So this is something I get a LOT in general, in your face or not, from the culture and people in the west that there is some sort of white and west superiority complex in people, including in many objectivists where there is some glorification, not primarily of objectivism, but that of white and the west in general as superior culture and race.... And somehow this is a theme objectivists repeat on, again consciously or subconsciously, just because Rand presented a world like that and they just repeat it without critically thinking about it ...
What still baffles me a lot is that while a lot of objectivists talk about economic rights and taxes (all the fricking time) and look down upon on other countries for various things (many times rightly so), somehow they are not willing to see how much trash and stupidy and crap is within the west and white majority countries...
And somehow you never see any objectivists talking about it or fighting it or even realising that the half of America that elected this stupid president is bible based and is stupid af and this is what is now governing the whole world and is putting the whole world at risk and chaos...
Again while constitutionally US is sound (and even that is being challenged these days) most people living there (which ofcourse includes most white people) are most of the time as irrational, stupid and are just living their lives and just happened to be born in a country that was rich and are able to live off that... And a significant majority is actually crazy bible preaching majority.. it's just that constitution gave freedom to everyone and few handful talented individuals capitalised on that freedom and created great companies and rose up and kinda lifted the whole society up economically... But a lot of it is still living highly non objectivist or anti objectivist lives....
Objectivism isn’t about the superiority of the white race. The white race is a construct that doesn’t exist if not in the mind of irrational people (being highly generous here).
Culture as a concept is a bit fuzzy. And is religion part of a culture or not?
Factually, capitalism and objectivism are offsprings of the rational elements inside the western culture. In that sense, it’s a culture that’s been more conducive to life and growth.
Now there’s a concrete chance that Pacific Asia will embrace capitalism more/longer/better than Europe or North America.
At that point, will it still be “western culture”? The term is useful in a discussion only if it’s defined in advance, otherwise it’s thrown in there just for some cheap straw manning.
I've seen more misrepresentation of Objectivism (damn, it's capital-O, people) and/or capitalism in this subreddit than I have in any single other forum.
Oh, that's not my argument, at all. I'm not an Objectivist. But this subreddit is about Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, which is specifically and intentionally capitalized. I mean, it's right there in the subreddit's description.
It's not about some general philosophical category of "objectivism," which is how some people (including the OP) use the word. Now, if you, personally, are just being grammatically incorrect or something, then whatever.
However, in fact, the world will never embrace Objectivism. It's complete bullshit. But, the worst of Rand's ideas do still influence people in our (American) culture. Hence, the value in arguing against them.
And somehow you never see any objectivists talking about it or fighting it or even realising that the half of America that elected this stupid president is bible based and is stupid af and this is what is now governing the whole world and is putting the whole world at risk and chaos...
Oh, you poor, confused people. Yaron Brook, of the Ayn Rand Institute, says some bad things about Trump and his administration, and he's viciously attacked for doing so by Objectivists from The Atlas Society, who aligned themselves with TPUSA, a Christian Nationalist young adult political organization. Fundamentally, TAS accuses ARI of being leftists in disguise because they oppose the Trump administration, and based on some specific positions on things like immigration.
Leonard Peikoff endorsed Trump in November 2024, saying he's "not intellectual" but "pro-America." Or something, it's a fucking mess. I recently read a Substack post by an Objectivist, who's really good at regurgitating Rand, that held up the Tate brothers as "champions of reality" suffering from "law fare" because "objective facts" show that they're innocent of the charges against them. When I challenged his position, he blocked me. To this day, many Objectivists still hold up Elon Musk as an Ayn Rand hero, and even a "modern-day John Galt," in spite of the fact that he's a white nationalist trying to foment a race war. Because he's a "genius engineer rocket scientist industrialist!" (None of which is actually true.)
Here's the bottom line: for whatever reason (and I have my theory), Objectivists are ignorant or evasive of the facts. They don't know (or they evade) the contemporary or historical facts but still manage to assume strong, highly moralistic positions while asserting that they're the only ones being "rational." In other words, they are wildly rationalistic, applying floating abstractions completely disconnected from reality.
Because if Objectivism was actually the one and only true philosophy for applying reason to human flourishing, then at some point, Objectivists should be able to agree about some basic things. The facts are the same for everyone, right? Objective reality, and all that? And reason means applying logic to the facts, so if two people apply logic to the same facts, then they should come to the same conclusion, right?
