It is illuminating and more than a bit disturbing. In some ways it is as real as "Atlas Shrugged"

That pretty much gives you a way to not ever have too have any definite beliefs since conceptual knowledge is amorphous by your logic.
I agree that as a concept, in the sense of XenokRoy during all of his life and all about him after death and decay, will be about him but the concept can not be reified as something that has and will always exist. In order to believe something, one need have some evidence to point to but where none is had, one does not believe the existence of that alleged something.

I consider it irrationality to ignore the evidence of my senses or the experiences of my life or to deny the things I have been a part of. Since these experiences were not yours, I understand your inclination to disbelieve that any such could have occurred. Such a disbelief doesn't change a thing in reality, however.

I do consider the atheistic aspect of Objectivism a fundamental tenet because such a belief (or disbelief as you are wont to assert) colors the way any other subject is approached. It is how I look at the matter and really isn't subject to your opinion - just like the rest of my post. If you wish to present your viewpoint, present it as your own or as a counter-argument, but don't pretend you have any authority to re-write or re-interpret my ideas. You wouldn't tolerate it if our positions were reversed and rightly so, as it constitutes coercion and flied in the face of an avowed belief in the freedom of the mind.

Ah, I see. I've never read Brave New World and wasn't aware of this terminology in the novel. Maybe if I read it, it will make more sense.

free; I guess I see politics as unreasonable and irrational. I see it as a tool/weapon used by those in power to manipulate the population through majority over minority. I see no gains what-so-ever possible by joining into the game played by the made-up rules of the political elite.

A really good Post that reflects my thinking on the subject is SLL's latest at: : http://straightlinelogic.com/2016/02/...

edit: Added link

That is one definition. I am using the definitions proposed by Huxley in "Brave New World". In his novel the classifications were imposed by the state but they occur naturally. I find his spectrum useful in describing the real world. I have never met any one claiming to be an objectivist that didn't want control over his own life. People follow the "pack leader" not because the leader chooses to be followed but because the people chose to follow.
In "Brave New World" Huxley describes his "fictional" caste system in detail. In his novel the system is created artificially by the "Director of Hatcheries" where all of an individuals life is predetermined. The system includes the classifications of Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon. Each of these are further divided into sub categories such as Alpha Plus and Epsilon Minus and the predestinators engineer each fetus by the proper application of various chemicals during gestation in synthetic wombs.
I chose this analogy when viewing the "real world" because this caste system exists and occurs naturally as a function of human genetics and natural selection. The point of his story is that for a civilization to be stable there must be leaders and there must be followers every citizen no matter where they are on the culture ladder is happy to be where he is. In the Brave New World it is a mental illness to be unhappy and if found to be such the individual is treated and reconditioned accordingly. The parallels to the liberal-progressive view of the ideal society are painfully obvious.

I have have listened to LP lectures on the history of philosophy. I disagree that she gets to take a pass on this. Even Aristotle references others. One cannot hold up the founding of the US as she did and not acknowledge those who influenced its founding. cmon.

I generally do not see "greed" as evil so long as you are willing to earn whatever you are greedy to have with your own personal effort and achievement.

Greed is only bad when you are willing to take the efforts of others and claim the results of those efforts as your own to get what you are greedy to get.

I think that in line with, and likely a much more wordy way to say rational self-interest is moral and therefor good, as the kind of greed that motivates a person to achieve the thing they have greed to get is rational self-interest.

I don't think the image I presented was a demonization. There is nothing wrong with that type of robust personality. It serves many people very well. I am merely questioning the premise that Objectivists necessarily fall in that category.

It is possible to control oneself and one's environment without bothering to dominate other people. But that type of person is not an Alpha. I am somewhat skeptical that the concept of Alpha can even be applied to humans at all. We are not pack or herd animals. Our social hierarchies are more sophisticated than simply being the biggest ape who can beat down the most rivals into submission. It seems to me-- in certain circumstances this can be a helpful analogy, but it has its limitations.

Great addition, thanks.

Since I believe that we have all always existed in some state (including a creator, better word would be organizer) and that all of existence has always existed, and can only be organized into different things based on what material components are understood to exist and available to work with, the argument that intelligent design would be outside of existence is mute.

Not sure I stated that in a clear way, but in a nut shell on my view, you me and god have always existed, the only thing that changes is the state we are currently in. That is true of every chemical compound and every other thing in existence. There is no beginning and no end, simply changes in states.

My point is that at this point in time, people in general are too steeped in emotionally driven socialism to think clearly. We would be better off addressing the issues on a practical level where these people are living NOW in order to lead them to understanding your intellectual arguments which I can pretty much guarantee go on deaf ears in THIS culture at THIS time.

Ewv,

As usually you ignore the reality that Atheism is a religion. It is belief in the non-existence of god or anything considered supernatural. That belief cannot be proven and must therefor be taken on faith. That is a religion by definition.

I agree that Atheism is secondary. That is the reason I can pull much of objectivism into my own religion and it works quite well.

The fountainhead being my least favorite has to do with one thing, The characters never clicked well with me. I liked the psychology of it very well, but see both the main character of the protagonist as weak characters. In Atlas I love the characters of Dagny, Hank and Francisco but really do not like John Galt that much. I like what he stands for, but he himself is shallow and under developed or utilized. It makes sense and fits, but if he were the only character to really click with, I would not like Atlas Shrugged either. Atlas also has the story of the world around them which adds more depth to the book.

