Is Objectivism Effective?

[B is B]

First off, a little about myself that may shed some light on my question and this thread: I am deeply familiar with Objectivism and many years ago considered myself a strong follower of a majority of Rand's ideas. However, numerous inconsistencies contained within the philosophy and the "sense of life" of the movement turned me away from becoming an orthodox Objectivist. Ultimately, I consider myself influenced by her work, and the work of her spiritual mentor Aristotle, rather than a hardcore Objectivist due to these contradictions. (I realize that even saying contradictions exist in Objectivism to hard line followers is probably considered "troll bait", and that is why I am unwilling to address or discuss them at this time--please do not ask me to elaborate.) I believe she had many valid ideas, and I'm grateful for what I've learned through them, and think her life was overall a remarkable achievement.

However....

Is Objectivism effective?

When I ask if Objectivism is effective what I mean to say is--how has Objectivism made the world a better place? Because I don't see any kind of impact whatsoever; not culturally, not aesthetically, not intellectually, not morally and not politically. I don't see how Objectivism has been the "antidote" for collectivism, altruism or mysticism as was promised almost 50 years ago by Ayn Rand. Objectivism hasn't, to my estimation, made a dent in any of the three 'big evils' facing us today. Collectivism runs rampant, from the violence of gangs, to the hordes of big business looters taking advantage of 'old boy' networks and political pull, to school shootings (merely a minority collective taking violence upon a larger collective) and so forth. Altruism remains the default and unassailable moral code of the world, alone and uncontested. Mysticism is the primary, and often only, form of cognition practiced by almost everyone you meet.

What has Objectivism done to change this?

I don't see any major players in ANY field of endeavor whatsoever influenced by or espousing Objectivist ideals. Not a single billionaire or innovator comes to mind that points to Ayn Rand and says--"this is where I got my inspiration from!" I see no artists, film makers or musicians espousing Objectivist ideals either. I can think of no scientists or thinkers that are open Objectivists. No politicians or leaders of any national prominence come to mind, although I guess you could go out on a limb and point at a few Libertarians (unless you're a devout Objectivist and recall her opinion of Libertarians, and thus avoid on general principle). If there is some influence out there, mostly among a few conservative authors--whose books are usually carried by only Second Renaissance Press, I'm not seeing much of an impact.

So, to rephrase my question, has Objectivism failed? If not, where's the influence?

From my viewpoint the only thing I see Objectivism producing are more people interested in quoting line and verse of what Ayn Rand said, thought or did. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe if you've been around Objectivist thought for more than a few years you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. (My personal term for these types are Objectivist Sycophants.) What is it about Objectivism that; a.) makes it difficult to be accepted en masse, and b.) what is it about Objectivism that seems to prevent its adherents from their own achievements?

Actually, let me adjust my question into a statement: Objectivism has not succeeded. I think this is beyond argument, one only has to look out at the world around us and the political and economic situations to realize Objectivism is failing miserably. I am very perplexed to why, if her philosophy is so great, has Objectivism failed?

Let's look at it this way:

According to Ayn Rand man is a rational being.

According to Ayn Rand man's only method of cognition and survival is reason.

According to Ayn Rand man acts in their own self-interest for their survival.

According to Ayn Rand Objectivism is the only rational philosophy.

Therefore it should follow that if all the above statements are true Objectivism would be readily adopted by man with arms wide open. Obviously, this isn't happening.

So... honestly, how effective is Objectivism outside of a novel and in the real world?

Edited October 1, 2008 by B is B

[DavidOdden]

(I realize that even saying contradictions exist in Objectivism to hard line followers is probably considered "troll bait", and that is why I am unwilling to address or discuss them at this time--please do not ask me to elaborate.)

I don't think it's just saying this that puts the smell of the troll on you, its your failure to substantiate the accusation, to provide proof of your assertion, that I find the most annoying. Especially since your flip comment is completely unnecessary, and cannot serve any rational end. You might rey by eliminating the pointless distractions, and learn to focus your attention on what you really want to know.