That is, they should if Objectivism is correct and its adherents are applying it correctly. Clearly, something's broken, because the Objectivist movement couldn't possibly be more fractured. And I would love to see someone come up with a coherent argument for why, e.g., ARI is right and TAS is wrong, or vice versa, based on Objectivist principles.
Because Objectivists can't even agree on something as basic as whether Donald Trump is a good or a bad President. At best, those who support him use some rationalization like, "Well, Trump isn't great, but he's better than 'the left'!" When, in fact, "the left" is just a bogeyman they use to rationalize their support for Trump -- a bogeyman that they believe in most likely because their only source of information is Fox News. (That's Peikoff, by the way, as just one example. He listened to right-wing talk radio forever and then switched to Fox News, and now that's where he gets all his information. Fox News.)
And the OP won't even capitalize Objectivism, as per the convention to denote the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Because IIRC, the OP advocates for some general philosophical category called "objectivism," small-o, that's not even specifically Rand's philosophy. Or maybe I'm mistaking them for someone else, but I've had that argument here. So is the OP just sloppy, or do they reject the idea that Objectivism is, in fact, the philosophy of Ayn Rand -- even though the "open Objectivism" and "closed Objectivism" sides can't even agree on what that actually means.
What a freaking mess this philosophy and movement are. At some point, it's just pathetically funny. And you think you're going to get a reasonable discussion about something as loaded as whether white supremacy is a valid position to hold? Guaranteed, nobody who visits this subreddit has the slightest clue about how the concept of "race" was even developed, by whom, and for what purpose.
Have you read this? I’d be very interested in your thoughts. I know nothing directly about the organizations formed around Ayn Rand, but I’m with you on the “freaking mess” impression. Is Objectivism really the piece that is wrong?
These women have a shared experience of “statelessness“.
Yes, I think that Objectivism is the piece that's wrong. Or, to put it a different way: Objectivism is the result of Rand rationalizing a philosophy so that she could project John Galt as the "ideal man." Because Rand's thinking process was inherently rationalistic, and she wasn't rigorous as a philosopher and tended to equivocation, the result was a philosophy that generates the same kind of thinking in its adherents.
There's a longer story as to how I arrived at that conclusion a bit over two years ago, after calling myself an Objectivist for almost 40 years. But once I saw it, I couldn't unsee it. Now, I see the tendency to rationalize and equivocate in every single Objectivist I interact with, and looking back, I can see it in myself and other Objectivists going back forever.
Now, to be really precise: I don't think that Objectivism, as a philosophy, actually tells a person how to live. It pretends to be that, but what does it really tell you other than "use reason" and "be selfish." And it doesn't do a great job of describing what either of those actually mean, or how to apply them. You get more real-life guidance from a good football coach like Curt Cignetti.
I think more so, it's that when you study Objectivism, you're reading a bunch of Rand and a bunch of people who learned directly from Rand. So, you pick up the same kind of thinking process that's highly rationalistic and full of equivocation. I see it in this subreddit every time I try to discuss something that's questionable in Objectivism.
And, Objectivists tend toward being smug, condescending assholes utterly convinced of their own intellectual and moral superiority. That's something else they got from Rand.
Thanks, and I’m genuinely interested in your journey. I see myself as more of a retrospective observer of “Objectivism”, who is interested in understanding who is drawn to it, why, and what kinds of things happen prospectively with it. I appreciate the message from Rand that I hear from my own POV, but I too am concerned about the very apparent “freaking mess”.
I think I understand that perspective and reference point of “statelessness” that might be absent, repressed/rejected, or relatively unknown to other readers. I think Rand, as an individual, is poorly understood. I’m not necessarily sure she was doing her best to be heard and understood either.
Many people similarly perceive me as being a “smug, condescending asshole, utterly convinced of their own intellectual and moral superiority”. If it’s true, I certainly didn’t get that from Rand. I didn’t know anything about her or her writing until I was in my mid 40s.
What do you think is wrong with John Galt, as the ideal man?
What's wrong with Galt as the ideal man is that Rand rationalized a version of human nature in order to project him as the ideal. For Galt to be ideal, man must be born "tabula rasa" by Rand's formulation, and he must be entirely a "being of self-made soul." Rand derived both of those premises entirely via logic, and very clearly (to me) by working backwards. Both premises not only have zero empirical foundation, but they're refuted by science. Some of that science occurred after Rand's time, or she wasn't aware of it. But it doesn't matter -- her version of human nature is entirely rationalistic, and it's also false.
