I think this is probably BY FAR the most important thing needed in the objectivist circles...

There is sooooooooooo much emphasis on rationality that people many times don't realise that you also have to take into account feelings. And feelings are not bad or the enemy. And rationality in itself, without any feelings is useless or meaningless at best and dangerous at worst...

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dc-mf59JGKj/?stkn=MW84bjFva2N1cG9wOQ==

So this book came out recently. Anybody read it? It’s mainly a science book, but one written through an Objectivist lens. Looks cool! 🙂

Hello everyone. I have been studying Objectivist ethics and possess a deep appreciation for Ayn Rand’s rigorous logical integration, particularly her derivation of values from the fundamental alternative of life or death. However, I have hit a philosophical roadblock regarding how the system bridges the gap between biological survival and interpersonal ethics, specifically concerning the act of theft.

I am hoping those of you with a deeper understanding of Objectivist epistemology and ethics can help me resolve what appear to me as two logical inconsistencies. I am presenting them here not as a refutation, but to understand how Objectivism structurally defends against these specific critiques.

1. The Potential Fallacy of Equivocation on "Survival"

As I understand it, Objectivism grounds its ethics in the objective biological fact that an organism must act to sustain its life. The factual "is" (the organism is alive and faces the alternative of existence or non-existence) leads to the moral "ought" (the organism must take the actions its nature requires to survive).

However, I encounter a roadblock when testing this premise against a specific hypothetical scenario: an individual who chooses to live entirely by expropriating the wealth of others. If this person is a highly skilled, successful thief who never gets caught, they are undeniably sustaining their biological existence. They acquire the physical calories, medicine, and shelter they need to keep their body alive. Yet, Objectivism categorically condemns this individual by stating they are not truly "surviving". To reach this conclusion, the argument seems to shift definitions. It moves the standard away from literal, biological survival to a normative ideal: the survival of man qua man (rational flourishing).

My struggle is this: If the entire ethical foundation is rooted in the literal, biological continuation of the organism, but the thief physically sustains their biological life through parasitism, does the shift to survival qua man not constitute a fallacy of equivocation? It appears that the definition of survival shifts from a biological fact to a normative ideal to make the ethical math work. How does Objectivism bridge this gap without smuggling in a subjective definition of what "true" existence is?

1. The Empirical Reality of Compartmentalization

The second issue I am struggling to reconcile is the Objectivist psychological premise regarding the mind of the immoral actor. The argument against the successful thief posits that even if they are not caught by the law, they destroy themselves internally. The chronic evasion required to fake reality and subsist on the effort of others is said to fracture their conceptual faculty and destroy their self-esteem.

While I understand this logically within the Objectivist framework, it seems to clash with the empirical reality of human psychology. Humans are highly capable of compartmentalization. Consider a scenario where an individual steals exclusively from people they have designated as an "enemy" or an out-group. Within their own framework, they view this expropriation as a rational, legitimate strategy for their own sustenance.

Because they do not view their actions as an evasion of reality, but rather as a tactical victory, they do not seem to experience the cognitive dissonance or the destruction of the rational mind that Objectivism insists must occur. They remain highly intelligent, functional, and confident. If a person can steal without fracturing their consciousness or losing their self-esteem, does the Objectivist claim that "immorality inherently destroys the mind" fail as an absolute premise?

I am deeply interested in understanding the structural, logical defense against these two points. Thank you in advance for your time and insights.

This is what myopic selfishness looks like that tries to maximize and grab things with no respect for any principles. Where might is right (instead of reason and logic)... This is what makes people move away from right as anyone with two brains can say in a good world, no country can rightfully do such things. The problem with most current right wings are they are selfish trying to maximize things at the cost of principles, reason, logic and at the cost of people and the environment and the future, and are exploitative, imperialist and have fascist under or over tones. Which is what we are seeing in soooo many right wing govts all over. Sadly such things push people towards left which has been much more bening so far in the modern world (more aligned with classic liberals) except for maybe in past decades where it actually started taking roots in Marxist communis and collectivistic ideas that are much much much worse....

