Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Concerto of Atlantis

'Ex-Objectivists'

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Considering I'm fairly new to Objectivism, I've never really encountered any ex-'Objectivists' in my time - that is, until a couple of days ago. I was discussing Australian politics on a forum, and this self-proclaimed ex-Objectivist starts to debate with me. It really was an eye-opening experience that confirmed what sort of complete mis-understandings exist regarding this philosophy. If anyone is interested, the URL is: http://forums.capitolrecords.com/cgi-bin/u...=3;t=019407;p=1 (He comes in at page 2).

So has anyone else had bad experiences with these types?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, i know one pretty well. reverted to christianity. something like that. he said God talked to him. I'll go with that. I haven't heard anything yet, though. What's really interesting is how right Rand was on how religious conservatives correllate a free market and society to the roots of religion. I could go on and on about that specific conversation, but that's that at face value...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood how someone could compromise the realm of ideas for such muddled emotional premises. Judging by his closing remarks though, I see him as a social parasite- someone who sees a ladder to be climbed. That I guess is the only supposed benefit to be gained from such behavior. I'm sure he will find condolence in the slimy embrace of those just as inept in living as him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People like that were never Objectivists to begin with. They read some of Miss Rand's books, applied the label as if they had found some new "clique" and then dropped that label when the next wind blew westward. You find these people in any ideological movement but they're all social metaphysicists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote Undan, on that other forum, "I used be an objectivist, even without having read any of Ayn Rand's stuff. It was when I was a self-loathing, alcoholic pre-goth."

He was ever an Objectivist exactly as much as the invisible unicorn on my roof.

But, he's a great subject if you want to observe the crow/slogan mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect to any Objectivists who may be currently questioning some of ARI's policies, and hoping to avoid rekindling the flame-war it was part of, I'd like to quote what I think is a brilliant observation about this that Peikoff made in his May, 1989 article "Fact and Value":

Such people literally have no concept of "objectivity" in regard to values. Their accusations, therefore, are expressions of their own actual philosophy and inner state. The typical (though not invariable) pattern in this kind of case is that the accuser started out in Objectivism as a dogmatist, cursing or praising people blindly, in obedience, as he thought, to his new-found "authorities." Then at last his pent-up resentment at this self-made serfdom erupts — and he becomes an angry subjectivist, denouncing the "excessive anger" of those who make moral judgments. The swing from intrinsicism to subjectivism, however, is not a significant change; these philosophies are merely two forms in which the notion of "non-objective value" rules a man's brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems almost worse than being against objectivism to begin with.

How does "objectivism" differ from Objectivism -- or is "objectivism" here simply a typo?

I have never been able to figure out what "objectivism" means (refers to in reality), much less what an "ex-objectivist" would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you ask your English teacher what she thought of Ayn Rand's idea, that right ideas are practical and work?

I debated with her on that point. She said Ayn Rand is wrong about that part. Her last argument was that for Objectivism to work, we needed a utopia where everybody would be rational. But, she didn't provide any justification for that point of hers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I debated with her on that point. She said Ayn Rand is wrong about that part. Her last argument was that for Objectivism to work, we needed a utopia where everybody would be rational. But, she didn't provide any justification for that point of hers.

The whole point of selfishness being that you don't have to worry too much about all the other people who suffer by their own dependency. Am I right? Even though it is remote, we should demand Laissez Faire tomorrow if it means abandoning 20% of the country to short-term brutal poverty (mostly bad people). Because we are supposed to be selfish, we shouldn't let that stand in our way. Isn't that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is one considered an 'ex-objectivist' if they merely do not want to study the philosophy any longer? I'm 16 and I've been studying Objectivism for the past 4 years. And I haven't had an interested in studying Objetivism for the past 5 months...as well as all philosophy in general. Now, I can't say this is necessarily wrong... I still live by the same principles, and I'm still a happy person. (In fact, I am more happy since I'm not as dogmatic as I used to be). What if someone has other things on their minds other than philosophy? I don't want to think that studying the philosophy indepth the rest of your life is the only way to live a happy moral life. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if someone has other things on their minds other than philosophy?  I don't want to think that studying the philosophy indepth the rest of your life is the only way to live a happy moral life.  Thoughts?

Learning enough philosophy and then moving on to other concerns is the way it SHOULD be -- except for professional philosophers.

Ayn Rand distinguished between what she called "Philosophy for Ragnar" and "Philosophy for Rearden." For Ragnar, philosophy was his life. For Rearden, philosophy was a means to the things he valued in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. That's why I've been fond of the educational system of the ancient greeks and romans...everything they learned was packaged in philosophy wrappers. Philosophy is always great of course. But is there a moral obligation to the study of Objectivism? Philosophy merely means 'love of knowledge.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...