James I

Tenure and Brian, you could try reading Che's actual diaries. The first one is entitled "The Motorcycle Diaries" in which a young Che takes a trip around South America with a friend and starts to form his radical views. The other one is "Bolivian Diary" which records his final doomed campaign in the jungles of Bolivia. I believe there is also something about his time in Africa as well. The only one of those I've read is 'The Motorcycle Diaries' and I remember it being an enjoyable read.

Good advice. I'm sure Rand said something on this but I can't remember where. Something about how dropping your principles only to pick them up again when it suits you undermines those principles.

I didn't know that Objectivism preceded 'rightist' libertarianism, so that answers my question. I was confused as to why Rand seemed to say: "Never mind Nietzsche's definition of egoism, my definition is correct" but didn't go on to say: "Never mind Rothbard's definition of libertarian, my definition is correct". So egoism existed before Rand, but libertarian came into use after her philosophy and the man who used it in the modern sense actively plagiarised Rand. I also thought that the word 'libertarian' seemed be more fitting for a social and an economic system whereas capitalism seems like only economics. I remember reading somewhere that Branden brought up the word 'libertarian' to Rand earlier for that reason but she dismissed it as sounding silly and made up. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up for me, but since I don't know what I'm talking about I'll go and read some more.

If we do not use the word 'libertarian' to describe our political beliefs on account of it being used by people like Rothbard, then why do we use the word 'egoism' to describe our ethical beliefs despite it being used by people like Nietzsche? I accept that a man can't really be an egoist if he sacrifices others to himself but then, he can't be a supporter of liberty (which I assume is where the word 'libertarian' comes from) if he promotes anarchism. In Marx and Engel's 'Communist Manifesto' they attacked various forms of communism and reclaimed the word for themselves, couldn't Rand have done this for libertarianism?

Yet Communism was a more consistent form of altruism and (to paraphrase Rand) the most consistent form of an idea wins. Objectivism is even more radical than Communism because it seeks to overturn millennia of altruism, so my guess is that our revolution will take longer than the other two events mentioned in this topic. How much longer? I don't know.

I went through the same thing as you in regards to music and pirated DVDs; now I use iTunes and Blockbuster and I have gotten used to it. The difference is that I no longer get the tense feeling of guilt that came with knowingly acting against my principles. However, I am socially anxious and I find conflict difficult to handle, so when I first started buying those things legitimately I found it hard to explain my reasons to people of a cynical, concrete-bound mentality and I'd become flustered, embarrassed and fearful of the idea that other people might find me arrogant or whatever. Whenever I'd back down in conversations over this issue it felt degrading to my integrity but when I overcame it I felt even better than when I gave up the habit of theft itself!

Is it true that libertarians like Rothbard and Friedman plagiarised Rand's ideas? I am ignorant on this subject so I don't know what parts of capitalism Rand thought up and which she didn't. I thought that most capitalist ideology came from classical liberalism.

Ain't no such thing as a free lunch! Farming equipment, generators and computers don't grow on trees! And men don't usually work for free either unless they value something more than money, or they are coerced to do so. Historically the latter has been more common than the former.

Hi Nicole and welcome! What are you studying at college?

I'm not sure about Ireland but there is an Objectivist group just across the water in the UK: http://www.ukoa.org/ I subscribe to their Yahoo group mailing list and it's excellent, I highly recommend it.

See episode 38 of Leonard Peikoff's podcast for more info on this; a questioner wrote in asking about a perceived bias against blue collar workers among Objectivists. As I understand it a person can be on an equal moral footing with John Galt as long as they live rationally.

Currently reading "Objectivism in One Lesson" by Andrew Bernstein After that I've got: "The Naked Jape" by Jimmy Carr "Getting Things Done" by David Allen "Precision Nutrition" by John M. Berardi ITOE and OPAR Incidentally I've noticed that a few of you read more than one book at the same time. Do you find that it's more beneficial that way and if so why?

