Are there any good arguments against Rand?

[the tortured one]

That is not the point I tried to make. Miss Rand herself confused "egoism" and "egotism" in The Fountainhead, but for her it was just a practical error due to a dictionary definition. What I tried to indicate was that your claim that many of the "reservations against Objectivism stem from her confusing Egoism with Egotism" might be better explained by a more fundamental disagreement (based on what you previously wrote). Issues of faith versus reason, and religious altruism, run deep.

But, look, not knowing her personally and only going on what you write, I am uncomfortable pursuing this any further. I do not want to attribute to her conflicts that she may not have. Feel free to consider my previous comments, or not, but I will end this here.

As you wish, and I am appreciative that you choose to end the conversation rather than wrongfully assume.

and of course I will consider your previouse statements, I value what you have to say.

[ingok]

The argument that appears to be most convincing to ex-pseudo-Objectivists is:

"Objectivism makes me feel uncomfortable when I'd like to evade thinking, dis-integrate concepts, tolerate contradictions, or engage in hypocrisy, thus either Objectivism is wrong or I am, and I don't want to be wrong."

You can find this argument in pretty much all anti-Objectivist material, between the lines.

Since we take Objectivism as the philosophy that's true, how can you ask us to characterise a publication that objects to that philosophy as "good"? It's impossible to recommend a good lie or a good mistake.

Eek! This is a common mistake of Objectivists: defining Objectivism as "the philosophy that's true." I agree with Peikoff that Objectivism is a closed system, which cannot be added to or modified. Objectivism is defined as the philosophy of Ayn Rand. "Objectivism is true" is not a tautology. Sure, most of the arguments against Objectivism are as stupid as the pattern you give above, but you just said, in effect, "Anything ant-Objectivist is wrong, because Objectivism is defined as whatever is right."

[AisA]

Eek! This is a common mistake of Objectivists: defining Objectivism as "the philosophy that's true." I agree with Peikoff that Objectivism is a closed system, which cannot be added to or modified. Objectivism is defined as the philosophy of Ayn Rand. "Objectivism is true" is not a tautology. Sure, most of the arguments against Objectivism are as stupid as the pattern you give above, but you just said, in effect, "Anything ant-Objectivist is wrong, because Objectivism is defined as whatever is right."

Truth and falsehood are not the same thing as right and wrong.

I hold that Objectivism is true (i.e. corresponds to reality) and that notions that contradict Objectivism are false (i.e. do not correspond to reality). However, I would not define Objectivism as "all that is true" because there are many truths outside the scope of philosophy, such as, for example, the many truths uncovered in the special sciences.

What part of Objectivism do you hold to be false?

[y_feldblum]

Objectivism is true, yes; that is one of its properties. However, the definition is: genus - philosophy; differentia - that of Ayn Rand. The phrase "the philosophy that's true" means absolutely nothing.

It is also a mistake to attempt to define Objectivism as "the philosophy that's true" in part because one must first accept a basis in philosophy for the concept truth before declaring one particular philosophy to be true, and thus defining Objectivism as the true philosophy leads to a circular hierarchy and is a mistake. Every philosophy is, by its own concept of truth, true.