Hello everybody

[Shinji Shiranui]

Hello to every member of this forum. My name is Shinji Shiranui, and I've joined this fourm for various reasons:

1- I recently read Atlas Shrugged and I'm currently reading THe Fountainhead, so I'm beggining to be interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy and its role on the actual world.

2- I would like some people to help me understand some of the main pillars of objectivism, and how I can adopt them into my life.

And 3, which I don't know will please many people on the forum, I want someone objective enough (hope you notice the irony) to help me clarify the flaws in Rand's philosophy. Let's be honest, there's no such thing as a perfect philosophy, and there are still aspects of Atlas I profoundly disagree with. I came here to see if this is an issue of convictions, misunderstanding of the principles, or something else.

That being said, I hope to talk with the other members of this forum in a margin of respect and cultural exchange.

[The Lonely Rationalist]

And 3, which I don't know will please many people on the forum, I want someone objective enough (hope you notice the irony) to help me clarify the flaws in Rand's philosophy. Let's be honest, there's no such thing as a perfect philosophy, and there are still aspects of Atlas I profoundly disagree with.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as a perfect philosophy currently, or that there, by nature, cannot be a perfect philosophy?

Also, which parts of Objectivism do you disagree with? The fundamentals, or the smaller issues?

[Jake_Ellison]

Hello, Shinji. Welcome to the forum.

Let's be honest, there's no such thing as a perfect philosophy

That's an argument from intimidation. Instead of offering proof that your proposition is true (you have read all philosophies and identified errors in every one of them), you are attacking the honesty of anyone who might disagree with your statement, to force agreement with the idea without a discussion. Ain't gonna work.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[softwareNerd]

Welcome to OO.net

Once you've read the fiction, you should pick up some of Rand's non-fiction, in particular "Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". Those will help you better understand the philosophy, without having to draw it out of a work of fiction.

As for discussion of particular aspects, it would be best not to use you introduction thread for that. If you find some aspects of Objectivism unconvincing, the first thing to ask yourself is whether you're misunderstanding it. People have various misconceptions about Objectivism (for instance, some people misinterpret part of it as saying people should not care about others, or that money is everything, or that one must not attend a government university). In such cases, one should check one's premises about Objectivism: does it really say: XYZ? As a newbie, you might want to start a thread in the "Questions about Objectivism" asking whether Objectivism advocates XYZ.

As for perfection: that's the wrong thing to be looking for (at least the way you're probably using the term). Remember that philosophy is a body of knowledge. When comparing two philosophies, one should adopt an attitude that one would take when comparing two theories in some other field of knowledge. For instance, suppose three scientists come up with three different explanation of how cancer spreads. It is possible that none of them got it right, and that each found some correct elements in the causal chain. However, it is clearly very possible that one of them did get it right. Who would insist on taking elements from all three if one of them did get it right? That is the attitude if one is assuming that one is talking about real knowledge.

So, hope to see you asking for clarifications elsewhere on the forum. The best way to do so is to keep it brief, but not a one/two liner. Show that you have done your homework, and then show what aspect you agree with, and what aspect you're stuck on, and people will be glad to help.

[Shinji Shiranui]

Thank you so much for your welcome, and yes, I have to clarify some of the aspects I put on my introduction.

When I refered to the word "perfect" I might've chosen the wrong word, but I'll explain. I know some people who call themselves objectivists, but so far the only thing I've seen them doing is taking passges form the book or any other of Rand's quoutes and repeating them by memory. Some of theme even consider, ironically, Atlas Srhugged as their "Bible", saying that it is the "only perfect philosophy I've encountered".

As for me, I'm not the kind of person who chooses a sinlge philosophy and adapt it to a hundred percent in my life. I rather build my own philosophy taking aspects of other ways of thinking, comparing them, and then choosing the ones that can be useful in my life and help me to the persuing of my objectives. So far, objectivism has given me a lot of elements to choose from, altough not everything from it is appealing to my way of thinking.

Once more, I'll explain:

I don't believe in God, however I cannot accpet the idea of man as the most superior thing in the world (notice that I don't deny man's power or his capability to enhance his own enviroment to achieve a better quality of life.) This does not become from a single-minded blind faith, it comes from a series of arguments I've discussed with other people and my own thinking. I'll explain this further on a more aproppiate post.

