xavier

I've watched a number of stefbot's videos. He is insane. Why don't you watch

Someone already mention the Ayn Rand Lexicon, but here's the direct link to Libertarianism: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libertarians.html I think it is a mistake to say: "Most Libertarians are anti-philosophical anarchists, but I'm a Libertarian who defends capitalism on rational grounds. Therefore, when you call Libertarians anarchists, you are being collectivist and over-generalizing." In my view, a group, movement, party, etc. should be judged on its core, driving philosophy, not on the view of any one person who claims to be part of that group. Christianity is evil and rotten, but this does not mean that every self-described Christian is necessary evil and rotten. They may simply be mistaken. Yet it is correct to condemn Christianity as evil, and, on this topic, more importantly, to dis-associate yourself from Christianity. If you understand Christianity to be evil, yet try to reform it or otherwise continue to be associated with it, this itself is evil. The core, driving philosophy of Libertarianism is anarchy and anti-philosophy. This is my observation, and I also think this is the Objectivist position. I think this is the conclusion you reach if you look at the Libertarian movement, its statements of all its political and philosophic leaders, its stated goals, its actions, etc. Edit: Noodlefood has a good article on anarchy: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2005/12/epi...al-anarchy.html

Atheism: The Case Against God by George Smith is a good one. From what I remember, it is consistent with Objectivism, and focuses on logic and reason, and smashes any credibility theism has. I haven't read The God Delusion, so I can't compare them. George Smith also wrote a book called Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies. Any one know if this book is any good? http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against...TF8&s=books http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Ayn-Rand-Oth...TF8&s=books In any case, it's good to see a prominent scientist advocate reason, because it is so rare.

The first couple of times I read Dr. Peikoff's statement, my position was similar to yours. I thought he made a blunder and that some of the posts here were suspicious. But after a few days of thinking and discussing with a friend, I think that my position may have been due to all kinds of weird assumptions regarding Peikoff's intent and audience, and probably many other assumptions that might not be appropriate to discuss publicly, and that Kendall and Inspector's positions might be correct, generally. Hope that helps. I'm also like you in that I don't call myself an Objectivist (I haven't finished reading all of Ayn Rand's books.)

Is Peikoff saying that anyone who votes Republican, or does not vote, is automatically not an Objectivist? It seems like it's some kind of ad hominem or argument from intimidation. It's like he's abusing his position as the "world's foremost authority on Ayn Rand's philosophy," which I had agreed with, until I read this - now I'm not so sure. It's one thing for prominent Objectivists to disagree on complex, top-level issues like voting. But this seems to be something else altogether. Does anyone interpret that paragraph differently?

In 1776, there was a major political and philosophical revolution, and I don't think that is anything like Athem's world. I think Athem's world is meant as a possible future, if our intellectuals continue to advocate irrational ideas.

My understanding is as follows: If someone comes up to you and raises his fist and looks at you like he wants to punch you, it's appropriate to take action to defend yourself. When a country that declares itself an enemy of the United States starts developing nuclear technology, it may be right to stop it by force. The threat needs to be plausible and yes, objective.

Edwin Locke describes "a conclusive test of a chimp's conceptual ability" on page seven of his article: http://www.fireflysun.com/ObjectivistPersp...nPsychology.pdf "...Make a large pile of geometric objects differing in size, ... color, ...and shape...ask the chimp to bring the experimenter ten green triangles..." (I can't copy and paste) Edit: quote

Objectivism turned me from a whiny mystic into a productive engineer. Humorous exaggeration aside, Objectivism helped me become myself more. It catapulted my life forward by saving me years or decades of confusion and intellectual torment. It's the benefit of specialization of labor. For example, I had figured out the question of the existence of god on my own, without Objectivism, but I don't think I could have figured out the concept of the sanction of the victim on my own. As a result of Objectivism, I ended an unhealthy relationship (where I was a victim by my consent) and am much better off as a result. Without Objectivism, I would have stayed in the relationship much longer, and would not have the moral certainty when I finally would end it.

I see your point, but smiling is just plain fun.

Yeah. Apparently I'm not good-looking enough to get a smile from you. Just kidding.

Me in Chicago, July 4th this year. Taste of Chicago was interesting and the fireworks were great.

Hi Elysium, In short, this does not undercut Rand's philosophy; rather, it reinforces it. A producer does not need the approval of another, but can still enjoy the respect of someone worthy, as an exchange of value. A looter needs approval, and wants something for nothing. In fact, it is only the producer that can understand and enjoy this recognition. I'm sure others here can add a lot more and explain better.

Don't sanction your enemies. You can work with irrational people without supporting their irrationality. For example, your co-worker is religious, and you think that is evil. If value of religion ever comes up in an open forum, don't give implicit assent by silence: politely mention that it is possible to have virtues without religion. If they are interested, explain, if not, that single comment is enough.

Aside from promoting a philosophy such as Objectivism, there is not much you can do, unless you want to go live alone in the forest or deserted island or something. Could you elaborate? If you mean people can't see the good in you, then it's their loss, not yours, since you would not get much out of working with them anyways.