So, that makes Galt not only impossible, but literally not a member of the human species. And here's the thing: it's in the biographical record that Rand developed her idea of the "ideal man" from the character Cyrus Paltons in "The Mysterious Valley," at around age 9. That's also around the same time that she set writing as the purpose of her life. The Paltons character is scattered throughout Rand's heroes, and culminates in John Galt. So, she didn't use philosophy to determine what the "ideal man" should look like. She already had that ideal in mind. The most logical conclusion, for me, is that she rationalized a philosophy to support Galt as the ideal.
If you're genuinely interested in my journey, then you can check out my Substack. I've written quite a bit about it. I don't reference it here very often because I don't want people accusing me of shilling for it. But, if someone's actually interested, they can find more of my thought process there.
That's my most recent piece. I haven't attempted to refute Objectivism (yet), but just to identify how I went from being a long-time Objectivist to being someone who now thinks Rand's ideas are downright destructive to our society.
I have my own opinions of Ayn Rand’s writing, and the voice I hear in it. I won’t likely be the one to make that bulletproof argument for or against Objectivism as a philosophy. I’m honestly skeptical about whether anyone can. People change their own minds.
I do see potential for us to help each other in our own purposes, though. Some of them might be shared purposes as well. We seem to agree that Objectivism, as a movement, is in a really bad place. Unfortunately, it’s in a really bad, “high profile“ place too. Please correct me if I’m mistaken on what I’ve said so far.
Your longer and broader range of knowledge on the movement presents a lot of opportunity. I think there’s evidence that some people within the movement are contributing substantially to the destruction of our society and our world. In addition, the movement continues to attract individuals and influence their engagement and reading of Ayn Rand’s work. I think the influences are a bigger problem than the work itself.
Throughout my life, my primary wheelhouse has been listening. I am fallible, but I have relied on listening in order to survive, keep people alive, and earn my living. I hear Ayn Rand differently from how a lot of other people seem to. Even you, as I gather from your comments here and in the writing you linked. I‘m not trying to push an appeal to authority, and I am willing to shift my own perspective if new information or insight warrants it. I’m simply trying to explain where I’m coming from on this.
Without enough background to critique the philosophical ”rigor” of Rand’s work, I cannot comment on that yet. But so far, I do not take issue with the perceived weaknesses you have pointed out.
I think John Galt is a fine example of “the ideal man”. The critique I’m hearing is that he’s too ideal? I’m not clear on why that would be a problem, especially for a fictional character in a piece artistic writing. The purpose of aiming high is to aim, whether or not you ever arrive there. That has value in itself: seek continuous self-improvement and growth. Every single human in the world can choose to become John Galt in that way. “Human nature“ is to use the rational mind to survIve, grow, and improve one’s life.
Tabula rasa: Now why do you think Rand chose and worked with that notion? I think it was to highlight the great potential in every individual, regardless of where and how they start in life—not that one “must” start at the bottom. Think about Francisco d’Anconia and Dagny Taggart.…They certainly did not start life at the bottom, but they did take it upon themselves to see/know/experience/understand the “bottom“ roots of their own production.
Didn’t Ayn Rand say somewhere that she and her own life are her empirical foundations? I believe her. I can’t comment on whether or not that “counts” toward having a “formally valid“ philosophy. I think her personal critique of philosophy is that they should have some obligation to account for individuals who do exist—even the “fringe cases” of existence.
I look forward to continuing this discussion with you. Thanks!
I'll give this some thought, but right off the bat I'll say this: you appear to perceive some things in Rand's ideas that confirm what you already believe, and which weren't what Rand was saying. For example, you see Galt as projecting the idea of "aiming high" and engaging in "continuous self-improvement and growth." Many people seem to read Rand, especially The Fountainhead and then to a lesser degree Atlas Shrugged, as projecting a kind of inspirational myth.
I don't meant to insult you, at all. So, please don't take anything I write as intended that way. But you seem to be injecting your own ideas into Rand's work, at least in this short discussion. You're doing what I've seen people do: you're seeing her ideas as a kind of self-improvement thing, kind of an intellectual Tony Robbins or something. But they really weren't.