There are more aspects, but, like someone said, this is not the thread to expose them.

I thank you all for your understanding, and thank you for giving me some other non-fiction titles to understand better.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Shinji Shiranui

[Howard Roark]

Thank you so much for your welcome, and yes, I have to clarify some of the aspects I put on my introduction.

When I refered to the word "perfect" I might've chosen the wrong word, but I'll explain. I know some people who call themselves objectivists, but so far the only thing I've seen them doing is taking passges form the book or any other of Rand's quoutes and repeating them by memory. Some of theme even consider, ironically, Atlas Srhugged as their "Bible", saying that it is the "only perfect philosophy I've encountered".

As for me, I'm not the kind of person who chooses a sinlge philosophy and adapt it to a hundred percent in my life. I rather build my own philosophy taking aspects of other ways of thinking, comparing them, and then choosing the ones that can be useful in my life and help me to the persuing of my objectives. So far, objectivism has given me a lot of elements to choose from, altough not everything from it is appealing to my way of thinking.

You ended up explaining nothing. What is the relation between using the word "perfect" and the behavior of the so-called "Objectivists" that you described above? Ask yourself if their actions actually correspond to Ayn Rand's philosophy in the first place. What is even the purpose of bringing this up? If you read Atlas Shrugged, then I assume that you understand why unquestioning agreement is not a principle of Objectivism. At this point, you also understand that Objectivism is an integrated philosophical system. Ideas that are simply extracted at whim from the system to which they belong cannot function as a proper philosophical guide. What philosophy are you basing these objectives on? As I see it, your philosophy is nothing but an indefinite, vacillating, disorganized collection of isolated and conflicting ideas, mixed at random according to your urges of the immediate moment. What is the purpose of having a philosophy then?

[Rockefeller]

As I see it, your philosophy is nothing but an indefinite, vacillating, disorganized collection of isolated and conflicting ideas, mixed at random according to your urges of the immediate moment. What is the purpose of having a philosophy then?

I don't know the OP (original poster) but this is no way to talk to someone who is new to Objectivism, and has joined this forum to gain more knowledge about it. Sure, OP has some mistaken premises as is evident from her (or his?) posts. But she could very well be here to "understand some of the main pillars of objectivism [sic]" (as she puts it). Rather than helping her in identifying the errors, you are blaming her for those errors. Just compare your response to Jake's or sN's.

[Howard Roark]

I don't know the OP (original poster) but this is no way to talk to someone who is new to Objectivism, and has joined this forum to gain more knowledge about it. Sure, OP has some mistaken premises as is evident from her (or his?) posts. But she could very well be here to "understand some of the main pillars of objectivism [sic]" (as she puts it). Rather than helping her in identifying the errors, you are blaming her for those errors. Just compare your response to Jake's or sN's.

Sorry. This was not on purpose. I read my answer again, and it did seem a little disrespectful. I apologize for that. However, I am not abandoning my statement. Even if it sounded impolite, it is still true.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Howard Roark

[Shinji Shiranui]

You ended up explaining nothing. What is the relation between using the word "perfect" and the behavior of the so-called "Objectivists" that you described above? Ask yourself if their actions actually correspond to Ayn Rand's philosophy in the first place. What is even the purpose of bringing this up? If you read Atlas Shrugged, then I assume that you understand why unquestioning agreement is not a principle of Objectivism. At this point, you also understand that Objectivism is an integrated philosophical system. Ideas that are simply extracted at whim from the system to which they belong cannot function as a proper philosophical guide. What philosophy are you basing these objectives on? As I see it, your philosophy is nothing but an indefinite, vacillating, disorganized collection of isolated and conflicting ideas, mixed at random according to your urges of the immediate moment. What is the purpose of having a philosophy then?

I don't know the OP (original poster) but this is no way to talk to someone who is new to Objectivism, and has joined this forum to gain more knowledge about it. Sure, OP has some mistaken premises as is evident from her (or his?) posts. But she could very well be here to "understand some of the main pillars of objectivism [sic]" (as she puts it). Rather than helping her in identifying the errors, you are blaming her for those errors. Just compare your response to Jake's or sN's.

