There is no such thing as "The Objectivist Party platform". Ayn Rand did recognize the right and necessity of people to defend their nation. She did not support prohibitions on immigration, especially for economic motives, but also did not endorse invasion of a country and taking it over for collectivism and statism through a mass migration in the name of "immigration".

Objectivism is not "belief in nothing", Following a rational philosophy is not faith. If someone is wrong about something then it is wrong. "100%" is a redundancy. Whether or not it is forever is up to the person to correct or not.

I rarely refer to anyone as personally an "Objectivist" or not. Objectivism is the name of Ayn Rand's philosophy, as she presented and explained it. Conflicting ideas are not. Whatever someone wants to call himself, if he's promoting things like religion it's not Objectivism and that requires no further proof. However admirably or not and to whatever decree someone lives his own life, If someone thinks his contradictions are being "Objectivist", he can laugh all he wants but it's not.

So we aren't an "I'm ok, you're ok" kind of community. We're more of an "I work and think real hard to be ok, and you can choose to or not. My opinion of you likely correlates to that decision."
Sorry to poke at the person above wishing we wouldn't boil things down so far that some flavor is lost, but some of us depend on that "sense of life" to carry us through when rigorous examination has to take a back seat.

Private schools today are already often as bad philosophically as government schools. The reason is the prevailing bad philosophy. Government control is the result, not the cause. Now that it's here, it only locks in the destruction. Getting rid of that overnight, even if that could be done, wouldn't fix education.

The content of reform is the philosophy, part of the means is more choice in education. Meanwhile as long as there is freedom of speech there are still many other means of communication to spread better ideas, including through the better teachers, but it is much harder.

The Dark Ages recovered from the dominance of the Christian Era, eventually after a millennium reaching a rebirth and then the Enlightenment. Don't expect the recovery here any time soon.

As one who has been around and advocated Objectivism since 1964 I can assure you it has spread far more than most people realize. In the 60's it would have been hard to find enough people to discuss it. Today it is all over the internet and all over the world. As leaders emerge realizing the practicality and the acceptability of the principles a greater awareness will erupt. It is too early but time is passing and the vision is on the horizon.

Intelligent design as completley possible? What is possible about a consciousness without an embodiment? Ever encountered one?

That isn't what he said. Ayn Rand distinguished between philosophical debts, almost entirely Aristotle, and other sources of information that played no role in her own personal philosophical development. You can see that in the history of philosophy of lectures where Leonard Peikoff makes comparisons showing some positive aspects of historical philosophers, yet they were not the source of her ideas, and their own development was fundamentally different.

Even the virtuous, most highly motivated and successful characters in Atlas Shrugged had widely varying personalities, but Ayn Rand made clear the importance of her philosophy of reason for human beings to live for all levels of ability and interests. It is not for so-called 'alpha' types or any other group.

More misrepresentation.

Living is hard, to do it right, but much of the proper thinking becomes easier the more you do it in accordance with principles you understand. It's a lot harder to try to live irrationally, but those who advocate it have different goal.

Blarman is a militant religionist 'downvoting' Objectivism in his personal feuding. His incoherent religious apologetics trying to rationalize his faith as "experiences" claimed to be evidence of the supernatural is stock mysticism that he insists on proselytizing. The obnoxious evangelizing and personal antagonism in his off topic feuding here on an Ayn Rand forum should have been thrown off long ago.

Government regulations and standards also control the way private schools operate. It's true that getting the government out of education does not ensure that a more rational form of education takes its place. But unless government is entirely expelled from the education system, a more rational approach to education has no chance. And thus a more rational approach to philosophy in the public at large has no chance.

The attempt to equate philosophy with religion can be the lack of understanding beyond the primitive state of religious feelings. With no understanding of what rational philosophical thought is, how can the 'words' mean anything at all? All there is for such a person is the state of religious thinking arrested to a primitive, non rational stand in for philosophy.