When I ask if Objectivism is effective what I mean to say is--how has Objectivism made the world a better place?

It has had an impact intellectually, by providing a coherent philosophical framework that is founded on facts of reality, especially addressing the often confusing conflict between consciousness and hard reality. Because Objectivism is a philosophy, that is what it is supposed to do, and thus it is quite successful.

Objectivism hasn't, to my estimation, made a dent in any of the three 'big evils' facing us today.

First, you're simply wrong in your estimation, but second, Objectivism is not a political party dedicated to successes in the polls this year, screw the future, so your expectations are also in error. Finally, your question presupposes that the state of political and culturan decay as of 1950 is somehow the bottom line: you fail to consider how much worse things might be if there were no Objectivists combatting these wicked trends.

My general estimation of your estimation is simply that it is an unresearched opinion. I don't know what I would suggest for you if you were really interested in knowing what businessmen or professors have been fundamentally influenced by Rand. For example, in the realm of the rich, have you determined what John Allison's wealth is, to see if he satisfies your demands? How would you be able to determine that some ideas being espoused were specifically Objectivist? The action-goal of Objectivism is to get people to accept and act on Rand's philosophy, and I think your problem is simply not recognizing it when you see it.

[KendallJ]

Actually, let me adjust my question into a statement: Objectivism has not succeeded. I think this is beyond argument, one only has to look out at the world around us and the political and economic situations to realize Objectivism is failing miserably.

Well, what's your standard for success? What other intellectual philosophical movement do you point to that rose to prominence in less than 50 years? Dianetics?

Christianity took 400 years to conquer Rome. Kant took 150 to arguably destroy Germany in the wreckage of WWII.

"failing miserably" ??? relative to what?

Rand has great ideas so... poof! it should just happen like that?

I would suggestion spending some time exposing yourself to the leading Objectivists of the day. You'd have a different perspective.

John Allison, Tara Smith, Alan Goethelff, C. Bradley Thompson, The ARI/ARC, the OAC/AGC, Yaron Brook in Forbes (regularly!), Van Damme Academy, The Objective Standard!!... The list goes on. I'd say you're 10+ yrs from seeing your vision.

Most HS kids now read Atlas. Allison says almost every CEO he talks to has read and admires Atlas (and if you look around you'll find many of them publicly say so).

Edited October 1, 2008 by KendallJ

[KendallJ]

According to Ayn Rand man is a rational being.

According to Ayn Rand man's only method of cognition and survival is reason.

According to Ayn Rand man acts in their own self-interest for their survival.

According to Ayn Rand Objectivism is the only rational philosophy.

Therefore it should follow that if all the above statements are true Objectivism would be readily adopted by man with arms wide open. Obviously, this isn't happening.

This is an intellectually dishonest statement of "according to Ayn Rand".

[adrock3215]

From what I can ascertain from your post, you seem to think that a rational philosophy that rejects the predominant moral code of the last 2000 years will automatically be integrated and accepted by anyone who hears it. In other words: that a truly rational philosophy would be so exact and irrefutable that the simple act of questioning it will cause you to shrivel up and die like the guy who drank from the wrong Holy Grail in one of the Indiana Jones flicks (I think it was The Last Crusade). The problem is that man is a volitional being with the capability of evasion, and he can therefore believe and do whatever he pleases, thank you very much. Simply saying (and even proving) that "Objectivism is the only rational philosophy" does not guarantee its acceptance.

[Marc K.]

(I realize that even saying contradictions exist in Objectivism to hard line followers is probably considered "troll bait", and that is why I am unwilling to address or discuss them at this time--please do not ask me to elaborate.)

Troll bait is exactly what it is but I guess it's my fault for taking the bait. Also, using the word "orthodox" is great bait, well done. But to mention the numerous contradictions and then not at least name them is surely the sign of a troll, as, if you were honest and genuinely interested in answers to your questions, you would want us to answer some of these supposed contradictions. The reason you haven't listed these numerous contradictions is because they don't exist. Existence exists, A is A, and consciousness is conscious.

