Okay, I wasn’t clear on whose statement you disagreed with, and I’m still not. The statement you quoted was mine ("So discussions on this site should relate in some way to Objectivism, not simply to philosophy in general"), and it’s the statement that you’re saying you disagree with. Also, we have both been members here for over 10 years, so I’m not clear which of us you’re referring to.

Please back up your assertion that Rand sees human beings as molecular machines. In Atlas Shrugged, it is the villains that promote that philosophy.

"Capitalism, free markets and liberty also create a tiered system - the tiers being determined by ability and one's willingness to work (crime aside)."

Well said. I think one thing is that capitalism, however, doesn't prevent one from moving between tiers. That's the American dream: starting out with nothing and eventually winding up with a home with a white picket fence and car in the driveway. You can't get that from socialism because socialism installs the not-so-proverbial glass ceiling on progress. (It also supports incompetence. See Hunter Biden.)

+1000 if I could!

For a thought exercise: derive human equality (of station) based only on the extrinsic qualities of mankind. I can't do it without relying on intrinsic qualities and intrinsic qualities necessitate a commonality of spirit or soul.

Nice.

I would simply say that actual society lives in the middle between extreme collectivism and extreme individualism. Individualism taken to its extreme turns everyone into hermits or monks while collectivism taken to its extreme turns everyone into clones (see Kurt Vonnegut Jr's Harrison Bergeron). Society lies somewhere in the middle because society can only exist where there are shared norms and expectations. That was one of the things Peterson was pointing out in this speech: that much of mankind's happiness lies in being of value to other people. And that's psychologically objective and measurable.

To me, the quintessential role of religion is illustrated in my favorite quote from Jurassic Park: "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they didn't stop to think if they should." The simple problem is that without religion - without some kind of notion of God - you can't answer the "should" portion of any ethical question. A simple illustration: derive human equality (of station) based only on the extrinsic qualities of mankind. It can't be done. It's one of the reasons I find the atheistic approach taken by Rand to be ... incomplete. I understand her antipathy toward the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church and their hypocrisy is truly a disincentive. But Rand falls prey to guilt by association in concluding that because those two religions fail to live up to their own standards that by extension God doesn't exist. (As a corollary, good can not exist without evil, so if God doesn't exist, neither does the devil. Who benefits from that misconception? The devil.)

I would also point out that faith is very different from belief. Faith is to act on one's beliefs regardless whether one knows the outcome or not. And everyone does that. The real question lies in whether or not any particular belief is reasonable. And for that one has to be willing to dive into not only that belief but the accompanying beliefs and structures which go with it. There is a reason why religion is a lifestyle: it is an entire building - not just one stone.

I think Rand had a lot of very good ideas. I believe free enterprise is the best expression of human nature both in commerce as well as personal intercourse. I believe people should be individually free to make choices for themselves based on the best information they can find. I abhor tyranny in its myriad forms. I value the individuality of every person for the uniqueness that is them wholly separate and distinct from the uniqueness which is me.

Nice!

Note that I disagreed not with your statement, but with the other. I was agreeing with you and I even quoted the statement I disagreed with to avoid misrepresentation.

Well said, Bill. Thanks. In my case, taxation has almost completely eliminated my charitable contributions.

There must be a better word or concept than "Sacrifice" . We've all sacrificed something at one time or another voluntarily. For our children, Friends, relatives and self . . . all for something better, sense of obligation, responsibility or personal desires.

It's not exclusive to communism/collectivism/marxism.

I mean that for some people Objectivism isn't enough. Does Rand see human beings as
molecular machines with electronic sponges in our heads and nothing more? I propose, if you think a person is a machine, then Objectivism works. But we are more than machines.

"She hated sacrifice."

She also defined it in a very narrow sense, right? To give something of value in exchange for something of lesser value. However, the common use of it is distinctly different: "to give something of high value in the moment for something of equal or higher value after"

Even the Guardian had this to say on it from an interview with him:
“God”, in Peterson’s formulation, stands in for “reality” or “the future” or “the logos” or “being” or “everything that isn’t you and that you don’t know”. And the principal discovery of early mankind is that “God” can be bargained with, through sacrifice – which is no more than saying if you sacrifice the pleasures of the present, reality is likely to reward you in the future. It’s not guaranteed, but it’s the best option you’ve got."