Sorry. This was not on purpose. I read my answer again, and it did seem a little disrespectful. I apologize for that. However, I am not abandoning my statement. Even if it sounded impolite, it is still true.

First of all, thanks to Rockefeller for understandin that I'm new to this philosohpy, and tha maybe some of my disagreements from the philosophy might come from a misunderstanding of the philosophy. I would also like to clarify that I'm a guy I need to update my profile.

Second: this goes for Howard, I don't like being insulted. In the small time I've spent on this forum I realized something: the so called objectivists I know are just idiots who took Atlas as a "banner" without knowing what it means, promoving a philosophy of hate, intolerance and pure seclusion to others way of thinking in this world. They insult anyone who disagrees with their ways, offending them just for thinking differently. I have recieved some insults from them, and believe me, I do not want to take more here, even if the intentions are good. I accept your apolgies, though.

Third: I will admit a big mistake I made. I committed the mistake of thinking that all objectivists in the world were like the ones I know. That's why I joined the forum, to see if this was true. Fortunately, it wasn't. There are some comprehensive and polite people here, who defend their philosophy because they understand it and agree with it, and don't act like mindless fanatics. This is why I have taken a somewhat defensive position on my posts, and even if I came here to learn, I refuse to be treated like an ignorant.

Thanks again, for your warm welcomes.

[Shinji Shiranui]

Hello, Shinji. Welcome to the forum.

That's an argument from intimidation. Instead of offering proof that your proposition is true (you have read all philosophies and identified errors in every one of them), you are attacking the honesty of anyone who might disagree with your statement, to force agreement with the idea without a discussion. Ain't gonna work.

And no, I wasn't trying to make an argument from intimidation. Again, I had troubles trying to explain my thinking. My apologies. (Please read post from above)

As for the qustion about the perfect philosophy. I don't believe there can be a perfect philosophy by nature, because man is not perfect by nature.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Shinji Shiranui

[Rockefeller]

I don't believe there can be a perfect philosophy by nature, because man is not perfect by nature.

Can man become perfect if he tries? If yes, then a philosophy that guides him in this pursuit will be a "perfect" philosophy.

By being perfect, I don't mean being omniscient. Ayn Rand described Objectivism as a philosophy for living on earth, which means as a philosophy that guides man according to his nature, as a rational being who is able to choose properly and achieve them. On the other hand, a philosophy that alleges to provide man with mystic, omniscient knowledge and unlimited power is not just imperfect, but impossible.

It will be better if you do not raise these issues in your introductory thread, but as a new topic under "Questions about Objectivism". But first it is always better to search previous threads on those topics using the forum Search or Google.

[Tenderlysharp]

there are still aspects of Atlas I profoundly disagree with.

I am thinking of a major misunderstanding that many people assume: The Apocalypse. The Apocalypse wasn't Ayn Rands ideal of what life should be, it is a symbol of what happens to each man who's spirit is crushed under force or compulsion. The Apocalypse was something she could foresee happening, and her writing is an attempt to stop it.

Ayn Rand has said that she does not advocate an Objectivist Utopia, only that she would prefer a majority to keep the government from trying to control our lives and infringe on our rights. The ability to choose Objectivism for yourself, without having it forced on you is central to understanding her entire philosophy.

Another thing to take into account is the perspective of other people posting here. Some have spent an immense amount of time studying Ayn Rand, some are new, some understand it fully, some don't, some are more restless or impassioned than others about proving their point. Many will refer you to Ayn Rand for answers because Ayn Rand explains it better than they are currently able. Most will turn you back to yourself because it is valuable for you to translate it from your experience.

You will continually be challenged (encouraged) to clarify your point and make your argument more concise.

[Eiuol]

Welcome.

the so called objectivists I know are just idiots who took Atlas as a "banner" without knowing what it means, promoving a philosophy of hate, intolerance and pure seclusion to others way of thinking in this world. They insult anyone who disagrees with their ways, offending them just for thinking differently.

To expand on that, Objectivism is, first and foremost, a philosophy of living life. I find it disappointing that there are people out there who think they understand Objectivism merely by reading Atlas Shrugged. It takes a whole lot more effort and study than that. I hope you stick around and learn as much as you can. You may want to join the chat once and a while as well.

[Gramlich]

You may want to join the chat once and a while as well.

(Where all the cool kids hang out.)