When I ask if Objectivism is effective what I mean to say is--how has Objectivism made the world a better place? Because I don't see any kind of impact whatsoever; not culturally, not aesthetically, not intellectually, not morally and not politically. I don't see how Objectivism has been the "antidote" for collectivism, altruism or mysticism as was promised almost 50 years ago by Ayn Rand.

You sure are asking a lot of a Philosopy that has only been around for fifty years. Did you think that a culture inculcated with millennia of bad ideas would change over night?

Instead of looking specifically at Objectivism's results (of which there are an ever expanding set) perhaps you should look at the results of the things that Objectivism validates and promotes. Things like Individual Rights, Capitalism, Reason, rationality, self-interest, induction, science, reality.

The results of these ideas are not only responsible for the greatest improvement in man's condition in the history of the world. But their consistent application is responsible for every good man has EVER achieved and their antithesis is responsible for every evil ever visited upon man.

[aequalsa]

I have a small construction business which deals mainly with high end houses. This of course causes me to deal with quite a few wealthier people. (small 'm' millionaires, I'd guess) Philosophy doesn't come up often, but when it does their views are predominantly free market, small government. Further, on at least 4 occasions, I have heard these people claim that Atlas shrugged/Ayn Rand/Objectivism were a major influence on their lives. Of course, they're only millionaires, so they may not qualify for your standards.

Another thing to consider is the enlightenment. It would have been easy to say, so what to Newton and the resurgence of aristotelian thought in 1700 because it really hadn't done much to improve the life of man. 200 years and one industrial revolution later, the case was different. Reason and capitalism, to use Andrew Bernstein's line of reasoning, inherited 1000 years of misery and problems. Objectivism came into existence after 100 years of Kantian and marxian influence to say nothing of the 200 year long christian revival. There's a lot to clean up.

I suspect that maybe you are looking to official Objectivist intellectuals for examples of wealth creation and fame. To this I would suggest that you consider how many famous philosophers there have been in the last 100 years. Sartre? Chomsky? There really aren't many people who change the course of the general philosophical outlook of a society, and when they do, it tends to be generations later.

Something I would be curious to see to combat this consistently reoccurring issue, would be an estimate of the average income and net worth of objectivists as compared to everyone else, separated by age. And another with those who have read and were influenced by Rand. My bet is that it would be higher.

[KevinDW78]

Dianetics?

ROFL - Kendall you just caused a loud burst of laughter to eminate from my office.

Is Objectivism effective?

Yes - in the ONLY context that matters - my own life. Period. 'Nuff said.

[Rearden_Steel]

Yes - in the ONLY context that matters - my own life. Period. 'Nuff said.

Damn, you stole my line!

But on the other side of the coin, from reading your post Objectivism has had a impact on your life. So how can you say it failed. So what do you want, a pony too?

[B is B]

You are stating that Objectivism has only had 50 years--how could it possibly have made a major difference in such a short period of time?

-However, Marxism though took less than 50 years to incite communist revolution in Russia. It took less than 100 to spread to all corners of the globe.

-The deconstructionist theorists of the 60's took less than 30 years to become the default method of literary criticism in the academic world, and influence a majority of our intellectuals.

-Christianity spread to pagan Rome in about 50 years once formerly adopted as state religion.

-Nazism took about 12 years to infect all of Germany. Followers of its principles changed the world forever within 25 years.

-The philosophies of the founding fathers of the USA were achieved within their lifetime.

-Both Plato and Aristotle changed Greek society within their lifetimes.

Anyways, does anyone have an opinion or additional information. Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I fail to see any impact of Objectivism in our politics, our culture, our lives. I'm also wondering if anyone has any ideas for how to move things forward?

[B is B]

But on the other side of the coin, from reading your post Objectivism has had a impact on your life. So how can you say it failed. So what do you want, a pony too?

