James Bond

alright well I'm leaving this forum for good after this post so I wish you all the best, and I hope in time you'll start to think more independently. Take care.

so it's been a while since I've posted on these forums, you may recall my heretical and purposefully evocative thread titled "I'm thinking about leaving objectivism"

I'm curious (although not particularly concerned) whether some of you would consider me an objectivist or not, here are my credentials:

-I think epistemologically, empiricism/reason is clearly superior/proper, I'm am a firm atheist without a trace of mysticism/agnosticism/whimsy

-I want free market capitalism/individual rights enforced by a small government.

-I think full egoism is deeply moral, and its converse is conversely/abjectly depraved

-I find romantically realistic art to be the most life affirming

-Metaphysically, I think the universe is fixed/absolute/solid/objectively to be mastered

-I say these things "on one foot", but I have comprehensively studied/read all of Rand's/Peikoff's/Branden's non/fiction, as well as other media by objectivists (podcasts, op-eds, public appearances, speeches, etc etc.)

I bring that up so you know I'm not someone who read The Fountainhead and loosely said "hey yeah that sounds good", it's more of "hey wow that is my philosophy realized, and my identity understood in a heretofore unexperienced rational context. This is coming from someone who's also read a lot of works of other philosophers and has a broad understanding of what the stakes are.

things you would probably dislike about me:

I think there is/was a dogmatic streak in Rand/Peikoff/ARI, and I think that's very hypocritical. This is probably my biggest contention. I liken it this way..let's say you are driving down a highway, and you see signs that say that your exit is in 50 miles (read: objectivism). You can then check your own map and have it confirmed. You see a lot of these signs. At the last sign, despite what your map says and what all they other signs said, it says that there is no exit. You are confused, and therefore have to disregard that particular sign while still appreciating those signs which continue to point the way and help you orient yourself.

You should know I'm not choosing whim over dogma, I'm saying if you really don't bullshit yourself, you will agree that there is institutional dogmatism in the objectivist movement. This is why I think Rand was right to be hesitant over the formation of an objectivist organization like the ARI. It's too dangerous, and even though we may think we are mature/independent enough to be able to have a organization of objectivists, it has not occurred.

I agree with Stefan Molyneux that it doesn't make sense to call your philosophy "objectivism" in the same way that you don't call evolution "Darwinism". It's evolution, and "objectivism" is philosophy. In the same vein It annoys me how Rand (allegedly) wanted other people to conform to some of her preferences, and personal opinions. Even though I think a large amount of the heat that's been directed at Rand's personal life is completely bunk, and stems from people desperately evading/looking for a chink in her armor, and not finding much to work with. Even so, it does appear that too many objectivists did/do kowtow to what they think she would have preferred. And keep in mind this is coming from a person who agrees with Rand about the morality (and subsequent necessity) of judgment.

Here's a third thing. I'm a lot less hostile than a lot of objectivists to what is largely called libertarianism. I respect/support Ron Paul for various reasons, and have no qualms about calling myself a libertarian. (Hell, Yaron Brook has even called Oist politics libertarian "in a non-Rothbardian" sense). I don't agree with some of Yaron Brook's criticism of Ron Paul. You can attack Ron Paul for a lot, and be right, but he's still far closer to the position of individual rights than a mainstream republican than whoever Brook would support in 2012. I'm a lot less hostile towards anarcho-capitalism than a lot of my fellow capitalists, even though I'm not and have never been an anarchist, and ultimately think it's contradictory. I appreciate the works of ancapists as a valid part of the theoretical work for capitalism.


my laptop is running out of battery, but these are some of the main reasons I'm no longer calling myself a student of objectivism, despite the life altering influence it has and will continue to have on me as I continue to study and live it. I understand the fact that objectivism is truly unique. There are no philosophies like it. It really is an achievement of the ages. So maybe you'd think me an objectivist seeing as in many ways (about 90-95%) still find it to be my philosophy. I think I basically am, but sans a few items of flotsam. I'd be interested to hear your replies if you care to share them.

so it's been a while since I've posted on these forums, you may recall my heretical and purposefully evocative thread titled "I'm thinking about leaving objectivism"

I'm curious (although not particularly concerned) whether some of you would consider me an objectivist or not, here are my credentials:

-I think epistemologically, empiricism/reason is clearly superior/proper, I'm am a firm atheist without a trace of mysticism/agnosticism/whimsy

-I want free market capitalism/individual rights enforced by a small government.

