perhaps some points in common with Nicolas Sarkozy in the personality ...) But the systematic problem that there is is that he is sometimes very vague.
In general, what I noticed is the following (it is systematic):
When he speaks all alone and makes speeches, it is always great general ideas, but concretely we don't know what that means. It's blurry.
On the other hand, when he's in a debate with an opponent, or is questioned by an activist on the street, he is incredibly good and accurate. He doesn't make demagogy. He seems not afraid to say something that will no please everyone, but which is true.
Here are some examples of small sentences for which he made himself famous (because they were shocking in France) during his last two years, if that can give you an idea:
He was part of a socialist government. In reply to a journalist: « Honesty obliges me to tell you that I'm not a socialist. » (However, I don't know if he was referring to the party or the ideology ...)
Still in reply to journalists: « I recognize my liberalism. Liberalism is a value of the left. » (ATTENTION, here the word "liberalism" must be taken in the European and non-American sense, which refers to classical liberalism.)
On the radio: « We need young French people who want to become billionaires. »
About the law of 35h in France (it is the maximum legal working time): « It was believed that France could get better by working less. It was false ideas. »
« The state has its place, but it has taken too much. »
To a young activist against him in the street: « The best way to pay a suit is to work. » (The phrase is famous but is never presented in its context, so I do not know exactly why he was saying this to the guy.)
During the interval between two rounds, he went to see workers from a factory threatened to relocate to Poland. He was in the middle of the melee with the angry workers, with only a few bodyguards to protect him. And for more than an hour he responded to all interpellations (even the most aggressive), trying to make the pedagogy on globalization, explaining that the state shouldn't nationalize, that private property exists, and so on. (Unlike Marine Le Pen, very popular with the workers who spent a few minutes making selfies with the workers and promising them to nationalize their factory to save them.)
During the debate between two rounds with Marine Le Pen (who was incredibly ridiculous in this debate), she mades lot of promises as usual, and he asked her several times: « How do you finance all this? With whose money? »
Besides that, which gives him a very "pro-capitalism" image in France, he defends certain forms of protection and interventionism. There are a lot of interventionist measures in its program, and we also don't know who is going to pay. Some examples (non-exhaustive list):
12 pupils per primary class in sensitive areas. Auxiliary school life for each child who needs it. Increase in number of policemen and gendarmes, military budget. Increase in old-age minimum. Increase in the disabled adult allowance. Increase in activity premium. Increase in unemployment benefits. Increase in refunds for glasses and dentures. Unemployment benefit for employees who have resigned. 50 billion euro stimulus investment plan. € 5 billion for the modernization of farms. 50% organic in collective catering (school canteens for example) Maintaining the budget of culture already very heavy. Creation of assisted jobs in sensitive areas. Prime of 1000 € to buy a vehicle less polluting. Renovation of 1 million poorly insulated homes. Construction of 80,000 housing units for young people. Training for youth and the unemployed. Creation of a fund for industry and innovation of 10 billion euros. 5000 European Border Guards. 15,000 new prison places. (On the other hand, there are also tax cuts, and other measures that go in the direction of less state.)
I find it very difficult to make a real opinion about him today. His career is brilliant, he has always succeeded in studies and in what he has undertaken (he was called the "Mozart of finance") and never a French president has been so young in the whole history . (He is 39 years old. And he was never elected before.) He often looks very comfortable on very technical subjects, especially in economics or business, where most politicians are incompetent. (And in the debates, the contrast is blatant.) He seems much weaker on topic like security or terrorism.
As I said before, he seems to tell the truth, or at least his understanding of it. Yes he seems particulary honest, but it is very embarrassing that it sometimes keeps a blur.
Well, I don't know if it helps you a lot, but that's what I know. (And that's what the French generally know. I don't think anyone else can be more specific.)