Is Objectivism Effective?

[B is B]

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.

I've read Rand for over 17 years. I own ALL of her works and collections, and most of the Objectivist "canon." Once you get past the novels you'll see what I'm talking about.

[RationalBiker]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I'm gathering--

Okay, you are wrong. I'm not addressing your beliefs or your value judgments, I'm addressing the tone in which entered the conversation(s) and the continued attempts to misdirect criticism of your attitude into some false representation that we expect you to accept ideas lockstep. You quit with the insulting commentary on Objectivists (but continue to believe whatever you want) and you might find a more engaging audience to your ideas. No one's asking you to sacrifice anything, just drop the insulting attitude. Additionally, it would be prudent for you to read the rules of this website before you continue in such manner.

Edited October 1, 2008 by RationalBiker

[B is B]

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.

That's a good excuse to not deal with questions you have no answers for.

[01503]

I've read Rand for over 17 years. I own ALL of her works and collections, and most of the Objectivist "canon." Once you get past the novels you'll see what I'm talking about.

I also own most of her works. I have read The Virtue of Selfishness, For the New Intellectual, and the Voice of Reason.

Don't assume that because I read one of her novels first, that I do not read her non-fiction.

[~Sophia~]

That's a good excuse to not deal with questions you have no answers for.

It is not an excuse. Kendall is more than able to answer your questions. His (and others) lack of response is the result of your tone.

[K-Mac]

That's a good excuse to not deal with questions you have no answers for.

Alright, I guess that confirms our suspicion that this guy is a troll.

[KevinDW78]

Alright, I guess that confirms our suspicion that this guy is a troll.

Yes... but.... "SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET IS WRONG!!!"

[K-Mac]

http://xkcd.com/386/

[Plasmatic]

B is B, can you name any of the positive changes in any culture that weren't a result of the application of reason? Or employed the the fundamental principles of logic Aristotle was the first to explicate and Rand expounded on? Bottom line is ALL of the things Objectivism calls "positive" required exactly what Objectivism says reality dictates in order to pursue life as such. Even the deepest altruist or collectivist must obey the 3 axioms to exist,and must apply reason to remain alive. Why? because "reality to be commanded must be obeyed"[bacon] Rand simply pointed to reality and identified it for what it/we are.

Conversely do you refute that all of the decay and disaster cultures have visited upon themselves were no the very things Aristotle and Rand repudiated. [the parts in Aristotle Objectivism upholds]

You say Rand "oversimplifies" Kant. So what if she did! Did what she say his metaphysics and epistemology meant miss the mark? Does not the acceptance of his and Plato's philosophy lead to exactly the results Rand pointed to? These are the things you at root must repudiate if you are to claim what you have.

So how does Kant's and Plato's philosophy not reflect/ lead to the evils Rand claimed?

What Progress was made without the use of reason?

What exist that does not obey the axioms?

[Jackethan]

How has Objectivism changed the world? It is not the responsibility of an Objectivist to change the world, while it is in our interest to persuade others to follow our philosophy, and try to move the country toward Objectivism, the very core of the philosophy tells us that we are not responsible for doing such. In effect, one of the basic ideas of Atlas Shrugged is that if you leave them alone, the collectivists, nihilists, Kantians, and others will destroy themselves. Saying 'How has the world benefitted from Objectivism' is a non-issue, as the point of Objectivism was not to improve the world, but to improve the modern intellectual. I am improved by it, others here are improved by it. Another of the truths of the philosophy is that you cannot morally force another human being to do something. We believe in causality most definitely, and to be honest, if left to their own machinations, without the power of those willing to produce and sacrifice, the collectivists will fall on their asses in a very real sense, and at that point we may be there to pick up the pieces and forge our world as we see fit.

B is B did not ask for a debate on his understanding of Objectivism. But your question implies that you haven't quite made the connection yet. Yes, I am sickened, disheartened, and angry at the amount of people in modern society who reject Objectivism outright, but that does not measure its effectiveness as a philosophy. It is effective in that all day long I can languish happily doing everything I can to remain productive without contributing to the non-productive and have a completely happy conscience about it. It is effective in that I may find myself happy at any time because I have realized that being happy does not include a requirement of feeling guilty. Objectivism would be just as effective if Rand had never happened, and creators, movers, and industrialists continued to progress unknowingly using the philosophy, as many had before, and many still do.

In effect what good came out of Objectivism? You, me, this forum, all the people who post in it, and anybody who reads it. Anyone who read and understood the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and there are some.

Now, if you are trying to say that Objectivists should take a more active role, form a political party, and attempt to effect widespread change to the U.S. then cool, I'm all for it. Let's talk about it, figure it out, work together, brainstorm. If you have questions about the philosophy, see contradictions in it, bring it to the forums, as Peikoff said it is our moral obligation to eradicate contradiction in our philosophy. Once we find the truth, we can work together to proliferate and disseminate our ideas across the nation. Fighting about this accomplishes nothing.