That's all fine and dandy if you are an island unto yourself. However, we are impacted by the laws, statutes and philosophies of the world, and many of those are antithetical to the principles of Objectivism.

At what point does Objectivism move from impacting individual lives to impacting the world?

Let's face it, what Objectivist doesn't want to rid the world of altruism, collectivism and mysticism? Why haven't we managed to combat it yet? In fact, why haven't we even thrown the first punch?

And ridicule, while snarky and cute to the "in crowd" around here (collectivist much?) may score points, it fails to address any of my basic points. To tell you the truth, attacks on the person--which are VERY popular in Objectivism and Rand's chief mode of argument--reek of intellectual impotence to me. Address the issue and make your points. There is no need to be uncivil even if there is disagreement among principles or premises.

Thank you.

Something I would be curious to see to combat this consistently reoccurring issue, would be an estimate of the average income and net worth of objectivists as compared to everyone else, separated by age. And another with those who have read and were influenced by Rand. My bet is that it would be higher.

That would be interesting to see for a number of different philosophies to see what falls where.

I'm going to put my bets that Protestants have the highest incomes, however. For them making money is a religious experience.

[KendallJ]

I think you're confusing intellectual philosophy with a political movement. If you trace back to the intellectual, philosophical ideas that started them, you'll have to go back farther. In all these cases you treat them as if the societies the particular movements sprung up in were all equal, and "tabula rasa". They were not. They had already been significantly influenced by th ideas of the intellectual philosophies they derive from.

Apples and Oranges

-However, Marxism though took less than 50 years to incite communist revolution in Russia. It took less than 100 to spread to all corners of the globe.

-The deconstructionist theorists of the 60's took less than 30 years to become the default method of literary criticism in the academic world, and influence a majority of our intellectuals.

-Nazism took about 12 years to infect all of Germany. Followers of its principles changed the world forever within 25 years.

These are all offshoots from the same basic philosophical source: Kant. Kant did his work in the late 18th Century. That's 100+ years to the Bolsheviks, 150 years to Hitler, and almost 200 years to nihilism and postmodernism. Peikoff in his book "The Ominous Parallels" does a very nice job of tieing Kant to Hitler. I'd highly suggest it.

-Christianity spread to pagan Rome in about 50 years once formerly adopted as state religion.

Um, I think you have your dates wrong. Christianity became a state religion in Rome in about 300 AD with Emporer Constantine. That's 300 AD, or 300 years after Christ. It may have spread to Pagan Rome earlier, but considering Christians were still being persecuted for decades after Christ, I'm sure you don't want to call being food for lions "progress".

-The philosophies of the founding fathers of the USA were achieved within their lifetime.

The Philosophies of the founding fathers are a direct offshoot of the Enlightenment. All the Founding Fathers gave direct credit to political philosophers like John Locke as having set the stage for their work. Locke's work in turn is based upon much of the progress of the English Constitution through the Renaissance (even all the way back to the Magna Carta). Locke wrote his 2nd Treatise of Govt in 1679. That's almost 100 years before his groundbreaking political ideas were put into practice.

-Both Plato and Aristotle changed Greek society within their lifetimes.

"Changed?" From what to what?

Anyways, does anyone have an opinion or additional information. Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I fail to see any impact of Objectivism in our politics, our culture, our lives. I'm also wondering if anyone has any ideas for how to move things forward?.

Get tied into ARI. They have tons of information about the progress of the culture...

[KendallJ]

And ridicule, while snarky and cute to the "in crowd" around here (collectivist much?) may score points, it fails to address any of my basic points. To tell you the truth, attacks on the person--which are VERY popular in Objectivism and Rand's chief mode of argument--reek of intellectual impotence to me. Address the issue and make your points. There is no need to be uncivil even if there is disagreement among principles or premises.

Hey there Scooter. Considering the amount of "snark" in your first post, is it any wonder you're getting this response?