Notice the meaning here is not to give something of good value for something of lesser value, but to trade a fleeting pleasure or happiness for a deeper, more long term one. Notice as well that in this very video he describes a sequence of increasing scope of responsibility one can take, starting with self then expanding to family, and so on. He then comments that this is also associated with "going up" or "higher" and that at the top of it the "spirit" that those things embody is traditionally associated with God. Further, that you are acting on a faith in your ability to do so - it isn't a religious faith anymore than starting a business requires you have faith in your ability to be successful at it. Which is a different definition of faith than Rand uses.

In the strict sense, which you'd know if you watch and pay attention he is referring to a "faith" that is built by objective success - you start by learning to clean your room, then you learn to take more into your scope and become competent, and repeat this as you continue through life.

Frankly, much of your response is really anti-objective in that you conflate things and fail to apply reason - they are knee-jerk responses from an emotional basis. A rational being would ask what is meant by those terms when used by those individuals honestly, and then seek the answer; they would not use that as an excuse to dismiss the work of an intellect as you did. In fact, your opening quote is not from Peterson, but is a summary opinion given by someone else.

Consider:
"Ayn Rand: Man's Highest Moral Purpose Is His Own Happiness"

What is Happiness? Do you understand that what Rand defines as Happiness is actually in line with what JBP describes as meaning?

Consider Galt's Speech:
"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors— between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it."

This is what Peterson is saying - the last sentence. He decries "happiness" as the term is used today - and as Rand did. For Rand, Happiness is not a fleeting emotion that is Man's Purpose, which is what Peterson also says.

Rand via John Galt:
“Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. A morality that dares to tell you to find happiness in the renunciation of your happiness—to value the failure of your values—is an insolent negation of morality. A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose."

“But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."

Again, this is an accordance to what Petersen promotes as well. He speaks of eschewing that irrational whim in favor of purpose and meaning:

"‘Happiness’ is a pointless goal. Don’t compare yourself with other people, compare yourself with who you were yesterday. No one gets away with anything, ever, so take responsibility for your own life."

and this from another interview goes into more depth:
---
Dr. Oz: Happiness you talk a lot about it should it be our life goal and if not what should we be seeking.

Peterson: Well, it shouldn’t be our life goal because there are times in your life when you’re not going to be happy and then what are you going to do? Your goal is demolished. And there are going to be plenty of times in your life when you’re not happy, there might be years. And so it’s a shallow boat in a very rough ocean. And it’s based upon a misconceptualization. Happiness is something that descends upon you, everyone knows that. You know, it comes upon you suddenly and then you should be grateful for it because there’s plenty of suffering and if you happen to be happy, well… wonderful, enjoy it, be grateful for it, and maybe try to meditate on the reasons that it manifested itself, right? Because it can come as a mystery, you know, you don’t necessarily know when you’re gonna be happy. Something surprising happens and delights you. And you can analyze that, you can think well I’m doing something right, I’m in the right place right now, I’ve done something right, maybe I can hang on to that, maybe I can learn from that.

What you should be pursuing instead is– well there’s two things. You should be pursuing who you could be. That’d be the first thing. Because you’re not who you could be and you know it. You have guilt, and shame, and and regret and you berate yourself for your lack of discipline and your procrastination and all your bad habits. You know perfectly well that you’re not who you could be, and god only knows who you could be. And that’s what you should be striving for.

And associated with that you should be attempting to formulate some conception of the highest good that you can conceive of, you can articulate. Because why not aim for that? It’s like your life is short and it’s troublesome and perhaps you need to do something worthwhile with it. And if so, then you should do the most worthwhile thing and you should figure out what that is for you. And part of that’s definitely going to be to develop your character as much as possible to dispense with those parts of you that are unworthy. And then maybe, if you’re fortunate and you do that carefully, then happiness will descend upon you, from time to time. And that’s the best you’ve got. And then also, perhaps, during sorrowful times, or worse, evil times, the fact that you’ve strengthened your character and that you’re aiming at the highest that you can conceptualize, that’ll give you the moral fortitude to endure without becoming corrupted during those times and to be someone who can be relied upon in a crisis.