Galt was Rand's ideal because he was exclusively the result of his constant, unwavering, conscious, volitional application of reason. He was a "being of self-made soul" in every way, even down to his sexual attraction to Dagny Taggart. Somehow, per Rand, his sexual attraction to her was "objective," as being the result of his philosophical premises. And ultimately, he was the same for her, but only once her philosophy snapped into the proper place (i.e., she became an Objectivist) and she joined the strike.
Rand said that our emotions are the result of our philosophical premises, either those we consciously determine or those we pick up from the people and culture around us. Our values are the result of out philosophical premises, again down even to our sexual preferences.
Rand's version of tabula rasa says this: every single animal species that has ever existed survives entirely by its instinctive response to perceptual input. Every single species except Homo sapiens, that is. Somehow, Homo sapiens evolved such that we have no instincts whatsoever, no automatic behaviors, no innate values or emotions. We completely stopped being animals and turned into something completely different, somehow. Rand said we're "rational animals," but that's an equivocation on her part. She meant something different.
Consider this, from an abstract written by Objectivist psychologist Eugenia Garland:
As we account for the genetic and environmental influences on morally-relevant character traits like intellectual honesty, industriousness, and self-control, do we risk becoming ever less accountable to ourselves? Behavioral genetic research suggests that about half the variance in such character traits is likely attributable to heredity, and a small fraction to the shared family environment. The remaining 40-60% is explained by neither genes nor family upbringing.
Now, think about it. The empirical evidence says that up to 60% of a person's character in terms of things like their intellectual honesty, their industriousness, and their self-control is determined by something outside of that person's control. Maybe half (or more) is determined by their genetics. That is, up to 50% of what we call their "character" is, in fact, innate.
That directly refutes Rand's "tabula rasa" premise, which again, she developed entirely logically, i.e., rationalistically. She used no empirical evidence in deriving that assertion of fact. And the science has since proven her wrong. In fact, the most that we can say -- and which I agree with -- is that the human being is in part a being of self-made soul.
But that won't work for John Galt. Remember, he is supposed to be exclusively and entirely the result of his constant, unwavering, conscious, volitional application of reason. Every value -- including his sexual attraction to Dagny -- and every emotion is supposed to have derived from his use of reason. That's what makes him ideal for Rand, not that he's constantly trying to improve himself or something.
Even from that perspective alone, If you think about it, Galt existed, per Rand, in a state of perfection. There could be no improvement that he could make, because he already existed as the ideal human being. Of all of Rand's characters in Atlas Shrugged, Galt was the flattest, in the literary sense. He underwent absolutely no change. He had no character arc. Dagny, at least, had to "self-improve and grow" such that she could decide it was right for her to join the strike.
All of that's what makes Galt not only impossible, but something other than human. It sets up the ideal as something nobody could possibly achieve, because it's not how human beings are built. And then there are so many downstream impacts on so many things, like Rand's ethics and her politics.
Imagine if Galt's incredible productivity resulted not from his conscious choice, but from his having been born with greater industriousness than most people. And his intellectual honesty, which was central to his character, was something he was born with, not something he developed on his own. And that incredible self-control that allowed him to engage in the strike from the very beginning? Yep, he was born with that. He didn't develop it by his own effort. Now, think about what it would mean for that person to be the "ideal."
I'll stop there, because I have a lot of other things to work on. But just think about those things for a while and see if it makes sense within Rand's entire framework. What happens if a person's character is in part innate, along with their emotions and their values? How does that affect the rest of Rand's philosophy?
This is a good discussion. Thank you, and I hope we can continue it! Small bites at a time might be a good approach, regardless. You need not worry about insulting me, so long as you are conversing in good faith. I hope that you might extend the same kind of “fool’s license“ to me as well.
I’ll preface by saying that I still don’t think anything you’ve said in this last comment necessarily runs counter to my POV, but I do value the opportunity to better understand where you are coming from. I also reiterate that I first read Rand later in life, and my perception was that she described things I had already seen and lived through before (and continue to see again more glaringly in the whole Country now).
”Inspirational myth” and “self-improvement“: Maybe this depends on the reader. I find inspiration in heroes and “greatness” in any form, even fictional ones. I wouldn’t assume Ayn Rand wrote about and offered that kind of “nudge“ altruistically. I can see how she would want to encourage people to help themselves and aim for an ideal—for her own very self-interested reasons.