Anyone trading ideas in a voluntary community like this owes newcomers who appear earnest the benefit of the doubt. Your entry however was questionable. You might like to blame it on our insularness, but I'd suggest that you're earning your responses. We get quacks showing up here all the time who want to pick a fight all the time. They are usually the intellectually impotent ones. Differentiate yourself and you'll find out how rational we really are.

[ers]

However, we are impacted by the laws, statutes and philosophies of the world, and many of those are antithetical to the principles of Objectivism.

I agree with this statement.

My assessment is that people who are objectivists or adhere to objectivist like principles are generally of higher intelligence than the normal populace. That said, people of higher intelligence generally don't take public service jobs in government in lieu of more lucrative occupations that are also intellectually stimulating (engineering, medicine, business, whatever).

So what's left? The mediocre, the corrupt, and the altruists are the ones that end up running our country and making the laws. This is unfortunate. And quite honestly I'm still trying to figure out how to fix it. I can only write so many letters to my socialist representatives in Congress before I want to strangle myself. I wish I had the time and energy to run for some position myself, but I'm too busy *working*.

[~Sophia~]

So... honestly, how effective is Objectivism outside of a novel and in the real world?

Hi B is B,

I would like to understand better what it is that you are trying to say here.

Let me use an analogy. In the last few decades we have made major advances in our understanding of nutrition, metabolism, and healthy lifestyle. Furthermore, with introduction of the internet information has never been so easily and conveniently accessible to a large number of people all over the world. Yet obesity has reached epidemic proportions globally, with more than 1 billion adults overweight - at least 300 million of them clinically obese - it becomming a major contributor to the global burden of chronic disease and disability.

So... honestly, how effective is healthy nutrition and physical exercise in the real world?

-----------

Are you attacking the validity of ideas themselves or complaning about the fact that not enough people recognize their validity or even if they do - don't follow what is right?

[K-Mac]

Damn, you stole my line!

But on the other side of the coin, from reading your post Objectivism has had a impact on your life. So how can you say it failed. So what do you want, a pony too?

You and Kevin stole my thunder too! The fact that Objectivism has changed my life in so many ways for the better is enough for me, but I know I've been able to influence other people around me.

If you need a more specific example, look at FIRM's website or sign up for the O'Activist email list and see what people are getting done. FIRM basically got socialized health care proposals removed from the ballot this year in Colorado. Talk about making a difference! That makes a huge difference in my life and the life of many Coloradoans. In addition, the people who have been doing the hard work over at FIRM are now being asked to speak in other states about what they were able to do here in Colorado. (It's spreading!)

You may also want to check out the free video lectures at ARI called, "Cultural Movements: Creating Change" (About half way down the page.) Are you doing your part??

And finally, I suggest you read Antislavery Political Writings, 1833-1860: A Reader so you can see how a small movement (the abolitionists) can effect large scale philosophical change in a relatively short time.

Seriously, just because you are not looking for Objectivist ideas out there, doesn't mean they're not there. And if you're not doing your part to spread the philosophy you claim to agree with, you have no one else to criticize or ask more of.

[RationalBiker]

And ridicule, while snarky and cute to the "in crowd" around here (collectivist much?) may score points, it fails to address any of my basic points. To tell you the truth, attacks on the person--which are VERY popular in Objectivism and Rand's chief mode of argument--reek of intellectual impotence to me.

...turned me away from becoming an orthodox Objectivist.

...rather than a hardcore Objectivist

I realize that even saying contradictions exist in Objectivism to hard line followers...

From my viewpoint the only thing I see Objectivism producing are more people interested in quoting line and verse of what Ayn Rand said, thought or did.

My personal term for these types are Objectivist Sycophants

You give snark, you get snark. Rather than walking into a stranger's house and taking a crap on their living room floor, why don't you come in and introduce yourself in a polite manner with intelligent exchanges rather than by displaying the 'intellectual impotence' to which you so strongly object.