I have loved her philosophy books and many articles on the Rand foundation sites. Some I do not agree with the essay's or articles but still enjoy the read and the thought process they cause me to go through.

Objectivism is a philosophy, not politics.

"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."

You should read the non fiction to understand what that means. A political philosophy of freedom cannot be understood and justified just by looking at Venezuela as one example and without moral foundations rejecting a morality of altruistic self sacrifice.

The image of the alpha personality has been demonized to present the image you allude to, primarily because those who live willing to accept victim status need to feel better about themselves. Alphas are those who exert significant influence the activities and thinking of others. They may be extroverts, but sometimes even introvert personalities, like Rand, can have an extraordinary impact on the lives of others. Some seek leadership, and others are thrust into leadership by others who recognize their abilities.

The "lesser lights" among the human population are those often equally demonized as herd animals. Some of these are quite intellectual, recognizing their own lack of leadership ability, but smart enough to recognize and promote the alphas among them. Some are depressed personalities, so beat down by reality they feel helpless. Others are irrationally unable to accept their lot is the result of their own bad choices, eager to blame others. Finally, there are the survivors, simply existing without the burden of thinking.

despite ewv and Zenphamy, I declare that I am an objectivist,
and their "proofs" that I am not ... just make me laugh.
I live by objectivist principles and my philosophy is
that of Rand or one of her heroes, though my accomplishments
may not be those of Galt or Rearden or Roark --
I try, and that does count in horse shoes. -- j
.

Hello jbrenner,
The inability of most to differentiate between greed and selfishness/enlightened self interest (as Rand defined it). There are also a great many in places of power that must discredit any such philosophy in order to maintain their own power and delusions.
Regards,
O.A.

Well said.

I would also add that people want someone or something to believe in. They want hope in something better. Hope requires faith that things can get better because of some outlook on the future. Religion and philosophy are all about the constitution of that source of hope. Objectivism tries to point to the individual as that source of hope and many are not willing to put faith in themselves - especially in a culture that has been adamant that government should be the source of hope.

Here is where many Objectivists get bent out of shape and judge a person as unworthy of living. Because Objectivism posits that consciousness and thus the possibility of 'intelligent design' would presuppose existence so consciousness could not be the cause of existence, they just use their philosophical beliefs as a religion and dismiss the person as a nobody unworthy of dealing with. Everyone, other than those who use threats and force, are worthy of dealing with. There are many who have their own logic . Whether the logic is valid or not depends on whether it is rational, with respect to the facts of reality, or not. So the most important act is to check the premises to which your logic is applied and then check whether the result fits objective reality.
Back in 1965 I took part in five LSD experiments with minimal doses of LSD. I found that percepts had to be reinterpreted and took time to decipher but that the senses were working, chemistry and physics continue to work regardless of what you change, but giving percepts that needed interpreting just as normal sense perceptions needed to be interpreted while developing a mind during growing up. I remained an atheist afterwords though some percepts would be seen by some as awesome and perhaps need some supernatural explanation.
So just check your basic premises and if they fit objective reality, keep questioning, especially whether existence depends on anything outside of it.

Ayn Rand openly acknowledged Aristotle as the only philosopher with any positive major influence on her for his overall approach in contrast to Platonism and its derivatives. She also acknowledged secondary influences including Locke for his Enlightenment individualism. The others were not influential on her thinking. For the reasons why, shown systematically, see Leonard Peikoff's recorded lectures on the history of philosophy.

I submit that it's the same difference as that between
BHO and Ron Paul, say -- emotion versus rationality;;;
objectivism is cerebral and the rest are emotional, in
the common parlance -- it's heart versus brain, in
another way of looking at it. . we need to find a way
to hook the heart and emotions into it -- loving freedom
is my amateurish answer. -- j
.

Atheism is not a "fundamental tenet" and does not "represent" reality. "Atheism" means rejection of belief in the supernatural. It is not a starting point or base for anything. It is a simple consequence of objectivity and rationality, which are required to understand reality. Rationality does not mean rationalizing theist beliefs.

Blarman also substitutes conservativism for other aspects of Ayn Rand's ideas. For example, the basis of proper laws is protecting the rights of the individual, not attempting to foster economic productivity.

Most of what our government does would fail by itself if it werent for the tax subsidies to hide the failures and the requirements that there can be no competition with government programs. One way to really put accountability in government would be to force it to NOT give taxpayer subsidies and allow anyone to compete with the government programs from the start.

WRT, I read your commentary, and I consider it a very good response to the question posed here.

Atheism is not a religion and not a "religion of Objectivism". It is a rejection of belief in the supernatural and results from objectivity. Ayn Rand's philosophy is not based on atheism, which is secondary and unimportant to its positive principles. Theism only comes up from external irrational influences and their history.

Whatever you have gotten out of the books you do not understand Ayn Rand's philosophy. You aren't supposed to "accept" it as if it were a competing religion. Understanding is an active process of rationality. That The Fountainhead, with its emphasis on the psychology of first handedness, is your least favorite, says a lot about your approach. That you focus on adherence to religion as a major clash with Ayn Rand shows that you are missing something very big.