Hello

[Giemel Regis]

Objectivist from Philippines.

I grew up in a secularly religious family, where a lot of these christian beliefs have made me grown to detest religion, mostly coming from realization of their fallacies, imperviousness, psychological damage it has caused upon my family, because of it I slowly paved my way to an individualist morality and rational kind of thinking.

On that journey i find myself to have been often mislead with philosophies of different kinds, that is until I reached Ayn Rand's lectures on the internet.

I started reading about her and absorbed the fundamentals of her philosophy almost immediately, I know this is a bothering statement as many people who have lay claimed to be a speaker or a disciple of Objectivism in a short amount of time has always (in my observation) misrepresented Rand's ideas. This is not what I resemble though, only the fundamental idea that existence exists and the basic premises that follows after it is what i have fully comprehended.

I also have been making my own conclusions and ideas to find that Rand agreed with it or so has something to say about it.

I realized then that I do not know as much about Objectivism as I should (i have not finished Rand's fictions and I'm currently in the process of doing so), every page of the book to me is very profound as the character demonstrations always one way or another either tells me something new or strengthens my view about it.

These are the reasons why I have been doubting to call myself an Objectivist, to rephrase it shorter I'd list it

1) Finding many discoveries in her book when I thought I was certain of which I already know.

2) The (existence of/also of the) irrational `fear` of knowing more than what I think I know. Even though In reality i should be able to figure it out if I try to observe and deconstruct it, the question only is that am I capable to do that in complex topics? Or so, have I learnt the fundamentals of the complex topics, to fulfill the heirarchal needs to understand those depths?

I would still call myself an Objectivist though, as so far it is the Objectivist virtues that I try to practice (which have been such a challenge) and it is the philosophy which I try to learn the most of although not disregarding others.

I digress, all these above is only to announce my unshaking doubt but to proceed with the introductions I shall make it shorter:

I'm an avid journeyman of philosophy, art, entertainment (music and gaming), technology and science. The field of work that I pursue is the combination of these that I listed (except the gaming).

I have a very long way ahead of me and so many challenges have been brought to my attention and I don't know if I'm dealing with it correctly.

Living in this country feels to me like a dystopia. The majority of people are backwards in the sense that they uphold total opposite view of mine, of true freedom, of pursuance for individual excellence, of making life and interaction to other people to be seen through man's virtue as opposed to God, of political system based on ethics, and of ethics itself.

I did my best to rebel to all of these and put myself in the process of making myself a plan to leave this atrocious place but a dilemma has faced me once again, what has happened to America, and which other places can I go too?

You can witness the story unfold of my unprepared self, by reading through the posts that I may make here in the years to follow.

To close, what am I actually doing:

I have rebelled to achieve the things in which the norm has achieved spitefully, (that is following proper education curriculum which have largely been a waste of time, hence I didn't get 'impressive' school record, jobs that requires committing myself to healthcare and social security) and I made myself to make the merits of the skills that I acquired through self practice and learning be my only tool to achieve my goals. Or I say, i must not gain a certificate until I have rightfully acquired the skill that the certificate entails. And most of all make myself (the time i invested) the wanted rather than the time I sacrificed (for nothing substantial).

Please tell me if I am being too unrealistic and ideological as i too question myself this way but I push it all aside because i know that i can reach what I aspire.

That's all, I'm exhausted and has dragged this introduction long enough.

You will notice that I made a substantial effort to write this introduction of myself, with an intention to document the CURRENT me and to see where I may go from this point, then second for the readers' to find it enjoyable despite my writing to be lacking any kind of trajectory or structure.

Thank you for letting me in here and I would love to read around and offer and accept ideas about this philosophy.

[Repairman]

Welcome to the forum, Giemel,

Your experience seems similar to my own. Reading through the many posts, you will find that there are as many differing views contesting to be the most rational point of view. I wouldn't worry too much about trying to identify as Objectivist, as I would see it more as an aspiration, rather than an identity. Most people I've discussed ideas with have never heard of Ayn Rand, let alone any philosophical school of thought. Most people are religious and anti-intellectual. There's little you can do about it. In conversation, I usually identify as "rational egoist," if that's any help to you. If they wish to know more, they need to listen, or it's their loss. In any case, it's a comfort to know our ranks are growing.

[Lawrence Edward Richard]

I agree with what I'm reading here, for me it is aspirational not actual. In terms that I was 39 when I read the Fountainhead and I'm 40 now. I am late to the game.

[Repairman]

12 hours ago, Lawrence Edward Richard said:

I agree with what I'm reading here, for me it is aspirational not actual. In terms that I was 39 when I read the Fountainhead and I'm 40 now. I am late to the game.

It''s never too late, my friend. I hadn't discover Ayn Rand until I was 46. But it wasn't life-changing, so much as it was a re-defining of semantic concepts, such as "sacrifice," and "the common good." True rational selfishness needs clarity, and Objectivism provides that sense of clarity.

[Sebastien]

Hi Giemel,

What you will find is that collectivist, selfless religion is actually not what the bible teaches.

The scriptures that precept moral behavior are intended to be oriented to what is in your interest.

Consider Deuteronomy 28, blessings for obedience. This chapter says that if you adhere to the law, you will be blessed with abundance.

Clearly, this is a doctrine of self-interest.

The reason that the United States is so wealthy is because the US is doing what is right.

Capitalism is a good system, and it is based on the principle of justice.

Selflessness is not encouraged by the bible.

But you don't need to read the bible. Ayn Rand will give you a stable foundation for successful living.

Glad you are an Objectivist.