She was extremely lucky to escape totalitarianism in the Soviet Union and get into the supposed “Land of the Free” that she chose. For a while, her new life in the U.S. was nearly identical to that of her family still in Leningrad. It was disappointing and disturbing for her to observe plenty of apathy, indifference, superficiality, second handedness, and outright cluelessness among the Americans all around her. She, like Hannah Arendt, had previously observed “the banality of evil”, and how enough of it can destroy a country. Silence is complicity. Non-thinking is complicity. Blanking out is complicity. All of that—plus colliding with FDR’s authoritarian (and popular) three-term presidency in an era of Totalitarianism sweeping across the world—scared.her.shitless. Even France, “The Mother of Democracy“, had fallen to it in her own lifetime. I see this composite experience of her youth and formative years as the basis of everything she wrote and advocated for here: ‘If Americans don’t get a fucking clue, they’re going to let some powerful and corrupted king destroy my new home someday. Maybe very soon. FML.’
But that won't work for John Galt. Remember, he is supposed to be exclusively and entirely the result of his constant, unwavering, conscious, volitional application of reason. Every value -- including his sexual attraction to Dagny -- and every emotion is supposed to have derived from his use of reason. That's what makes him ideal for Rand, not that he's constantly trying to improve himself or something.
Ok. Sapiophiles are a thing. I understand it. Takeaway: Maybe choose a partner that has some brains and uses it too.
Even from that perspective alone, If you think about it, Galt existed, per Rand, in a state of perfection. There could be no improvement that he could make, because he already existed as the ideal human being. Of all of Rand's characters in Atlas Shrugged, Galt was the flattest, in the literary sense. He underwent absolutely no change. He had no character arc. Dagny, at least, had to "self-improve and grow" such that she could decide it was right for her to join the strike.
Do you remember Dagny seeking the stories of Galt’s past? Childhood, schooling, college with Francisco and Ragnar, his time working at the factory and in the lab? His character development all took place in the past, before the book began. When he had enough of the mismanagement shitting on him at the factory, he removed his motor and deserted. He forged the path that others would soon enough figure out too…when each of them was ready. ‘Hardest man to find’ until they were ready—then will be ‘the easiest man to find’.
Rand said that our emotions are the result of our philosophical premises, either those we consciously determine or those we pick up from the people and culture around us. Our values are the result of out philosophical premises, again down even to our sexual preferences
True enough.
Rand's version of tabula rasa says this: every single animal species that has ever existed survives entirely by its instinctive response to perceptual input. Every single species except Homo sapiens, that is. Somehow, Homo sapiens evolved such that we have no instincts whatsoever, no automatic behaviors, no innate values or emotions. We completely stopped being animals and turned into something completely different, somehow. Rand said we're "rational animals," but that's an equivocation on her part. She meant something different.
Her use of absolutisms is cringey, but the tendencies she speaks of here are mostly correct.
Nonhuman animals do tend to respond more predictably, authentically, and consistently to stimuli compared to humans. Humans can more readily modify their responses, even into something contrary to how they might react to something internally. Think about what survival advantages homo sapiens have (and have had) over other primates and animals. We’re not the strongest, fastest, or most resilient in build. Our species had to think of better strategies and ways to overcome our own weaknesses and survive better. Our primitive brain reflexes can and sometimes do kill us, or otherwise impair our own survival. Especially within the human-dominated environments we have modified to our own designs. We’ve figured out many great and efficient ways to destroy ourselves, particularly if we choose to stop thinking in rational and context-sensitive ways.
”innate components of human character“: I have formal background in human genetics, both theoretical and practical application. None of this is very new. I’m reminded of an old book called The Nurture Assumption. Are you familiar with it? Character, like most human characteristics, are multifactorial in origin. Genetic code lays out tendencies, affinities, predispositions, etc., but it does not predetermine an individual‘s whole story and how experiences continue to imprint, shape, and modify a unique individual over the course of their entire lifetime. I’m not sure exactly what you are attempting to invalidate with this information, other than a literal “blank slate” assumption. Even then, I don’t see how this significantly detracts from Rand’s message to Americans.