[B is B]

I think you're confusing intellectual philosophy with a political movement. If you trace back to the intellectual, philosophical ideas that started them, you'll have to go back farther. In all these cases you treat them as if the societies the particular movements sprung up in were all equal, and "tabula rasa". They were not. They had already been significantly influenced by th ideas of the intellectual philosophies they derive from.

All philosophies of note eventually resonates into the political arena in one form or another. Objectivism, with its clear political implications stemming from its value systems of ethics and morality, is a perfect candidate for political action.

Apples and apples.

These are all offshoots from the same basic philosophical source: Kant. Kant did his work in the late 18th Century. That's 100+ years to the Bolsheviks, 150 years to Hitler, and almost 200 years to nihilism and postmodernism. Peikoff in his book "The Ominous Parallels" does a very nice job of tieing Kant to Hitler. I'd highly suggest it.

While ideas do influence other ideas, I think that Rand employed a number of fallacies in her "Kantian construction" which is taken as holy scripture by Objectivists. For one, it is reductionist and over simplified, and fails to take into account the polar opposites of the different philosophers; one cannot make an argument by selectively choosing what points to pay attention to and ignore when making these types of claims. Secondly, she employs a "slippery slope" logical fallacy correlating the ideas of Kant (and before him--Plato) to the ideas of other thinkers. Ultimately, it cannot be definitively proven who influenced who unless the author specifically states their influence on their work--to do so is fallacious and complete supposition, which makes for flimsy arguments. Finally, while I am certainly no Kantian by any stretch, much of his explicit meaning is improperly quoted out of context and then used by Rand to create her ponderous construct.

I have read "The Ominous Parallels." I have owned it since 1991. While much of the premises are true, I think that Hitlers intellectual development is vastly simplified in the work. Hitler was *NO* intellectual by any means, most of his ideas originated from racist pamphlets he collected in Vienna, Wagnerian opera librettos, and western novels. To suggest a DIRECT link is absurd--Hitler never read Kant, nor Hegel, nor Schopenauer, nor Nietzsche or any of the 19th century German thinkers. Sure, the ideas were floating around in Germany but the personal philosophy of Adolph Hitler was unique to the man, and a collection of his particular passions, lack of education and quirks. In no way was Hitler indicative of the typical German philosophy--he represented the fringe elements.

So no, I'm not convinced that Kant is the root of all evil. While fun to quote, and easy to understand for the beginner, to put the entire blame for the corruption of western society on a single man is laughable. Tenets of collectivism, altruism and mysticism permeate the work of the founding fathers--it was in the culture, it always was in the culture. There wasn't a "stab in the back" of reason by Kant at the eleventh hour when rationality was about to win over mysticism. That's just a fable invented by Rand.

Um, I think you have your dates wrong. Christianity became a state religion in Rome in about 300 AD with Emporer Constantine. That's 300 AD, or 300 years after Christ. It may have spread to Pagan Rome earlier, but considering Christians were still being persecuted for decades after Christ, I'm sure you don't want to call being food for lions "progress".

I'm saying after it was adopted by the state by Constantine, but I'll concede on this as the ideas had been floating around for some time prior to this.

Get tied into ARI. They have tons of information about the progress of the culture...

I had some contact with ARI in the 90's but I felt they were too cultish for my tastes. Sorry, but that's how they struck me. It was like talking to a bunch of Scientologists.

[KevinDW78]

Ultimately, it cannot be definitively proven who influenced who unless the author specifically states their influence on their work

Hitler never read Kant, nor Hegel, nor Schopenauer, nor Nietzsche or any of the 19th century German thinkers

I believe you contradicted yourself within the same post.

Also, your claim that Kant is "easy to understand for the beginner" made me laugh out loud.

Edited October 1, 2008 by KevinDW78

[B is B]

You give snark, you get snark. Rather than walking into a stranger's house and taking a crap on their living room floor, why don't you come in and introduce yourself in a polite manner with intelligent exchanges rather than by displaying the 'intellectual impotence' to which you so strongly object.

So, stating that I am not a hardcore, orthodox Objectivist but am familiar with its ideas, is equivalent to "walking into a stranger's house and taking a crap on the living room floor?"