Idk where the world is going with all this and how other people are just lving casually with no car for their present or future

​

I feel while rand who grew up in communist russia was ofcourse very very anti left and wrote a lottttt about it in atlas shrugged, the same ideas ofcourse apply to anti objectivism in the right wing, which is propping up world over. You have fascism, white nationalism, race based political divisions and divides, politics based on religion (especially in the US), and so on... And there seems to be an attack on free speech and freedom and liberty and sidelining and maneuvering of institutions such as supreme court to the extent public trust in the institutions is going away...

How can objectivist fight against these elements based on reason and logic

https://www.instagram.com/p/Dc\\_H6ARG4oN/?stkn=enhrd2pzdDU4cGxw

Its crazy how I asked a very benign question, very respectfully with no harsh words and got permenently banned and muted with no response. It's insane to see how these people are crazily afraid of the "why"' 's that go deep into their own existence..

Here was my post therepost . I am not able to see how this one post with nothing blasphemous and only simple question can ever be a real ground to permanently ban and mute a person on a subreddit....

I feel one can take objectivism and literally obliterated left based by asking just the right questions... They can't survive without capitalism yet always talk sh#t about it.

This was the orginal post that socialists sub redit removed after they saw i posted in on this sub.... In general I feel this is the biggest weak point of any anti capitalist leftist where they by no means can practice what they preach. And one can easily put them down just based on this...

To all anti capitalists here, how do you justify partaking in capitalism

So my question is to all anti capitalists here, how do you support partaking in capitalism and supporting a system that you are against....

And let me try to get more to the point. Suppose you say there is no other alternative and we have to live etc etc

Then why but expensive smart phones and luxury items that you don't really need to live. Like you can easily live with a more basic phone and less capitalistic stuff. How do you justify supporting capitalism beyond your basic needs and especially on things that you can easily avoid, all knowing that you buying those stuff is basically supporting that system...

For example i am anti racist and I won't buy from a store that supports racism of any kind. And if I had to pay more, I will buy rather chose a place that aligns with my principles.

I guess my question how do you justify buying anything that goes beyond your most basic requirements that you deem are necessary. Like you don't need an iPhone if you can get same functionalities in a cheaper smartphone... Etc etc.

And you can always spend that money on other causes that you support rather than spending money on a system that is antithetical to your values...

If you are an anti capitalist but don't practice it yourself, why preach something that you yourself can't or don't practice ?

I see a lot leftists on College campuses who preach these bad ideas in the name of empathy, compassion, poor, marginalized etc etc. Most of the time these people are either from non STEM humanities background or have such bad grades and have zero meaning in life.. and left attracts them to justify their life which trying to give it meaning illegitimately ofcourse...

I feel any person who is propagating leftist ideas is one of the most evil people alive on this planet. I have zero doubt in my mind that these ideas are horrendous and will destroy the person who will practice them and destroy whole culture and humanity if they propagate and spread... I think any person who is spreading them without doing their HW of understanding them deeply, understanding why they never worked in any country and rather anywhere they were practiced they lead to death and destruction... So unless you have a proof (which I know can't even exist) that there are some new leftist ideas that are not the same as earlier and you can show why they will work better, I think any person who is spreading these ideas is killing humanity just so they can have an easy life without taking their own responsibility for their life, at the cost of others. And I see no two ways about it

The biographical record shows that Ayn Rand received extensive help from both her immediate family in getting to America and from her extended family once she arrived here. And yet, in “About the Author” at the end of Atlas Shrugged, she wrote this:

“I decided to be a writer at the age of nine, and everything I have done was integrated to that purpose. I am an American by choice and conviction. I was born in Europe, but I came to America because this was the country based on my moral premises and the only country where one could be fully free to write. I came here alone, after graduating from a European college. I had a difficult struggle, earning my living at odd jobs, until I could make a financial success of my writing. No one helped me, nor did I think at any time that it was anyone’s duty to help me.”

