I wonder if your philosophy study was not more correctly called theological philosophy. I've met and talked with many others making similar claims, only to discover that theology/religious belief was included in their course study. Philosophy and religion/theology are entirely separate things. A=A

One of the beauties I perceive is the fact that the axioms, by definition, are not deductively derivable. Therefore, a philosophy that is based on the few foundational axioms does not need a deduction from something else. Its entire body structure grows from those axioms, by cognition and recognition. Do you agree?

The difficulty I see that concerns me the most at this time is the shift in priorities in much of the literature, the gatherings, and their primary institutions and research/ studies groups towards social issues and away from the more limited government, liberty issues. I don't see much of a confrontation on the damages being inflicted on freedom such as the One ID, the shift in DHS priorities to 'domestic terrorism', the taking over of the public lands of the West restricting any access or use by the citizenry, the crazy antics of the DoS with Iran and the rest of the Middle East, and their attempts to assert power over the Pacific, the fruitless effort to influence Russia in their associations with their neighbors, the near crippling of our financial system and economies, the involvement in the EU problems,--on and on.

Yes, the social issues are popular and fit better into a PC world and draw some Anarchos and Liberals to the movement, but really don't have that much effect on liberty and getting government out of our lives. Does the party or the movement have any other interesting up and coming possibilities for next year's elections other than the maybe's about Rand Paul? If so, I haven't heard of them? Where do they see possibilities--states, cities, Congress?

I point out that the Scholastics used similar arguments to "prove" the necessary existence of God, starting with "self-evident truths." Their philosophy is as coherent, consistent and internally indisputable as Ayn Rand's. The only difference is in the "self evident truths" from which each springs.

And to whom are you referring?

What works doesn't define truth. But it does doom to me that objectivist based analysis does "work" better in the long term than anything else because it's based on the facts of reality

At this point I will accept people who are at least partially rational and who might be more so as time goes on. I don't think that the USA is going to turn objectivist in my lifetime. It's a monumental job and it could take 100 years easily. Certainly a couple of generations

Will the welfare programs be allowed to go bankrupt, or will the whole nation be bankrupted by the programs? I'm afraid we are on the path to following Greece down the tubes. Only in our case, I don't think there will be a Germany or EU big enough to bail us out. On that cheery note, I think I'll go hide under my bed ... ;-)

Longer than we have.

The LP platform that I quoted above makes it clear that many libertarians (including virtually all dues-paying members of the Libertarian Party) do think that property rights exist. Since some libertarians are also Objectivists, it’s not true that libertarians (as a group) “reject the whole idea of rights in any rational sense.”

I still think an appeal to freedom, rooted in responsibility is possible. Harry Potter and Percy Jackson did nothing to help, but how can someone not accept that to be free, one must be responsible? This is fundamental to growing up. No one extolls it though!

I don't think the discrepencies between Objectivism and Libertarianism need to be extolled to further either. One is a political party, the other is a philosophy. One can argue Libertarianism is a natural conclusion of Objecivism, but arguing one vs the other is unnecessary and unhelpful to either.

In this I think Ayn Rand erred. I feel she thought the Libertarians co opted her movement, and therefore, derided them.

Both Objectivism and Libertarianism favor freedom and responsibility going hand in hand. this is such a simple concept, that should sell with young people, but it doesn't, because no one put freedom into the same thought as responsibility and vice versa.

How about we write a video game where success is offered by maximizing the use of freedoms, but one is fully responsible for failures?

The question regarding as to whether the looters become completely dominant is one of, if not the most important, issue. In an era of Facebook where thought has been replaced by texting, a counter strategy must be implemented, or else there will be no place in the world that is not septic.

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

I had read the interview and missed the Putinesque reference.

The US is not a nation of Christians. Those that assert so seek a nation of pretenders, taking comfort in social norms and the easy inertia of ignorance. How many "Christians" would intentionally and personally sacrifice their own children? Few. Islam doesn't seem to have this issue. They have true believers. One of my favorite statements is "You don't see Atheists in foxholes". I bet all the Atheists in the military value their mortal lives significantly. Why would a Christian bother with such unnecessary cover. Just wade in and go after the enemy. The afterlife is better anyway...right? Maybe not...unless you are a Muslim.

A key question is will the looters become completely dominant before atheism takes root. Both are on the rise.

If Libertarians and Objectivists want to win young people over, freedom of thought and action need to be the call to action. Atheism is a great call to bring young people to fiscal responsibility and the ethical responsibility that comes from thought versus reliance on dogma.

Point conceded.

That may be so, but people that can balance their checkbooks and do calculus are also a minority.

Atheism is precisely science. Science can easily assert uncontested that any god's existence is unproven. Science can similarly clearly assert that a considerable portion of the bible was made up by men, long after the apostles, which wrote long after some guy supposedly known as Jesus died. Therefore, religion is at best a hypothesis, one of the few hypotheses people kill, die and seek to legislate for.

It is wholly unnecessary to demonstrate answers to all questions to question another's answers. The minute religion begins as a basis for an argument, action or legislation is the minute it must prove it is correct beyond a shadow of a doubt. Atheism makes no such claim to direct behavior, except to question.

It doesn't make any difference that "Barbara Branden used the term 'excommunicated'".

Quite correct. I would say that a minimum of 30 years would be necessary to replace the philosophy causing the problems? How long do you think it would take?

The personal snarling of malcontents does not in any way degrade Rand's philosophy. Rand's philosophy is sound.

Objectivism does not rest on convincing looters to stop voting for looting. It shows what is in fact in the individual's best interest. Politics presupposes philosophy. The way to change politics is to replace the philosophy causing the problems. That cannot happen in one election cycle.

I am not saying that Rand said that she was infallible or a Pope. Those were Ranter's terms. Rand did not say that. I am saying that there were significant disagreements between Rand and people who were once her adherents. This is factually correct.

Objectivism has nothing in common with the philosophy of pragmatism, which was an outgrowth of Kantian and Positivist skepticsm, is opposed to principle on principle and holds that truth is whatever "works". It does not mean "good 'ole practical American ingenuity". See Leonard Peikoff's lectures on Pragmatism and its predecessors, and the contrast with Objectivism, in his lecture series on the history of Western philosophy.

Define "complete" and then find a gap in Obj.ism.