Hello all!

[Big B]

My name is Brian, and I've recently become quite enthused with Objectivism. My introduction to it started with Atlas Shrugged, followed by the Fountainhead, and I am currently working my way through several of Ayn Rand's non-fiction works. The more I learn the more I find it to be consistent with my pre-existing convictions, only now I have a far sturdier foundation on which to stand when it comes to facing collectivists and their un-morality.

Eh, I'm sure the rest of my life story will come out in some form or another as time goes on here .

[bluecherry]

Hi there. Welcome to OO.net. Hope you enjoy your stay here. Which of the non-fiction things have you read/are you reading? This info can help us get more of an idea of what you are and are not familiar with and what we can cite or recommend to you if you have questions.

[Eiuol]

The more I learn the more I find it to be consistent with my pre-existing convictions, only now I have a far sturdier foundation on which to stand when it comes to facing collectivists and their un-morality.

Welcome. Be careful when considering your pre-existing convictions. Really think hard about any new ideas you come across. If an idea contradicts an idea you already have, why does it contradict? Similarly, if an idea is consistent with the ideas you already have, why is it consistent? Don't accept any idea just because it sounds good! If you already do all this, that's great.

[JMeganSnow]

Usually when people say that Objectivism is consistent with what they already thought, what they mean is that they had a lot of unarticulate conclusions and "rules-of-thumb" based on their lifelong experiences and Objectivism gave them a clue as to how to make those ideas consistent.

A lot of these same people will later on come across MORE of Ayn Rand's writings where she talks about, say, abortion or her views on femininity and freak out because they don't really "get" how she arrived at her conclusions and the fact that they don't agree with her makes them think that the whole system is somehow flawed.

So, if you're learning Objectivism, the #1 absolute best thing for you to do is to focus on HOW Ayn Rand arrived at her conclusions, not WHAT those specific conclusions were. If you understand the HOW, you'll not only become consistent (and also, likely an Objectivist), but you'll understand the difference between core and ancillary issues and either agree or disagree with Ayn Rand for a reason.

For instance, I disagree with Ayn Rand's conclusion that being President would be psychological torture for a rational woman because I disagree with her conclusion that the President is the "superior" (in a hierarchical sense) to everyone--because, among other reasons, this ignores the fact that all hierarchies exist in a context. In a certain context, yes, the CoC would be the hierarchical superior of everyone in the office--but in another context, every citizen in the country is the hierarchical superior of the president because they select that person by voting and can withdraw their support at any time. No one is the boss of everything.

I digress, but you can see the shape of the thought process going on there. I examined why she reached a given ancillary conclusion, decided that the facts as I know them didn't add up, and so I disagree. If I disagreed about something fundamental, I wouldn't call myself an Objectivist.