Atheism is not a "religion". It is the opposite. It rejects faith in the supernatural. Rejection of the irrational is not a religion. No one needs to disprove arbitrary claims of mystics. They are cognitively irrelevant. Atheism is secondary because rejection of the irrational does not tell you what is right. A positive philosophy is required based on understanding the world and man's nature with a rationality. Philosophy is not religion. Religion is a primitive form of philosophy trying to make sense with general ideas but through non rational means.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is fundamentally contradicted by religion. It does not and cannot "work quite well with it". To the extent that a religious person finds Ayn Rand's philosophy valuable, and to the extent he understands it at all, it is in spite of the contrary religion and is undermined by it.

The are aspects to the scope and plots of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead that one can like to different degrees, but to regard Howard Roark and the others, and John Galt, as "weak characters" that "don't click" shows that you are missing a lot in what you think Ayn Rand's philosophy is. They can only "click" in a work of fiction to the extent that you share the sense of life.

I agree.

Thank you, ewv.

Socialism comes from bad thinking and bad motives and cannot be stopped by accepting and pandering to false premises. Collectivist politics is a result of altruism and irrationalism. Every election is the result of belief in a morality of sacrifice undermining our lives and our country. Without challenging the basics the consequences in politics cannot be changed.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is not based on "hope". It is not "all about" a "source of hope". Objectivism does not "try to point to the individual" for "hope", it explains what is required for a human being to use his rational faculty to live.

Atheism is rejection of belief in the supernatural. It is not a religion and not a philosophy. Rejecting the supernatural does not say what one does believe, rational or not, on everything else.

Rejecting faith in the supernatural does not require disproving creationism. Rational people understand the world in terms of what is proven, not by running around trying to disprove arbitrary claims of mysticism.

What people believe depends on what they discover or are taught, or indoctrinated with, and on what they verify or accept uncritically. Rationality is a virtue that must be exercised by choice. It is not automatic and neither is the irrationalism of faith. To the degree people learn and choose to be rational they succeed in spite of the rest.

"Unpopularity" of atheism is largely from moral intimidation of social pressure, on a foundation of bad philosophical thinking, not an inherent state of any society. Likewise, acceptance of individual accountability depends on one's philosophy, however attained. Lack of responsibility for one's own life is not an innate character requiring that "Objectivism will never be accepted". People decide on their own what to "accept" as true based on their own understanding or uncritical absorption with lack of effort.

The dominant character, sense of life, and degree of rationality across cultures has varied greatly through history and across cultures at the same time, just it varies between individuals. This country in particular came from the Enlightenment with its emphasis on reason and individualism. The country based on the right of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of one's own happiness on earth was a marked contrast with everything else. There was no inherent lack of accountability for one's own life, quite the opposite. It has changed because of the influence of bad philosophy. See Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels.

LOL

Not surprised that it hasn't been adopted or accepted more than it has. Most truths or paths to truth, rational thinking, or hell, even consciousness have yet to be accepted, investigated or taught in the first place...we've only had 3 to 5000 years to do it.
But just as history and language is confounded naturally over time, we also have had a purposedful finger in the pie as well, just observe the "progressive" speak of the day.

So, should we really be surprised that something as valuable as Objectivism or even observationalism has yet to be on our daily menu? Most see it as cold or heartless when in fact it can be the ultimate expression of mutuality; maybe, perhaps, it's just that everything today is expressed emotionally...someone is alway yanking at our chain or heart strings.

That doesn't deserve a down-vote and 'hear, hear'. +1 back.

The problem is much broader and deeper than Progressive education. That is the form of much of the bad influence and the means by which it is imposed and remains entrenched as it ensures that it progressively worsens. A major political goal must be to break that monopoly and allow for school choice and Ayn Rand emphasized that decades ago. But even private schools today are often just as bad philosophically even where they otherwise may provide better education in other respects. Government education and its fads are only a consequence of the fundamental philosophical views that Ayn Rand challenged. Elsewhere on this page: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

That doesn't deserve a down-vote. Besides that, I like your description. +1 back.