I may do that in the future, but to be honest I find talking about this sort of thing embarrassing even though I know there’s no reason to. I’ve got an action plan which involves reading more about Objectivism and psychology and then putting what I’ve learned into action; and this working for me at the moment, and this should at least give me the confidence to seek help if I need to. My mistake. I read a little of that thread and I’m surprised how some people will spend so much time, money and effort to be assholes. I meant Objectivist virtues like Rationality and its derivatives. For example, I work hard where before I was lazy (Productiveness); I’m more open about myself and what I think (Honesty); I try not to evade and rationalise my errors and those of others, and to address them (Justice). All of which I know to be for my own good from experience. I believe that my self-esteem is low because of my upbringing. I, and I guess most people, could talk for hours about how their parents and school screwed them up, but in essence I learned that evasion was the only way to cope with life in an unknowable world where everyone seemed to know what they were doing except me. Obviously reason is man’s means of survival and evasion is not, so it was logical that I felt more “I’m a stranger and afraid in a world I never made” rather than “I am the master of my fate, the captain of my soul”. I developed social anxiety (see Wikipedia for details) as a result of these bad assumptions and negative underlying beliefs. I used ‘safety behaviours’ to avoid things and was very self-conscious, nervous and shy. I didn’t have confidence in my ability or my worth as a person despite what people told me and evidence to the contrary. I’m happy to say that I’ve broken most of those vicious circles and I have relatively higher self-esteem. Anyway, before I go completely off topic, I think that my attraction to mindless sluts (for want of a better term) and inability to value women I see as good is a symptom of this lack of self-worth. That’s a good point and I’ll certainly think about it. I think I may take Thomas’s advice on seeing a therapist after all because I feel out of my depth in this area! On the other hand maybe I just need to relax and get more experience with dating to see what my ‘type’ is! Thanks once again for your input and kind words. I’m tired from all this introspection but I’m feeling a little wiser and clear now. As you said Ifatart, introspection is good, but sometimes without a fresh perspective it's easy to go around in circles.

Yes, I can think of a few times when I was shocked that a girl I admired and thought of as good would tell me about her love life. I also believe that being raised in an environment where sex was either not mentioned or seen as dirty made me believe that it is something immoral, but that being dirty was a guilty pleasure which normal people should enjoy because (altruist) morality is impossible and indulging in your whims through binge drinking and indiscriminate sex is the only alternative. Because they were ‘easy’ and I had low self-esteem I thought that they wouldn’t judge me as a good woman would. For the record I haven’t had sex with such a woman, it’s just the desire that bothers me. Yes to the former question and no to the latter. I think I am gaining in self-esteem but on an implicit level I’m not there yet. Right now I’m attracted to a woman who I admire and hugely respect for her virtues but when it comes to sex I don’t get aroused by this- I think the fact that I just don’t feel worthy of her really hits the nail on the head. Either that or an automatised thought that sex with ‘good girls’ is boring and you need to brake the rules to have fun. I think you are right on this point 4reason and it ties in with what I said above about sex being a guilty pleasure. I know of otherwise good people believe this and fall into the trap of one drinking to excess and one night stands. I think so too but the annoying thing which prompted this topic is that I do dislike these women consciously while valuing good women consciously, but my body isn’t following suit! I’ll keep integrating my principles into my life- truthfully I’ve studied Oism for a while but haven’t really expressed my opinions outside of a small circle of friends and family; but I’ll begin to be more assertive about my beliefs which will give them power. Although, I don’t want to preach things I haven’t fully integrated either and turn into some kind of Branden character. I’m not so good at talking to women either, I mean I am if I let myself relax but I tend to let my social phobia take over and tell me that I’ll never succeed. Before I found Objectivism I absorbed what I knew about relationships from my parents; my mother a very kind but submissive type, and my father a hard working but also hard drinking dominant type. I was a real asshole to my first serious girlfriend but she wasn’t as submissive as my mother and made me realise what an insecure and sad person I really was, and a lot of bitterness between us followed. After that I believed I was inherently bad because of my upbringing and bad character traits I’d inherited from my father. Thank you for your input guys, I will take it on board. I feel a kind of catharsis from expressing my thoughts and feelings.

A person of low self-esteem is attracted to similar people, but if such a person raises their self-esteem by living virtuously will they cease to be attracted to mindless sluts and start to feel sexual attraction to good people? The reason I ask is that I feel split down the middle; I feel an inconvenient lust for women with bad characters and while I recognise, admire and desire a good woman I just don't feel the sexual passion. I think that deep down I still don't feel worthy of a good woman and maybe there's less risk involved with a lesser one. Is it as simple as: live ethically and your emotions will change accordingly? Or are there psychological factors I need to study? I believe that Nathaniel Branden has done some work in this area. I'd appreciate your advice on this.

Thanks LovesLife, any false impressions I have picked up from watching "Flight of the Conchords" have been corrected!

Try conducting small experiments by talking to your co-workers/fellow students to find out more about them; imagine yourself as a curious scientist if it helps you. Most people may not be particularly intelligent, rational or consistently ethical but they might well be interesting, possessing common sense and benevolent. Your chances of finding your very own John Galt or James I will be greatly increased this way. Also have a look at Dan Edge's 'Benevolent People Premise' article.