Wow. And to top it off, more name calling.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I'm gathering--if I don't believe every last sentence of Objectivist thought I am "morally bankrupt." If I ask questions about Objectivism that could have a negative implication I am "intellectually impotent."

Do you realize that this is the exact manner in which the most devout mystic defends their religion? Don't deal with inquiries--label them with an insulting name to undermine their credibility. Don't allow anyone to question the dogma--brand them as immoral imbeciles, or say they "don't understand" the real meaning. I want to know--when you use the same techniques to evade inquiry as a mystic, altruist or collectivist--what makes you superior to them?

I'm sorry, but admittance to your little group isn't worth sacrificing my own value judgements. I'd think, as Objectivists you'd understand that implicitly if not explicitly.

Edited October 1, 2008 by B is B

[B is B]

Also, your claim that Kant is "easy to understand for the beginner" made me laugh out loud.

Perhaps I didn't explain it well, my point is that Ayn Rand's stance on Kant is very easy for a beginning Objectivist to understand. She puts Kant on a pedestal and labels him "Satan"--the archenemy of reason and destroyer of western civilization due to his sacrifice of reason to mysticism, and subjugation of morals to altruism. Within the same stroke, she puts Aristotle on another pedestal, labels him "Savior" and thus sets up a simple to understand duality and dichotomy which is treated as uncontested truth by all students of Objectivism.

Very simple to understand. Very dramatic. It's almost like a novel (coincidence isn't it?).

That's my point. Sorry if I didn't explain it clearly.

[adrock3215]

Perhaps I didn't explain it well, my point is that Ayn Rand's stance on Kant is very easy for a beginning Objectivist to understand. She puts Kant on a pedestal and labels him "Satan"--the archenemy of reason and destroyer of western civilization due to his sacrifice of reason to mysticism, and subjugation of morals to altruism. Within the same stroke, she puts Aristotle on another pedestal, labels him "Savior" and thus sets up a simple to understand duality and dichotomy which is treated as uncontested truth by all students of Objectivism.

Very simple to understand. Very dramatic. It's almost like a novel (coincidence isn't it?).

That's my point. Sorry if I didn't explain it clearly.

I'm not sure this is entirely true. You are doing the very thing to Rand that you accuse her of doing to Kant and Aristotle. While I do agree with you that at some points Rand tends to oversimplify Kant, I don't disagree with her fundamental rejection of him (and likewise, her fundamental acceptance of Aristotle).

[01503]

She puts Kant on a pedestal and labels him "Satan"--the archenemy of reason and destroyer of western civilization due to his sacrifice of reason to mysticism, and subjugation of morals to altruism. Within the same stroke, she puts Aristotle on another pedestal, labels him "Savior" and thus sets up a simple to understand duality and dichotomy which is treated as uncontested truth by all students of Objectivism.

I do not know about you, but I did not perceive it that way when I first read Rand (Atlas Shrugged, 4 months ago), and I am fairly certain that most Objectivists don't. I do not know where you are getting your view of "hardcore Objectivism" or "dogma" or whatever you may call it, but it all seems very silly to me, and to most on this forum.

[Tenure]

I like how you're able to label, 'all students of Objectivism' with any brush you want, B is B.

[KendallJ]

holy scripture

reductionist

over simplified

fallacious and complete supposition

flimsy

ponderous

absurd

fun to quote

easy to understand for the beginner

laughable

fable invented by Rand.

too cultish for my tastes. Sorry

like talking to a bunch of Scientologists.

Honestly, B is B, you expect me to believe that you like and in some way are inspired by Rand? If you really are truly speaking in earnest, then you are quite guilty of your own assertions about the orthodoxy.

Maybe you're a nice guy, but I find your tone quite too negative, and your condescention stunning.

You are earning your responses. Blaming others for them is really out there.

I'm really done with this. I've had friendlier conversations with poeple who I disagreed with far, far more than you.