I responded to what you wrote.

As for the timing, there are many who don't understand why it can't spread quickly and that isn't new. Even Ayn Rand was disappointed when Atlas Shrugged didn't initially have more of an impact, but she did know what would be required.

The Putinesque line was in an interview posted on gg not long ago.

And it's not whatever anyone wants it to be. It is Ayn Rand's philosophy as she created and published it.

Atheism isn't a philosophy at all, let alone something to "embrace" in the religious sense. It is simple the rejection of belief in the supernatural. Objectivist atheism is secondary to the philosophy -- a consequence. The rejection is based on a rational epistemology, not something to be "embraced" or "accepted".

Libertarians do not think that property rights exist, they think in terms of property privileges. We know this because they reject the whole idea of rights in any rational sense.

well people just pick up on things. They can ask or state. we all have to be insiders or have photographic memories, e? do you have a cite for the Kelley statement?

My point was that it should not be Objectivism but an offshoot of Objectivism.What I was thinking of, now that I've had more time to cogitate, is something that would pique the curiosity of interested people. Perhaps just a brief ten point exposition, something like: We are Yunameitsociety> Here is what we stand for: Then list the ten (or you pick the number) salient points. If you want to know more contact SO&SO @ etc.com. A person who contacts SO&SO could be given the Peikoff literature or part of it with the further info. that we have someone in your area who meets with a group of friends once a month at ..... Of course, this would imply setting up and actual organization.

David Kelley also called ARI Putinesque. None of it justifies Brenner's attempt to link Ayn to claims of infalliblity or of being a Pope. The personal snarling of malcontents does not identify Ayn Rand or her philosophy.

Yes, eclectics are not Objectivists. Ayn Rand's philosophy is "all" of her philosophy. Philosophy does not mean "economics and theory of government". Her political philosophy depends on her ethics, epistemology and metaphysics.

Yes, Ayn Rand discusses the nature and role of axiomatic concepts in chapter 6 of her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Leonard Peikoff explains the nature of the axioms in his Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, chapter 1 "Reality".

Not only are the axioms not mere "unprovable assumptions", she did not rationalistically deduce her philosophy from them as an arbitrary system of thought floating in the air.

oh goody. fun times :)

David Kelley also used it. Are you going to take him on? It is a sad chapter in the philosophy development.

why can't this be a separate post. darn. you stole my comment ewv! early bird I guess

Serious discussion is futile with anyone who thinks he can rationalistically deduce what Objectivism must be like without knowing it.

That is Barbara Branden's terminology and her own problem, only one of many in her trashing of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand and others had good reasons for personally wanting nothing to do with the Brandens, none of which had anything to do with claims of "infallibility" or being a "pope" of philosophy.

From the Libertarian Party platform:

“ . . . we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.”

Libertarians support property rights, but some (myself included) disagree with Halling and others about what constitutes a valid property right.

There’s a big difference between “abandoning principles” and recognizing that there are legitimate differences of opinion regarding the proper application of such principles.

Ranter; This concentration on the word 'atheism' and the indoctrination of our children with Christianity are indeed barriers to the spread of Objectivism. But there is reason for hope. A recent poll had more millennials self reporting as non-religious than any previous generational group. And the attempts by Christians to propagandize and proselytize that We Are A Nation of Christians is nonsense. Our Constitution puts the lie to that argument in it's words and it's construction and it's intent. We are a nation of individuals (or at least were meant to be).

But this propaganda of connecting the word 'atheist' with 'Objectivist' entirely misses the point and sets off on a path of contradictions imposed by those of anti-reason and anti-life positions. All or even most Atheists are not Objectivists. Objectivists arrive at their atheism not as a belief or indoctrination, but through their own logical reasoning. They are pro-life, pro-reason, pro-logic, and pro-rational. Using the tools of their senses and mind, Objectivist arrive at the understanding that belief in a god or any supernatural or superstition derived explanation for the reality within which we live has no basis in fact. It's not real, therefor it can't possibly react with us and we can't interact with it and it can't give us immortality.

Next you use the words 'embrace' and 'accept'. Neither of those words are relevant to an Objectivist, they much more are religious concepts. We don't 'embrace' atheism, we reason to atheism as well as everything else we understand and know. We don't 'accept' Objectivism nor try to get others to 'accept' Objectivism. We learn to apply reason based on reality and logic to our lives and live with the answers derived.

Your major in philosophy is preventing you from understanding Ayn Rand and a lot more, both in content and method.

You can arbitrarily "accept" any selections from any chines menu you want to with your religious mentality and lack of understanding. It has nothing to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy.

You have no idea what "presuppositions", i.e., facts, Ayn Rand started with and how she did it. Objectivism is not a free-floating "system" rationalistically deduced from arbitrary assumptions.

The design presumed that the people would make use of such protections. In some ways, this reminds me of what happened in AS when people refused to think.

"So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause." - Princess Padome from Star Wars III

http://www.ask.com/youtube?q=Padome+a...

Agreed. Fear spreads faster than reason. This is an unfortunate reality that we must either a) tolerate, b) shrug from, or c) plot an effective strategy to counteract. Part of my point in starting this post was c), else b) is the only one acceptable to me. That is a last resort.

But, we live an a country which represents the unique experiment in placing the sovereign power in the hands of the people. The design contained protections of the people from arbitrary power of the government.

It is no coincidence that the rise of progressive (leftist, socialist, liberal - take you pick) ideology coincided with the installation of the most radical statist ideology ever, the Lenin's communism in Russia. The are ALL Marx's children. Is it not obvious? Do you know how many "intellectuals" in this country and elsewhere admired Stalin's regime all the way until well into the Cold War? When they could not admire it openly any more, they tweaked some wording changed the name of their dogma and continued worshiping on the same altars.

The definition of "axiom" that is indisputable, in my opinion, is ancient: "As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'"
In short, axiom is a self-evident truth. Careless use of the term has lead to much misunderstanding. There are other terms, such as "premise", "postulate" and "principle". But in my opinion, they contain subtle differences in meaning, which enables them to be useful and to serve similar functions in different contexts and logical structures. You added "assumptions" in your soup. In my opinion, there a vast difference in meaning between assumptions and axioms.

Without meticulous accuracy and precision (another pair of concepts widely misunderstood)of expression, a serious and fruitful discussion of subject such as philosophy and Objectivism becomes quickly futile.

To show off: quod erat demostrandum.

These other sets of ideas appeal more to the weaknesses and fears of people, and are as a result spreading faster. Most people today arent really thinkers- they decide by referring to their emotions. Objectivists would be better advised to appeal to people " where they live and breathe" to they see the advantages to thinking and therefore do it.