There’s a name you know– one of the things I’ve told my audiences is– the young guys take to this a lot—I said “you should be the strongest person at your father’s funeral”, right. Well, that’s something to aim for. It’s a transition, the generational transition, and it means that– well, all the people around you are suffering because of their loss. They have someone to turn to, who can illustrate, by their behavior, that the force of character is sufficient to move you beyond the catastrophe, and you need that. And that’s a great thing to hypothesize as your aim. And happiness just evaporates as irrelevant in light of that sort of conceptualization.

How is that opposed to Rand's definition of happiness and man's purpose? Peterson is talking about being the most you, that doesn't ask another man to live for you, or demand you live your life for his. He speaks of showing strength of character not by reducing yourself, but by strengthening yourself and demonstrating it by example and accomplishment rather than self-destruction through Randian sacrifice. He speaks of you defining what matters to you and pursuing that; and to do it in a way that can withstand periods of tough times and situations.

He even, in this speech, goes on to condemn the push of western mental health clinicians that mental health is subjective, and asserts we know it is not subjective - even if you lack the phrasing and language to express it or even the conscious awareness of its objective existence. Existence Exists.

This persistence of character through tough times and over long periods of time is in accordance with Rand's insistence that happiness is not mere pleasure, but something that you can use to be a more you, you over those times. Yes, he speaks of morality, but doe does Rand.

Again via Galt's speech:
---
The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live. ...
“No, you do not have to think; it is an act of moral choice. But someone had to think to keep you alive; if you choose to default, you default on existence and you pass the deficit to some moral man, expecting him to sacrifice his good for the sake of letting you survive by your evil.
---

Notice the point here is that to live is an act of choice - a moral choice specifically. Peterson is speaking to taking responsibility for yourself first as your highest moral good and the foundation of your morality and meaning in life. Again, what makes you think these are opposing thoughts?

As others have said, they are not in lockstep agreement, but neither are they in lockstep opposition. As someone reading and studying both, and of course not in lockstep agreement with either, once you get past the superficial, basically unthinking, reaction to the words used and understand that the meanings under them for much of their individual work is on the same page you find they are far more similar than different, much more aligned than opposed.

"Who is this guy?"

Someone who made the same mistake you did. Just as you reacted with a superficial and unthoughtful reaction to what was written or said by him - especially in snippets and quotes - he has with Rand.

Please back up your assertion that Objectivism breaks down at some point. "God" doesn't find a place in the Gulch, just people that claim that he/she/it exists.

I meant, a philosophy that is stagnant, scripture, no longer incorporating new thought, which obviously comes from other people. I did not mean that Objectivism had to be stagnant. I see the issue. sorry for the misunderstanding.

Perfect!

You didn’t say it was stagnant? Your exact words were: "However, a site dedicated only to her, her writings, and a stagnant philosophy is a waste." How else are we supposed to interpret it?

And please show me where I said or implied that Ayn Rand’s writings are scripture. What I actually said was that “discussions on this site should relate in some way to Objectivism, not simply to philosophy in general.” I stand by that statement.

"Capitalism, free markets and liberty also create a tiered system - the tiers being determined by ability and one's willingness to work (crime aside). "

Yes, this is something he actually harps on quite a bit much to the dismay of the hit-squad person interviewing him at a given moment. He repeatedly illustrates that inequality exists in all systems, and that this is because we are not all identically equal (as opposed to equal under the law); intelligence, work ethic, motivation, skill, natural talent, and even luck are not evenly distributed. Because of this no system can be devised that eliminates inequality.

That view, IMO, meshes precisely with the Objectivist axioms. It is based on a perceptual bases (it always exists) and this leads to the concept of inevitability due to the underlying reality (such as how it exists is all animals, and even microorganisms). He then proceeds to dismiss that as an object that can be had and should be the goal of any economic or political systems.

He then proceeds to explain that the most rational hierarchy is one based on capability, competence, and thus merit - which IMO also dovetails into Objectivism as well.