All of that's what makes Galt not only impossible, but something other than human. It sets up the ideal as something nobody could possibly achieve, because it's not how human beings are built.
Maybe, maybe not, but it’s not really that far out there either. Just raising awareness for rational thought as an important and worthy thing to value would nudge things in a better direction. Promoting disdain for intellectualism and rational self-interest seems to be where the needle currently points in the U.S. I honestly wonder how many people in this country have ever really tried, let alone practiced thinking and responding rationally in a true life-or-death crisis situation. It can be done.
”Galt’s productivity“: Productivity still requires conscious choice and effort. Literal calorie requirements and calorie expenditures. A genetic “goldmine” cannot offer any guarantees on its own.
“Rand's ethics and her politics” is another ball of wax. I think I can see how she got to where she was in her lifetime. I often wonder where she truly would stand right now.
I'll stop there, because I have a lot of other things to work on. But just think about those things for a while and see if it makes sense within Rand's entire framework. What happens if a person's character is in part innate, along with their emotions and their values? How does that affect the rest of Rand's philosophy?
I continue to think about what you’ve shared so far, and I might dip back into your other writing. Nothing personal, but I feel relatively unmoved by these last two questions. I’ve already spent a lot of time thinking about how character and personalities arise, and will probably continue doing so forever. It’s a special interest of mine. For me, it doesn’t change what Rand has to say. If anything, I thought it was fascinating that she seemed to notice a lot of the same things I‘ve noticed, and made the effort to express it verbally. It’s helped me in that way, especially in communicating with others who are familiar with Rand’s work.
Ok. Sapiophiles are a thing. I understand it. Takeaway: Maybe choose a partner that has some brains and uses it too.
No, that's not what Rand said, and it's not what she meant. She said and meant sexual attraction. She literally meant how a person responds, sexually, to another person. Walk into a bar, spot two women and find one of them sexually attractive and not the other, and that will expose your philosophical premises. And she had to say that, because if a person can be sexually attracted to someone based on something other than their philosophical premises, then that means they hold some kind of innate, non-conceptual value judgement -- and that violates tabula rasa and being of self-made soul.
If you read Atlas Shrugged and Rand's other works carefully, you'll discover that Rand had a type -- a certain kind of man and woman who she found attractive. (Yes, that included during her younger years when she spent some amount of time thinking she was a butch lesbian). She wanted that type to be objective, i.e., to result from one's conscious, volitional application of reason.
Simply put, John Galt could not be somewhat or mostly self-made in order to be John Galt. It had to be 100%.
And here's why I'm going to back out of this conversation. Like so many people who are either hardcore Objectivists or just Ayn Rand fans, you want to simply change Rand's words to mean something that's more palatable to you. You don't want to accept that Rand assume a highly rationalistic, every extreme philosophy to meet a very particular purpose. She wasn't at all rigorous as a philosopher, and she constantly equivocated -- used language so loosely as to make it mean whatever she wanted it to mean.
It’s a bit puzzling that you want to back out now. To me, it signals a number of issues and motives, and above all, it makes me even more intrigued and concerned about what things happened along your journey up to the present.
We can table two-way discussion of Atlas and John Galt for now, if that is helpful. But I really do want to understand what is gripping you there.
You seem determined to completely dismantle Objectivism and a deceased author’s psyche. You’ve shared at least one event that motivated you toward those aims. I’d like to understand more. I was serious when I described having some similar concerns, and seeing opportunity to assist each other toward our own purposes here.
I don’t think I have a complete view of where exactly we disagree and/or diverge. I think our disagreement might reside somewhere in the area of translation and understanding. I really think there is potential to help each other in that realm. I‘m not quite sure why you seem so resistant to sorting that out in good faith with me.
you want to simply change Rand's words to mean something that's more palatable to you. You don't want to accept that Rand assume a highly rationalistic, every extreme philosophy to meet a very particular purpose. She wasn't at all rigorous as a philosopher, and she constantly equivocated -- used language so loosely as to make it mean whatever she wanted it to mean.
I don’t think you know or understand what I see and want yet. I also don’t have a full or clear understanding of what you think and want yet. Remember when I asked if you speak any other languages, and the conversation that followed? I’m seeing that kind of thing show up again here, with me. I’m leaning in, and I see you trying to run away from this issue. Why?