I was a communist and after I lost 'faith' I became a 'moderate' socialist until I read the Virtue of Selfishness. I was also always an implicit nihilist, and political movements seemed to offer the chance of rebellion against corruption and the creation of a better world. I fell into socialism because it seemed to be consistent with what I saw as the good, and also because it is impossible to maintain a nihilist state of mind permanently. I didn't question the standard of the good until I read Ayn Rand.

I have social anxiety and a lot of what you have written is familiar to me, have you considered that you may have a social phobia? I can recommend to you a self-help book called "Overcoming Social Anxiety and Shyness" by Gillian Butler. This book has helped me change my thinking, my behaviour and reduce my self-consciousness, it has also taught me how to be more assertive and how to relax more. I am by no means out of the woods yet but at least I know the way out now. I recommend looking on Amazon for this book and using the 'look inside' function to browse the contents. In the meantime you mustn't think that your state of mind is permanent because if you do have social anxiety then you will be looking at the world as if through distorted glass; your assumptions and underlying beliefs will give you a negative outlook that will colour your thoughts and feelings.

Coincidentally I watched this film last night. I tried to be objective and give it a bias-free, fair hearing; and having not read either the books by the Brandens or Valiant I can't comment on the situation in depth. The film portrays Rand as a second handed emotional tyrant with a messiah complex; she is shown as the opposite of everything she has ever written. I do not believe this version of events for a few reasons: if you compare interviews and lectures given by Rand in the film to the actual interviews and lectures you can tell that the character in the film is twisted and exaggerated. Also, in the film all of the main characters are shown as hugely repressed cultists but in my experience I haven't encountered this sort of mentality often in Objectivists. No one understands Rand's philosophy better than Leonard Peikoff; yet if you listen to his podcast you will find no trace of this kind of stereotypical 'Randroid' rhetoric and emotional repression. I'm not sure about things like the morality of Rand and Branden's affair and the extent of the 'Randroid' mentality in the early Objectivist movement before it was fully developed and able to be communicated correctly, butl given my understanding of Objectivism so far I feel safe in saying that the majority of this film is not true.

It's Remembrance Day or Veteran's Day when we honour the people (military and civilian) who have died in wars; it is for all wars but especially World War I. It's quite a big deal here in Britain; we hold memorial ceremonies and the entire country observes a two minute silence.

That's true. Perhaps I misunderstood what the author of the article is getting at and judged her method to be better than it actually is. I agree with this line: "Feelings follow actions. If I’m feeling low, I deliberately act cheery, and I find myself actually feeling happier." But you are right in saying that it is only really effective in the context of a rational philosophy, and it isn't very helpful without knowing more about psychology either. The other thing she says is rubbish though: "If I’m feeling angry at someone, I do something thoughtful for her and my feelings toward her soften." That's a good recommendation.

"Faking it" or "Behaving 'as if'" is actually a technique in cognitive behavioural therapy. If you have picked up false negative assumptions and underlying beliefs which form the framework of your thinking then your behaviour and emotions will also be negative and wrong. Basically, the theory is that if you change your thinking to ignore these false assumptions and also change your behaviour to be more confident and productive then your emotions will also change. I understand that you could think of this as repression but in my experience dwelling on these negative emotions is useless and does nothing to break the vicious cycles that underlie them. That's not to say that you ride roughshod over the emotions and don't identify them; you have to know what you are doing wrong before you can begin to know what to do right. At least that is my understanding of it from reading 'Overcoming Social Anxiety and Shyness' by Gillian Butler.

QI has brought out a great book of quotations called "Advanced Banter". In the section on 'Architecture' there is a quote by Ayn Rand: "A building has integrity just like a man. And just as seldom." She is described as 'Controversial Russian-born US philosopher and novelist, whose books continue to sell in their hundreds of thousands and whose philosophical creed of Objectivism has influenced people as diverse as Alan Greenspan, Hugh Hefner and Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia.' It's exciting to see Oism becoming more recognised and in a British book no less! Edit: She is also quoted in the section on 'Personality': "He liked to observe emotions; they were like red lanterns strung along the dark unknown of another's personality, marking vulnerable points."

I'd like to highlight a good point: If you hate Obama you can do him more harm by starting your business and earning $250,000 because only a small percentage of that will be taken away in tax whereas you could donate upwards of $200,000 per year to pro-liberty groups. Logically the government would lose more than it gains, and you would also gain more than you lose in terms of money, purpose and happiness. Problem solved!