And yet most people deem it is "simplistic"....

I searched for any stats on book sales overseas and found no details. I'd like to hear from someone with more info on strongholds of Rand warriors..

Because, sometimes, it's painful to be an objectivist.

Don't do the voodoo that people who walk on fire do.
Maybe I should have wrote full-fledged Objectivinist.
Or maybe that is also an incorrect designation..

Because a lot of objectivists are assholes.

Biggest point in favor of objectivism is AR's novels.

Biggest point against - official objectivists.

Objectivism takes more effort than any philosophy with the possible exception of a few very mystical Asian religio philosophies. Most adherents to any other philosophy today, requires only agreement and can be used to justify almost any act no matter what side of the good/bad scale it is on. Objectivism only sets out rules of behavior based on rationality. Most of us have been taught to be rational only when problem solving, everything else is subjective. So, here I go again, the producer of analogy: Objectivism is like learning to swim. It requires effort, training, and being is shape. Most philosophies use a floating device with a motor. You don't need to know how to swim, just hold on. If the boat capsizes, the swimmer will likely make it to shore, but the fellow with the motor will wonder where one is when he needs it.
Objectivism is a no-excuse-philosophy since almost everything can be traced to your own actions or inaction. This includes how you deal with adversity.So, in order to espouse the philosophy of Ayn Rand, you'll need to learn to think rationally, and take responsibility for what you do. That's too tough for a majority of humans.

I've mentioned here before about my theory that only about 15% of Americans are thinkers. These are the people who see stuff like media bias, that prime-time television is garbage, that taxes are social engineering and theft...etc. I also mentioned how, in a recent interview, Louis Farrakhan said the same thing...85% of people can't see cause and effect. Think about that. How many of the 85%ers do you think can grasp, or that would even put forth the effort to learn, Objectivism? I'd guess that at least 90% of Objectivists are in my 15% (haha...no offense, work with me here). My point is that you have a very limited market. Probably half of my friends are 15%ers. Of those, probably 40% are actually somewhat liberal in their position. Oh, they recognize that their political leaders tend to be crooks, and such. You'd be surprised how many Lola Granola-types are actually very counter-economics/Agorist in their thinking. But...the market for Objectivism is quite small.

I had thought Rand was popular in India - a post-socialist culture.

Jan

Strongly disagree. If I have to go to the Account and pull my responses, I will just drop out of the Gulch. I really need them to be pushed to me.

Jan

You high light the point kh with your comment that demonstrates the lack of intelligence on the part of the general public. More to the point "they do not think".

I am not sure how one becomes a disciple to objective reality. Shall I start the church of don't touch my finger to the fire? Oh wait-there are churches where people walk on fire. ...hmmm

I think that it has not been more widely accepted for several reasons, but the largest is the tie into Atheism.

Atheism is a religion that cannot be proven any more or less so than any other religion. Anyone want to attempt to prove a creator does not exist go for it.

Atheism is also a largely unpopular religion, and as long as it is part of the overall objectivism philosophy it will be a roadblock to wide acceptance, or understanding.

The second reason is people would have to face that the are accountable for there own life, or death.

People do not want to be accountable, and want to follow. At any given time in my teams I have seen about 10%-30% that will stick there neck out and take a risk. Its not always the same people but its always a small number of the overall team. Those who want safety in there jobs and just do the same thing every day will never accept or even investigate objectivism. They will likely never even question whatever there perception is of reality, or integrate new things into there understanding as they encounter them. For this reason Objectivism will never be accepted or seen as truth in whole or in part by the majority of people. If they want someone else to think and do robotic things with themselves they do not want an objective reality, they want a perceptive reality in the world like the one in there head and objectiivsm, in whole or part has no place there.

These people will never even expose themselves to other religions or philosophies. They will believe what they believe no matter what they face, and I think through all human history these people are a majority.

I think there are a couple of things not yet discussed in the post which may have relevance.
1. the "Closed" vs "Open" philosophical debate. It sours newcomers to the philosophy and confuses and frustrates them
2. I think Rand made some critical errors in not bridging her work with other philosophers who were highly influential to her thinking. I understand why she worked hard at distancing her work , but to not acknowledge key philosophers who played a role in shaping her thinking , makes it easier for critics to see her as a crackpot and those integrating her philosophy into their lives as a cult following. I , of course, know they are wrong, but it was a decision that was bad for PR, so to speak.