-I think full egoism is deeply moral, and its converse is conversely/abjectly depraved

-I find romantically realistic art to be the most life affirming

-Metaphysically, I think the universe is fixed/absolute/solid/objectively to be mastered

-I say these things "on one foot", but I have comprehensively studied/read all of Rand's/Peikoff's/Branden's non/fiction, as well as other media by objectivists (podcasts, op-eds, public appearances, speeches, etc etc.)

I bring that up so you know I'm not someone who read The Fountainhead and loosely said "hey yeah that sounds good", it's more of "hey wow that is my philosophy realized, and my identity understood in a heretofore unexperienced rational context. This is coming from someone who's also read a lot of works of other philosophers and has a broad understanding of what the stakes are.

things you would probably dislike about me:

I think there is/was a dogmatic streak in Rand/Peikoff/ARI, and I think that's very hypocritical. This is probably my biggest contention. I liken it this way..let's say you are driving down a highway, and you see signs that say that your exit is in 50 miles (read: objectivism). You can then check your own map and have it confirmed. You see a lot of these signs. At the last sign, despite what your map says and what all they other signs said, it says that there is no exit. You are confused, and therefore have to disregard that particular sign while still appreciating those signs which continue to point the way and help you orient yourself.

You should know I'm not choosing whim over dogma, I'm saying if you really don't bullshit yourself, you will agree that there is institutional dogmatism in the objectivist movement. This is why I think Rand was right to be hesitant over the formation of an objectivist organization like the ARI. It's too dangerous, and even though we may think we are mature/independent enough to be able to have a organization of objectivists, it has not occurred.

I agree with Stefan Molyneux that it doesn't make sense to call your philosophy "objectivism" in the same way that you don't call evolution "Darwinism". It's evolution, and "objectivism" is philosophy. In the same vein It annoys me how Rand (allegedly) wanted other people to conform to some of her preferences, and personal opinions. Even though I think a large amount of the heat that's been directed at Rand's personal life is completely bunk, and stems from people desperately evading/looking for a chink in her armor, and not finding much to work with. Even so, it does appear that too many objectivists did/do kowtow to what they think she would have preferred. And keep in mind this is coming from a person who agrees with Rand about the morality (and subsequent necessity) of judgment.

Here's a third thing. I'm a lot less hostile than a lot of objectivists to what is largely called libertarianism. I respect/support Ron Paul for various reasons, and have no qualms about calling myself a libertarian. (Hell, Yaron Brook has even called Oist politics libertarian "in a non-Rothbardian" sense). I don't agree with some of Yaron Brook's criticism of Ron Paul. You can attack Ron Paul for a lot, and be right, but he's still far closer to the position of individual rights than a mainstream republican than whoever Brook would support in 2012. I'm a lot less hostile towards anarcho-capitalism than a lot of my fellow capitalists, even though I'm not and have never been an anarchist, and ultimately think it's contradictory. I appreciate the works of ancapists as a valid part of the theoretical work for capitalism.


my laptop is running out of battery, but these are some of the main reasons I'm no longer calling myself a student of objectivism, despite the life altering influence it has and will continue to have on me as I continue to study and live it. I understand the fact that objectivism is truly unique. There are no philosophies like it. It really is an achievement of the ages. So maybe you'd think me an objectivist seeing as in many ways (about 90-95%) still find it to be my philosophy. I think I basically am, but sans a few items of flotsam. I'd be interested to hear your replies if you care to share them.

Ok, I agree. Calling people out morally for not dealing with their bullshit is unwarranted.