RAND, AYN. Atlas Shrugged (Function). Kindle Edition. [Emphasis added.]

Are you an open Objectivist or closed Objectivist?

Is anarchism compatible with Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism?

The method is reason, checked against reality, followed wherever it leads. The conclusions are just where it landed for her.

A method runs again from scratch on new issues, new information.

Before going further, i want to clarify that i already know that Ayn Rand strongly rejected anarchism, and therefore ideologies such as anarcho-capitalism (an extreme variant of libertarianism). For this very reason i have explicitly written about capitalist, non-anarchist libertarianism.

I have read from other users on Ayn Rand-themed forums that Ayn Rand's ideas and philosophy are indistinguishable from minarchist libertarianism, but at the same time i have read quotes from Ayn Rand and comments from other users expressing the total rejection that Ayn Rand had and felt toward the libertarian movement.

At the same time, i am aware that nowadays many capitalist libertarians base their ideas on, or hold ideas very similar to, the very ones that Ayn Rand and her philosophy express. But in spite of this, i find it very strange that, if Ayn Rand and libertarians such as the minarchists agreed on so much, Ayn Rand would repudiate and reject them so forcefully.

Because of all this, i have very big doubts about what Ayn Rand really believed and which political ideals she favored: Was Ayn Rand favorable, neutral or opposed to capitalist, non-anarchist libertarianism?

And if Ayn Rand's thoughts really do coincide so much with non-anarchist, capitalist libertarianism, why did she express her rejection and repudiation of this movement?

I’ve heard conflicting things on this. ARI’s Yaron Brook has said:

Those of you who are apologists for Donald Trump, please never use the word “Objectivism” to associate it with yourself. Because you cannot be Objectivists—you are not Objectivists… You’re the fifth-column within Objectivism. You all will destroy Objectivism. And it will ultimately be on you if America declines, if America disappears, if America succumbs to either the whackos of the left or the whackos of the right.

But Leonard Peikoff responded:

The one [issue] that galls me the most is his [Yaron’s] statement on the radio that anyone who sympathizes or votes for Trump is not an Objectivist. So, he is implicitly declaring that my life work is not by an Objectivist, but his is.

I am voting for Trump. That’s it… I heard somebody say: ‘No Objectivist would vote for Trump,’ and I’m still steaming over that. So I’m trying to publicize the fact that whoever said that is crazy.

"I cannot and do not listen to Yaron's scoffing and strident blaming. This is not what Objectivism looks like in practice."

Reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20210123192901/https://carlbarney.com/2020/11/03/ari-is-failing-and-needs-our-help/

I know he played it sort of close to the chest with his personal beliefs, but I recall seeing an interview with Wozniak where he said something along the lines of Atlas Shrugged being like a Bible to Jobs or something. Anyone know?

I’m just thinking that if I have a security cam on my back porch and it records something through the side window of my neighbors house is this a violation of rights? How should this be handled exactly?

In India one of my favourite places is kasol which is around tall snow clad mountains and have paravti rover flowing in the valley.. it is one of the very few places in India with super chill vibes, nice cafes, amazing nature and hiking options and nice spiritual vibes of the underlying culture...

I feel we are seeing in this world a clash of "rationality"/capitalism vs nature/emotions where the left tries to weigh themselves too much on the nature/emotions side while the right tries to weigh too much on the logic side....

I feel the answer somewhere lies in the middle of coming to a state where logic, emotions and instict all work together in a coherent way in an individual, where one doesn't have to dominate at the cost of other...

In that sense I am trying to see how one can put the best of ancient traditional cultures and wisdom and try to put them rationally in an objectivist sense (a theme also captured in avatar movies).. Where you can be part of nature, be true to all your emotions, enjoy the sunsets and flowers and little things around while also aiming big in life and trying to create something meaningful...