Old dino read Anthem for the first time last month.
Bought it at a book store.
If it had not been for the three AS movies and this board, I would not have even looked for any book by Ayn Rand.
I have an interest in studying Objectivism but do not consider myself as being a full-fledged disciple.

I would have to say I am in the same boat. Am I an objectivity in whole. Nope, wont ever be as some aspects of it do not sit right with reality as I understand it.

Am I an admire of it. Yes, many parts of it have had a great influence on my understanding of reality.

Reading everything I have form Objectivism has caused me to dive into other philosophies and to value philosophy far more as a whole. In most cases (with the exception of the fountainhead which was about my least favorite of Rand's) I have read them multiple times, even Lenard's publication of Objectivism is something I have read twice.

This may sound strange since Rand has Atheism as the religion of Objectivism, but the books have helped me better understand my own religion and better clarify my theories and understanding of application of those in my life.

I am a big fan, but wont ever accept it all.

I doubt they have studied much objectivism if they are claiming "greed is good." In what way is greed in anyone's best interest. What Objectivists assert, is that rational self-interest is moral, therefore good. Completely different concepts unless we are not working on the same definition of "greed."

I agree that one integrates knowledge. Science is a constant flux of bad knowledge and good knowledge, so is reality. One has to denigrate the bad as well and while I think Rand was really onto something with Objectivism there are aspects of it that are bad knowledge.

An example that is widely accepted now is her view on gays. Others are equally false, and most are equally true.

Each person has to walk there own path to understand reality and accept it.

Consider the fact the Ayn Rand studied Aristotle and as we know she believed him to be the best of philosophers. Since him and until she came along every one in between for all intents and purposes has been horrible but they have influenced the public in our culture and it has been mostly negative. so you have hundreds of years of negative influence to over come. But then you have to consider the very fact that our culture has become mostly stupid so they do not understand that she was in my opinion a savior so to speak. Objectivism is simply put being over run by stupidity and people who do not understand reality will never understand Ayn Rand. Pity isn't it.

It has been poorly marketed. It is difficult to understand as it is quite different to explain. To accept objectivism one has to study it and accept it. Personally, it took me two years to get to point where I could understand it.

Most people think being an objectivist is about being a person concern with only being rich or getting rich. I often hear objectivist say Greed is good but it comes across very poorly to general population.

Well said.

I am one of those that see intelligent design as completely possible, I think more possible than chance due to my own course of logic. I +1 you because with that one exception I agree with the rest and appreciate your view point and the time put into the response.

I would guess this question has as many answers as you can count people who refuse to adopt Objectivism:

1. They want the loot.

2. They know someone who "needs" the loot. (And of course they themselves are too lazy to "provide" said "needs" by themselves.)

3. Objectivism doesn't cover everything.

Mike and Friends:

I first read Atlas in 1965.at the age of 19. As so many have remarked, "it changed my life."

Over the early subsequent years I had come to the realization that, owing to Rand herself, her relationship to her personal friends/associates, and my own immaturity, I grew to dislike most "Objectivists." I just did not enjoy being around them.

Neither did non-Objectivists. That has ever so slowly, as the judgmental moralizing has waned, since begun to change.

My recommendation to ALL Objectivists - real and imagined, is as follows:

Lead with your life, not with your mouth. If a picture is worth a thousand words then an example is worth ten-thousand.

If you ARE going to lead with your mouth, KNOW your audience! We live in a society that, in significant measure, is dominated by Judeo-Christian philosophy. Therefore there is a tendency for many of us to become pessimistic, caustic, and Judgmental. While I do at times lapse into pessimism, I try, though not always successfully, to never become caustic. Keep in mind, the virtue of pessimism is that most of your surprises will tend to be favorable. Always remain benevolently open to such surprises. Depending on YOUR virtue(s), favorable surprises come more often than you might imagine – as long as, through the exercise of rational virtue(s), you EARN THEM!

I don't think it is something to be accepted. One doesn't accept knowledge, one integrates it

LMAO at 5 and 6.

Objectivism is a total world view. In that sense it is like a religion, although religions have a commitment to non-rational belief, which Objectivism does not.

Most people don't want the discomfort of figuring out what the truth really is. They don't want to have to adjust their abstract beliefs and become consistent. Heck, most people don't want to rock the boat socially.

I have lot more thoughts on this question, here:

http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/a...