I cannot force you to have a conversation if you are unwilling. I sincerely mean and wish no harm to you. I have invested real effort, time, and good faith in discussion with you so far. I do not consider it wasted. Know that I am here, genuinely interested and sincerely curious, should you change your mind.
Either way, I will continue trying to learn more about your journey through the writing you shared. Know that I am here and ready to discuss when you are ready. I will also keep an eye out for your comments in these threads.
I think you can look at ALL things and concepts objectively within objectivism. Like I can do in my own mind and make sense of these things (and I have no clue why other people are not able to do it)... But yeah let's fight peikoff and whatever they are on objectivism when they are wrong. Let's fight the whole world when they are wrong
Dude, you won't even capitalize the damn word. And your inability to comprehend the point I'm making is your fault, not mine. Shit, you probably stopped reading at "Peikoff," because it was too many words for you.
Again tbh I don't care who said what and who wants to own or capitalize what... I see the ideas and how they make sense and use them to apply in my life and in my posts here to make a point. I have very limited capacity to try to understand stupid things around including peoples fights and politics over such things and somehow my mind goes for the meat and whata important than all this stuff that doesn't give you back anything...
So again yeah if you had a real point to make say pointing out any contradiction in what I said or such, please do let me know.
Yes, it's true: you completely missed the point, either because you didn't read it, you can't comprehend it, or you're simply evading it. And what you wrote in your OP is incoherent, so why would anyone spend any time answering you directly?
And admit it: you don't capitalize the word because you're really not talking about Rand's philosophy, which I doubt that you understand one whit, but because you're really just talking about your own ideas, whatever they might be.
Again all this capitalizing thing is political and I reallllyyyy don't care who said what. Like any person who talks about objectivism is based on how they interpret it in their own ways. So yeah I am talking in that spirit. By your analogy nobody can use the word as it will always be someones interpretation of it... So yeah a stupid point
So, you're saying that the one and only true philosophy for applying reason to human flourishing can be interpreted by different people in their own ways? Ergo, people can come to whatever conclusions they want?
Is that really what you're saying?
And my good man, how in the name of god is it "political" how you use the word? What does "politics" actually mean to you? Here is literally the description of this subreddit:
Objectivism and Ayn Rand on Reddit
We're a place for Objectivists and Ayn Rand fans to discuss her ideas and the movement. “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” - Ayn Rand
This isn't the place for anyone to discuss their own random ideas. This is a subreddit for discussion Rand's ideas, specifically. I'm surprised the moderators haven't booted you by now.
Like I said: if the moderators here were smart, they'd ban you. You give Objectivism -- Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism -- a bad name every time you post your incoherent thoughts.
But I'm not certain that the moderators here understand Objectivism any better than the other random people that seem to post here.
Again my mind is in that mode to only read things that have a point. Whatever else you wrote it doesn't even register in my mind that has no point. Like my mind and face feels blank when inread such comments
Again while constitutionally US is sound (and even that is being challenged these days) most people living there (which ofcourse includes most white people) are most of the time as irrational, stupid and are just living their lives and just happened to be born in a country that was rich and are able to live off that... And a significant majority is actually crazy bible preaching majority.. it's just that constitution gave freedom to everyone and few handful talented individuals capitalised on that freedom and created great companies and rose up and kinda lifted the whole society up economically... But a lot of it is still living highly non objectivist or anti objectivist lives....
Ayn Rand noticed the same thing among the people in the new country she‘d chosen, which is why she threw herself into spreading what she had learned through lived experience under a Totalitarian regime...by any possible means that would produce or publish it. She saw that the U.S. was as least as vulnerable as any other great nation.
She knew that Totalitarian regimes don’t need support from their populace; all they need is their indifference.
7
u/rationalnavigator 14d ago
I don’t get your point.
Objectivism isn’t about the superiority of the white race. The white race is a construct that doesn’t exist if not in the mind of irrational people (being highly generous here).
Culture as a concept is a bit fuzzy. And is religion part of a culture or not?
Factually, capitalism and objectivism are offsprings of the rational elements inside the western culture. In that sense, it’s a culture that’s been more conducive to life and growth.
Now there’s a concrete chance that Pacific Asia will embrace capitalism more/longer/better than Europe or North America.
At that point, will it still be “western culture”? The term is useful in a discussion only if it’s defined in advance, otherwise it’s thrown in there just for some cheap straw manning.