I'm going to go to bed now but I hope I get lots of great replies for when I wake up.

Would you rather the wars as they are now, inimically endless, or no wars at all, as leftists would have?

This is one area where I tend to disagree with many objectivists.

I think the wars as they are being run now actually make the country less safe, as well as bankrupt the country, and the loss of our soldiers.

It looks like we'll be in these wars for another 8 years, and unfortunately Neocons and hopefully (not objectivists) seem to be okay with that.


The whole situation is just terrible.

Would you rather the wars as they are now, inimically endless, or no wars at all, as leftists would have?

This is one area where I tend to disagree with many objectivists.

I think the wars as they are being run now actually make the country less safe, as well as bankrupt the country, and the loss of our soldiers.

It looks like we'll be in these wars for another 8 years, and unfortunately Neocons and hopefully (not objectivists) seem to be okay with that.


The whole situation is just terrible.

I has major dissapoint.

The acting looks pretty bad..even in the preview.

The progression/diologue of that trailer was choppy.

I might not watch this at all.

I'm still mad/confused that Peikoff sold the rights...

This is such a common claim by would be AR hateraders that I feel it should be addressed.

-she once wanted to (did?) smoke marijuana
-she continued to promote Patterson's and Mises's work despite their differences
-she allowed Rothbard back into her discussion groups despite a previous break
-she admired philosophers Locke, Aquinas, the FF's, etc. in spite of their religiosity
-she considered homosexuals she knew to be objectivists, despite her dislike of their sexuality
I was particularly glad to hear read this fact..I'm not gay still Ayn Rand's hostility towards
homosexuality had always bothered me. I found this out from her wikipedia page.

I'm starting to be persuaded by the arguments for anarcho-capitalism. If I do end up being completely persuaded, I would no longer be able to call myself an objectivist. Beyond that, I'm also starting to question the value of being associated with the philosophy of Ayn Rand. While agree with the tenets of Oism, I'm starting to wonder why I should specifically stick with the system of Oism rather than a more enumerative/academic approach to those same tenets. If you have any thoughts on why one should stick with a collected system rather than the alternative, I'd love to hear them.

thread thus far is full of lol and win, let me contribute.

Hipsters might have to actually start reading all the books they've claimed to of read.

I've read PWNI, and I appreciate it. But here's the thing. One can find all of the same tenets of objectivism throughout the history of philosophy, so why associate yourself with a philosophy that has a lot of negative externalities? Why not say I'm a transhumanist/atheist/capitalist/virtue theoriest/sense-datam critical realist/romantic realist? Why is that less useful than simply saying I'm an objectivist, and consequently attaching myself to a system that, like so many other associations, comes with imperfections. That's why I asked in the original post what the benefits of are of advocating a system, rather than advocating tenets.

I agree that Rand's ethics are unique and rare, but I have to disagree that you can't find authentic egoism anywhere else. This begs the question though..why does a person's centralized philosophy have come from centralization? I agree that a person needs philosophy to survive in the same way that a person needs water, and that that the philosophy needs to be integrated. My fear is that in labeling oneself an objectivist, one might also be be accepting a package deal. Looking back, I believed in all of the tenets of objectivism before I started calling myself an objectivist..and now I wonder why I ever started calling myself an objectivist. I think it might have been because of the sense of community that it brings, and the romantic portrait that is painted by Rand's fiction. Take a gun enthusiast..he doesn't need to be an NRA member in order to enjoy gun culture, but it's fun/useful/more to be a NRA member.

I'm starting to be persuaded by the arguments for anarcho-capitalism. If I do end up being completely persuaded, I would no longer be able to call myself an objectivist. Beyond that, I'm also starting to question the value of being associated with the philosophy of Ayn Rand. While agree with the tenets of Oism, I'm starting to wonder why I should specifically stick with the system of Oism rather than a more enumerative/academic approach to those same tenets. If you have any thoughts on why one should stick with a collected system rather than the alternative, I'd love to hear them.