" I quickly replied, "If you tax me near the rates being proposed I'll go buy another house." (insert cricket sounds here). Haha!"

Nice! I used a similar argument when involved with politics years ago (and I am most likely not original in it): "I'll donate 10% of my income to charity, minus the percentage the government takes from me, so if you take 5% I only give 5%. Take more than 10 and I give nothing."

Man, the looks on people's faces were a sight to behold! >.<

Agreed... Great Video!

The Konstinin ARC video is really good too!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1MIC...

Please re-read my statement that you quoted. I said “discussions on this site should relate in some way to Objectivism.” I specifically did not say that “only Objectivism should be discussed on this forum”, as you implied. I relate to people on this forum just fine, thank you very much, and one reason I do is that I don’t misrepresent what they say.

For me it breaks down to Collectivism vs Individualism as the bottom turtle. That said "total self-interest is the opposite to Collectivism" is also a good way to put it - when speaking w/rational people anyway. ;)

Further, it gets to the heart of why the Leftists have had the success they have: because they are fanatically consistent in their devotion to collectivism by whichever form/name they like - Fascism, Socialism, Racial Supremacy/Racism, Sexism, etc, are all implementations of collectivism.

As you alluded to, the antidote is individualism - it is the beating heart of Collectivism's enemy and weakness. It is why family must be destroyed, why private property must be destroyed, why "it must take a village to raise a child" and so on; because each of those and more lead directly an inevitably to the recognition of the primacy of the individual in your affairs. (note: Rand did write about this in Anthem, which IMO is a far more important work than most consider it to be for those very reasons. Though admittedly it was my introduction to Rand even it remained my only read of hers for decades.)

Monotheistic religions, like much of "the right" or "conservatives" or whatever label currently stands "opposite" of the Left, wobbles back and forth between the two. On the one hand they tend to be individualistic, but then they do collectivize based on attributes or "competing religions."

As I've delved through history looking to see if the terms truly just vary so much to be meaningless over time or if there are common driving factors - roses by any other name smelling of crap or heaven - the common thing on the Left has been collectivist, while the Right wavers around. And this wavering is despite the fact that at least in America, the Right's largest successes have been when they were the most unabashedly and consistently pro-individual and anti-collective.

And to this, a point that I have made for years about where JBP is factually and demonstrably incorrect on: his assertion that "we know what the Right going too far looks like." Because we don't, really.

I doubt I'll get any significant disagreement that the Nazis and Fascists of the 20th century to whom he refers were solidly left-wing. So we place them as part of the "Left going too far" category.

However, if Individualism is the opposite of Collectivism, what is the extreme opposite of Collectivism, what does that look like? To be fair the answer isn't simple. Is a monarchy fundamentally individualist? An empire? A Republic?

So far, if I were forced to choose, I would conclude the closest we have to what an extreme Individualist government would look like is true anarcho-capitalism as was practiced in the "Old West" (which is earlier than the "Wild West"). Every individual as free to choose, if accepted, which non-geographically exclusive legal system to live by/under/in. The associations were voluntary, had no standing forces, engaged in cooperative agreements out of "enlightened self-interest" you could say. You could leave one for another. You could get evicted (and become an "out-law" - someone living without the protection of a system of laws) from one for failing to abide by the actual contract of membership.

Behind that I'd place Empire - mostly because "I conquer the most, so I get to say what goes" and hereditary monarchies after. But they have a much weaker position there.

But even so, what would the "too far" moniker look like? That gets tricky, but I can offer some possibilities. I suspect you'd have to have an emperor with absolute control that wields it to prevent any form of non-familial group associations to be involved in any form of governance - hence Anarcho-Capitalism would be disqualified. Further that emperor would have to enforce maximal liberty.

Frankly, I find it difficult to imagine such a thing. In part because that would have to be a corrupted implementation, not a "went too far that way" scenario because a pure individualist would have to allow voluntary associations of individuals for self-governance and interest. Contrast that with "too far" on the left simply being really just "too authoritarian" because all collective actions and beliefs are not only acceptable under Collectivism but essential. Thus in my hypothetical above I try to focus on over-application of force/authority to maximize mandatory individualism.

