Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mb121

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

1394 profile views
  1. Because I'm arguing (among other things) that the act of raising a family leads to the expression of much of our communalistic nature.
  2. Sure, but I'm not even going that far. Objectivism's metaphysical understanding of man is wrong.
  3. Yup. I'm 21 years old and a former first place winner of "The Fountainhead Essay Contest." I'm a student at Yale University and know several people who placed close behind me also attending Ivy League Universities. We are all former Objectivists because Objectivism denies that man is a political animal. I also know several adults (some professors) who subscribed to Randian Oism when they were much younger. When talking about the appeal of a philosophy I won't hesitate for a moment to draw on statistics. Youngsters, like myself, have never had to raise children or take family consid
  4. I have met my fair share of Objectivists, and I should say 90% of them are "former" Objectivists mostly under under the age of 25. These include winners of the Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged essay contests. Of course, that's not to say there aren't older Objectivists. But the fact that Objectivism's major following tends to be youngsters who haven't yet had families might tell you something about its appeal.
  5. Perhaps this is why Objectivism is laughed out of almost all serious philosophical discussions in places like Ivy League Universities. In highly educated circles, most people have heard of (and even read) Rand's major works. But the general dismissive attitude of all anti-Objectivist sentiment as "unsubstantiated" or "anti-reason" (usually without much explanation) is almost laughable.
  6. You. Me. Everyone who reads this post. "We" is a linguistic device which communicates the summation of individuals. Objectivists love to pretend that "we" must signify the belief that people who use the word must think that humans are some singular, communalistic blob of an entity. Obviously that is not what is being conveyed. Stop being rhetorically dramatic and answer the criticism. This is a fair request. Here's a start: Maslow's hierarchy of needs (which has acually been around since I believe the 40's). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs Althou
  7. Critique: Objectivism attempts to create a philosophy around the nature of a rational being, but not man qua man. IE, man isn't just a rational being. Modern academia suggests that man: - needs to feel that he belongs in a community - needs to feel differentiated in some way within his community. Of course, man could suppress the above necessities but he would suffer the psychological and biological consequences. Objectivism tries to deny these elements of man's nature because it aesthetically prefers to focus on his rational faculties; however, this criticism contends that man isn
  8. Very interesting discussion so far. I have a few things to add. 1) I have read many objectivist attempts to justify child rights (and for that matter the rights of the mentally handicapped). They mostly rely on the "potential" for rationality which is a very vague standard. There are also objectivists who flat out deny that children have rights, instead replacing them pseudo-rights (again on the standard for potential rationality). Do I really have to point out why this is silly? 2) Child-rearing is a fulfilling experience for you. For that I am glad. But I just want to note (alt
  9. I've read my OPAR and have a somewhat-decent-understanding of objectivism. I was not criticizing objecting though, only the broader enlightenment heading which Objectivism is definitely nestled under. You might be slightly annoyed that I nestled Objectivism as just some school under the enlightenment. Traditionalists tend to do that (look philosophies in a broader sense) to find their historical context. To review, here is what a traditionalist reacts against: 1) Man has rights. Traditioanlists think that men have conditions under which they flourish, but nothing like Lockean r
  10. You just used Wikipedia? really? lol. How about Merriam-Webster. But really owning you in some definition war isn't the point. The point is that the connotation and the general meaning that the word "meritocracy" brings to mind (caused by enlightenment influence) is based on false principles of human nature.
  11. This was unnecessary. Exceptions don't prove rules, and you basically agreed with my point that aristocracy and meritocracy are the same in literal terms. Tell me though, would you rather us randomly pick a human being and place him in a position of power, or randomly pick a human being from an esteemed background and family? Fortunately this is not how the world works, but the point is that culture and upbringing mean a lot and classical enlightenment impulses make us want to ignore this. Most of the time you'll hear left-liberals nagging about this to advance their socialism, it's no
  12. I will have to critique you on this one. Family and especially background do matter, almost more than pure genetics. The way we develop when we are young depends almost entirely on how much our parents/elders stimulate us. For example, I am now ~20 years old and therefore am almost incapable of ever becoming 100% fluent in Chinese. If, however, my parents taught me Chinese when I was younger I could be fluent easily in both English and Chinese. This is one tiny example, but think of how this vibrates to nearly every part of us. What you advocated was therefore not a "pure" definition of
  13. As a stereotype, consider them to be intellectual conservatives (esp. found at Ivy League universities). They reject the enlightenment as a huge, rationalistic movement that has no bearing on man's true nature. In fact, most of what they accept you can think as a reaction to the specifics of Lockean enlightenment principles: 1) "Man" never existed in the state of nature. This is bullshit. Man has always existed within the context of a community because that is how man survives and (most importantly) thrives. Enlightenment-based philosophy (ie, objectivism) emphasises man as a victim
  14. I'm biased from the start to agree with the concept, since it ostentatiously is part of the wonderful English/American tradition of capitalism. I'm just curious (before I get invested in the idea too much) that it checks out morally. The connotation of "collective person" does raise some suspicion. I think as long as it is understood by lawyers, judges, and the parties involved that it is merely a legal term that signifies the umbrella of consenting individuals it is OK (not just OK, excellent). Is my reasoning correct here? PS - This is related to my interest in becoming a commer
  • Create New...