Hello World

[Myrtok]

I am Myrtok. I am 34 years old, married for 11 years, and I have 3 children, ages 8, 7, and 3.

I recently read Atlas Shrugged on the advice of one of my uncles. I had previously heard references to the book, and it was on my "need to read that someday" list, but my uncle's recommendation moved it a few steps up my priority queue. The philosophy outlined in the book left me with several questions, which eventually led me here.

For the most part, what I have learned of objectivism has dovetailed nicely with beliefs which I already held before reading Atlas Shrugged. In many cases, Rand provided the words to explain convictions which I already held, but was unable to define logically. For example, I have always intuitively understood the difference between positive rights and negative rights, and I have always held the belief that only negative rights were valid. However, it took Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged to move the distinction from the level of intuition fully into the level of sound logical reasoning.

I am not ready to call myself a full-fledged Objectivist. For starters, I only have preliminary information about the philosophy. Also, there are aspects of Objectivism which I do understand, but with which I'm not sure I agree. It is possible that, like Dagny Taggart, I'm on the right track, but not quite ready to accept all of the consequences. I tend to learn by arguing, and I tend to accept new ideas by logically eliminating all possible alternatives. So, if a Socratic method of learning is encouraged here, I expect to learn a lot. However, if this forum is intended only for avowed Objectivists, please let me know so I can leave gracefully.

[khaight]

I am not ready to call myself a full-fledged Objectivist. For starters, I only have preliminary information about the philosophy. Also, there are aspects of Objectivism which I do understand, but with which I'm not sure I agree. It is possible that, like Dagny Taggart, I'm on the right track, but not quite ready to accept all of the consequences. I tend to learn by arguing, and I tend to accept new ideas by logically eliminating all possible alternatives. So, if a Socratic method of learning is encouraged here, I expect to learn a lot. However, if this forum is intended only for avowed Objectivists, please let me know so I can leave gracefully.

As far as I'm concerned honest questions from interested non-Objectivists are one of the major purposes of the forum. Be aware that you'll likely get a plethora of answers -- not everybody here is an Objectivist, not everybody here fully understands Objectivism, and there is plenty of room for disagreement even among those who do.

It sounds as though the only thing you have read so far is Atlas Shrugged. If you're planning to explore the philosophy more deeply you should probably start with a non-fictional overview. There are several of varying length, depth and format on the Ayn Rand Institute's website. Or if you have specific questions, toss them out and we'll be off to the races.

[Greebo]

+1 Khaight

One of the first things I did once I started reading Atlas Shrugged and realized I wanted to learn more was to listen to the woman herself speak.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_pwni

This is the audio of Ayn Rand addressing West Point on the importance of Philosophy.

It is an excellent starting point for learning more about Objectivism.

[softwareNerd]

Welcome to OO.net.

[Myrtok]

I notice a lot of posters getting slapped around a bit for asking questions that are covered in old threads. If I find the subject of my inquiry in an old thread, but I would like more discussion or clarification, is it better to necro a very old thread or simply start a new one? Different forum communities seem to have different standards about that.

[bluecherry]

I think generally, the preferred way to go about things is thread necroing, probably mentioning you're new and had a question relating closely to that topic. I say this is probably the better idea since very often, repeated topic threads will then be merged by a moderator into the old thread anyway if one does make a new thread and the new threads before merger will have people posting links to what was said in the old thread.

Also, hello and welcome.

[Marc K.]

For example, I have always intuitively understood the difference between positive rights and negative rights, and I have always held the belief that only negative rights were valid.

(It depends on what you mean by this but I consider positive and negative rights to be parts of a single concept: Rights).

I agree with khaight that honest questions are certainly welcome. The question is ... to me ... what is honest?

And of course you may conduct yourself in any manner you wish, consistent with the rules.

Let me suggest, in a purely benevolent fashion, that the following sometimes comes off to me as dishonest:

I tend to learn by arguing, and I tend to accept new ideas by logically eliminating all possible alternatives.

It will be impossible for us to eliminate all possible alternatives. You must be the one to eliminate most of the irrational alternatives and then ask (I always prefer) polite questions.

However, if this forum is intended only for avowed Objectivists, please let me know so I can leave gracefully.

You don't have to be "avowed", though we certainly hope you will decide to be.

Welcome.

[khaight]

(It depends on what you mean by this but I consider positive and negative rights to be parts of a single concept: Rights).

The standard distinction in contemporary political science is that a 'negative right' is one whose satisfaction requires that others refrain from some kind of action, whereas a positive right is one whose satisfaction requires that other take some kind of action. Your right to free speech is satisfied so long as I refrain from interfering forcibly with your speaking; your right to free health care is satisfied only if I pay for your medical bills. The former is a 'negative right', the latter a 'positive right'.

On the Objectivist view, all rights are protections of the individual's freedom of action and would therefore be classified by mainstream political thought as negative rights. So-called positive rights are fundamentally different, and package-dealing them together with actual rights is epistemologically invalid. We should call them what they are: alleged entitlements.

It will be impossible for us to eliminate all possible alternatives. You must be the one to eliminate most of the irrational alternatives and then ask (I always prefer) polite questions.

It depends on whether you are using the metaphysical or epistemological sense of "possible". Epistemological possibility requires the identification of some evidence in support, and if there is some evidence it needs to be integrated into whatever one's final conclusion is.