I can see a decent set of arguments that the Gulch in AS might qualify.

For me, I see monotheistic religions as a means for many to unconsciously try to assuage the dissonance of family, and even government, among individual nature. As noted above, family leads to and promotes individualism - "my spouse" and "my kid" are examples of this. It forces a recognition of the individual and that sense of primacy and agency.

Religion forms a group for social structuring, but that structure reinforces and reminds us of our individualism - and often by making use of family as a key component. Perhaps this is why you've noted what you describe as "why God finds a place in the Gulch" - and why that would be an argument against ban Objectivist government being "going too far on the right".

Nothing I've ever read about Objectivism asserts that a person who believes in some form of deity that cannot be proven cannot be abided in an Objectivist Gulch. After all, as she pointed out one's belief in dragons doesn't mean they exist, however perceiving an actual dragon would mean they exist. Thus, since God (by whatever definition) either does exist or does not, it is possible that we have yet to perceive objectively the existence of a God. For Rand, faith is an affront to reason because it is a believe in absence of or even contrary to objective facts. However, if provided with the perceptuals proving objectively the existing of God(s), you cannot have faith because you have proof.

As Peikoff noted, we can discover new objective reality that would constitute a recognition of - thus preventing belief in the Randian (and others') sense - of God(s). And when you get into it, it seems to me that Rand's main objection to religion was the abandonment of reason to the appeal-to-authority of a being not proven to exist instead, not to the non-existence of god.

Thus her protagonists could believe in a god, so long as they don't base their actions on the mystical commands of god(s), In my view Robert Sawyer does a good job of portraying a race of beings with a view of god that I think would be compatible with Objectivist axioms in "Calculating God."

"...at their foot out of spite because Trump wasn't 100% aligned with Libertarians... "

Frankly this is so common among Libertarians and libertarians that it represents, in my estimation, one of if not the largest hurdle they have toward moving in the direction of freedom. They practice "perfect is the enemy of better" as if it were a religious commandment to true believers.

I take a different route. I go through the effort to demonstrate thorium absurd and direct examples that the only pronouns you use for someone you are speaking to when referencing them is "you/yours." I illustrate how they themselves use "you/yours" in that very conversation, and would never ask to me "How are he doing today?"

This tends to produce a "deer in the headlights" look, followed by a quick "well of course not" type response. And that is when the trap has been set. They should see what comes next, but they never have.

I then point out that to insist on other pronouns is not to insist on what someone calls you, but to insist on what they say to other people. I've had several realize they have no argument to counter with and accept it.

Some have tried the "but it is about me, and I might be there," to which I illustrate that that argument does not change the facts. I then point out that in referencing other people the most useful way is to reference someone visually in appropriate contexts, such as "This is Bobby's jacket, take it to him at the bar" because the reference is a visual indicator. This is usually met with another flummoxed look followed by realization and accord.

Sometimes they respond with something along the lines of "well you can't use expected visual stereotypes or cues because that is just reinforcing gender role stereotypes." Rare, but it has happened. Naturally the response to one line is around the lines of "There are three people at the bar, one looks like , two . If I say something like "This is xer jacket and motion toward the bar, take it to xe. Now how do you know which is which?"

From here they sometimes leave in a huff. Usually they wind up grudgingly, quite grudgingly often, that I have a point they can't argue.

Personally, I find that far more enjoyable. :D Because I know it gets stuck in there somewhere and one day will help reality bite them in arse.

Edit: I forgot to mention I have been to a JBP event in Austin, TX, and I did this to fellow audience members. Admittedly nearly every one of them recovered after the first one and were surprised at how they hadn't thought of it. Good times.

I think that Objectivism breaks down at some point and that's why God finds a place in the Gulch. There are religious people which are still attracted to some of Any Rand's ideas. I think we kill God at our own peril. I'm not going to re-write Objectivism! I'll leave it be, good enough to (over-react) away from Collectivism! Total self-interest is the opposite to Collectivism. It can't be good either...or can it? No balance?

Well, burning cars...not quite yet people...although letting people rot in jail as political prisoners to scare the opposition.

Very good articles!