TheNewIntellectual

I've had the good fortune of being able to "convert" my cousin to Objectivism by suggesting Atlas Shrugged while I was still in the process of reading it. As soon as I had encountered some of the philosophy, I told him it was quickly becoming the best book I had read. He is probably the most intelligent person I know, in the truest form of the word (excercising one's ability to use logic and reason), so I felt confident in introducing the book, since I knew he'd get something out of it. Since a couple of people he talked to over the web had already suggested the book, he decided to check it out. He just happened to be moving in with my family temporarily around the time he started reading Atlas, and as he came to appreciate the book more and more, we would discuss the tenets of Objectivism (and their lack of application in society). He has since applied a few of them. I don't believe he has made anywhere near a total transition, but it really stuck with him. We have both introduced a few other people to the book, the most successful introduction being my cousin's. He gave it to a friend who was actually smart enough to proclaim, "I'm not sure I'm ready for it yet." He kept the copy and said he would take a look at it. As Don mentioned, the most important thing is better understanding. I was glad to have my cousin around to bounce ideas off of. I think that often what people aren't likely to realize when being introduced to Objectivism is the fundamental basis for it, that this is not something to believe in like all the others, but is rather about using your power of reason to know.

skap, Regarding honesty, my interpretation of Objectivist philosophy is that dishonesty is only immoral if the recipient is an honest person. The idea is that we do not owe honesty to anyone who does not afford us that same respect. If, however, the recipient is a dishonest person, it is not necessarily wrong to practice complete honesty with them, especially if there is a value for you to gain in doing so. On the other hand, gaining a value through dishonesty is always a form of fraud, unless that value is self-preservationist in nature (such as lying to avoid arrest or prosecution by authorities enforcing an unjust law [not 100% sure about this example]). Although feigning belief in Catholicism to appease your family might not be proper, I'm sure going through the motions with a neutral mindset (since you know that none of it means anything to you) would be just fine. Just as long as it's wine and not grape juice, that is (Talk about blasphemy...). Even if you should decide that it was immoral to lie to your ex-girlfriend, I don't think your memories should become any less fond. We can't change the things we've done; we can only take responsibility for them and act accordingly the next time around.

softwareNerd, Sorry, my bad. I shan't post any other links without first making sure they are kosher. I'm not sure why, but I could only see the 200 posts the fourth or fifth time I looked at this thread. Weird. All I can say is, it's a crying shame that there isn't an Objectivist party.

JMegan, I've linked another essay I found while searching for Scwhartz's. After reading this, I'm not as inclined to read Peter Scwhartz's work. However, since to do so is my responsibility as an Objectivist, I will keep looking for it. Perhaps you might take a look at this one though, and see what you think. Mr. Feys presents many a good point just as well or better than I could, especially the idea that Libertarianism, like I mentioned (somewhat), is strictly a political philosophy and therefore not (as I understand the word to mean) an actual philosophy as such. If you do decide to check it out, please do post your thoughts. Good call. This is what I meant about "true" anarchists. < link deleted. We don't run those kinds of ads. - softwareNerd>

Upon discovering that many Objectivists dislike the Libertarian agenda, I was actually somewhat confused. This was due to the fact that I had considered myself a Libertarian before learning about Objectivism, and had read about how many Libertarians praised Rand and her ideas. In fact, upon writing this, I now remember that I came to Objectivism through and because of Libertarianism. I don't know the basis for all of the Objectivist criticisms of the Libertarian ideal, but it sounds like one of the biggest is the lean toward anarchist thinking and the membership of anarchists in the Libertarian party. I'm not sure that is very significant. Unless there are other issues of which I'm not aware, I think one could actually define Libertarianism as an idealisic (but not necessarily unrealistic) politcal application of Objectivism. I will explain: With regard to anarchy, I would see no problem with holding a world without government as the ultimate and final goal. I say this because if you were to apply Objectivist principles uniformly throughout the world, I'd forsee one of two results: 1) A world where a government to regulate the use of force always remains necessary because somehow, problems/disagreements never cease to exist, so the anarchist goal is never achieved 2) Although perhaps not at all probable (or likely to take eons to achieve), we actually reach a point where Objectivist principles have made any government unnecessary because we are all able to work out any disagreements amongst ourselves JMegan, In response to the idea that anarchism supports a world of institutionalized gang warfare, it is obvious that true anarchists would despise such a society. The problem is indeed that traditional anarchists would seem to promote this kind of chaos. I submit to you that any supposed anarchists who in fact do support or would tolerate the world in a state of gang warfare are not true anarchists, but simply immature posers who like the title of anarchist because it is naughty and rebellious. I'd love to hear some thought on this idea, or perhaps other specific Objectivist criticisms of Libertarianism.

Greetings everyone. I've just joined the forum tonight, and I figured my first order of business should be to tell you all a bit about myself. I am a 22 year-old male originally from Missouri now living in Florida (with plans to move back eventually). I don't know what first brought me to Atlas Shrugged, but after that there was no turning back. I have finished Atlas now and am working on The Fountainhead, which is even more impressive so far. I have also read some other shorter works of Rand's. Upon discovering Rand and her philosophy, I realized that I had been living with the Objectivist mindset for quite some time (save for a few small issues), and finally saw the true nature of my disappointment with the world as it is. I am pleased to have found a certain niche and a label that fits me better than any other ever has or will, and I hope to have some good conversations with and perhaps learn some things from you all. I'm sure I will enjoy getting to know the members of this forum. See you on the board... Nick