No... I am on a John Galt web site, discussing Objectivism. Ayn Rand is, understandably, a major part of it (since Galt is her alter ego), but she is not the base topic -- her book and philosophy are. If I am in a "civil war," it is only with those who were here because they found a soul mate in her personality, as opposed to her philosophy.

I don't care to be in a "war" of any kind, though. I would much rather encourage folks to see things for themselves, and, with their rational thoughts, to move past these issues. If open/honest dialog is "war," then what does that say about the environment the dialog is in?

As I said before, I am very impressed with the lack of personal attacks against me for saying what I have said. It does show a significant level of intellectual honesty (I believe) that folks can monitor this conversation with feeling like they need to attack the messenger(s).

1) On her being perfect: I think the interview was the 1979 Donahue one. She made a thoughtful reply, so I'm not thinking it was a flippant answer.

2) On the claim there is no God (or god): One thing which people of faith have been buffaloed on is the dual claim by atheists, that A) there is no God, and B) you cannot "prove" a negative, therefore the atheist has nothing to prove in regards to that. This is a grand logical fallacy trap into which virtually every atheist I have personally spoken with has fallen.

The fallacy is that the "negative" assertion (there is NO God) is the same as the "negative assertion" which is claimed to be unprovable. The fallacy comes into play because there is a "positive assertion" being made: THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!!

For those who are making the "negative assertion" concerning the existence of a God, they state something like "there is no proof of a God, so I cannot believe in one" -- and we call them agnostic. But the atheist argument is completely different. They don't say "we just don't know," they say "I know, and I know God does not exist!" That is, therefore, a positive argument, and demands proof.

As a person of Faith, yes, it is "outrageous" that those who have chosen to deny faith and God feel arrogant enough in their attitudes that they can simply state such, and when told to prove their assertion, hide within the realms of a logical fallacy -- and then say *I* am the one who cannot properly reason out the facts!

3) Belief in God might not be essential to day-to-day survival here in this mortal realm, but does that imply belief in God detracts from it? Why this tenacious demand of atheism? What aspect of survival is enhanced via atheism? Is *any* aspect of survival enhanced by atheism?

4) Her personality is absolutely essential to her expressions of her philosophy. The four basic tenets of her philosophy -- as taken straight from the Ayn Rand Institute's home page, could be expressed any number of ways. She expressed them in ways which were a direct reflection of her heart and personality. In the interviews where you can hear the audience reaction, it is easy to see how her personality got in the way of her message.

Look at the opposite example for a moment. Watch Obama "do his thing." He has a personality and presence that cause people to swoon, yet his actual message is destroying this country. He is enslaving the very people who love him, yet because of his personality and stage presence, these new slaves are worshiping their master. I keep hearing folks (mistakenly) say things like "...if a republican tried to do that..." They do not understand the issue. If Hillary Clinton tried to do it, SHE would be castigated at every turn! Why? Her personality isn't SO powerful that she could lie to the people like Obama does, and get away with it.

Rand had a POWERFUL message! Her personality kept it from being seen and understood as well as it should have been. After watching the interviews, if I had not seen the movies and read as much as I have, I would have walked away calling her a mindless kook. As it was, I kept trying to justify her comments -- "she was just trying to express it in absolute terms to make a point." When you find yourself doing that, it is a sign there is something wrong. I stepped back and figured it out. Her philosophy is pretty sound; her personality was an issue.

If my comments on her personality "detracts from the message," I submit that those for whom it was a "detraction" were more attracted to her personality than to her philosophy.

Response #3: "While the philosophy may evolve somewhat, it must adhere to its rules in order to be defined and distinct from other philosophies. As with any philosophy, take from it what you will, but to fault it on the basis of its tenets for not being inclusionary, would be to dilute its definition."

Let's define the points of the philosophy:

1) That existence, consciousness, and identity are axiomatic. Reality exists as an objective absolute -- facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2) Knowledge acquisition outside personal perception(s) requires the exercise of free will and validation through observation, as well as both inductive and deductive reasoning.

Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3) Living organisms face the reality of life and death; possessing free will, human beings must choose their values; rational ethics are required for humans to decide what principles of action are required to implement his chosen values; an individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being.

Man -- every man -- is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4) The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be a complete separation of state and economics.

Now, having stated the four philosophical points, are you sure that Rand's philosophical explanations can only evolve "somewhat," or it will lose its distinctness? Given the above items, is her rigidity justified?

Could a Christian express the above tenets within the context of Christianity? Could a Hindu? Could a Buddhist? How about a Shinto? It is no wonder why Objectivism appeals to so may libertarians!

I sense there is room for advances in the philosophical tenets, and that, in time, it will evolve into something which speaks to more people. It needs to. Right now, because of her loathing of all things religious, she, herself, gets in the way of religious individuals who would adopt these tenets with fervor from ever considering it. And, frankly, I agree with their reticence. Seeing her talk about religion made *ME* want to walk away from this! I made a conscious decision to try to make these points, and see if there is movement to something more accepting of people of faith.

If you note from the above, atheism (or self-deism) is not a philosophical point of Objectivism. It is a personal prejudice of hers. We need to get past that.

for our purposes, in this site, it started with Aristotle.
He gave us the basic rules of logic, which is non-contradictory thinking and he gave us a metaphysics based on an understanding the world is knowable. Opposed to Plato, wo believed the world was not knowable and a was not a.

Response #2: "used tactics to discredit Rand."

I made observations based on her own words, her own actions, her own comportment, and her own ideas. If they are a discredit to her, then, perhaps, she deserves the discredit.

While I am certain she would use a variety of denigrating terms in response to my assessment of her personality quirks, that does not invalidate what I said. She made rude and denigrating comments, and then reeled at the smallest of slights, refusing to answer the question. Okay, so she was thin-skinned. Who isn't?

I decided on a tactic. Rand is absolute and unmovable. She says what she says, and refuses to apologize for it. She makes a stand which is at the logical extreme, and accepts no potential of another valid possible position. So I would use HER tactics to describe her.

Those who accepted her philosophical stance would see my mimicking of Rand's personality, and either appreciate my tactic, or hate me for acting like that. I was actually somewhat shocked at the lack of either response.

Rand was not as perfect as she openly claimed she was. None of us are. Her largest personal flaw, to my way of thinking, is her overwhelming arrogance to not accept even the potential that another option could possibly be valid.

She designed something wonderful, and was (obviously) able to take that philosophical dogma, and use it to prognosticate with such accuracy that today people just cannot understand how she did it. She deserves her place in history -- and I honestly hope history treats her well.

we are not basing it on the person-but her ideas. If she were wrong, logically, then we would reject as she would tell you to do. logic is rigid. There are not 2 or 5 answers to geometry problems. within natural rights, conclusions which lead to contradictions means you made a mistake or you are accepting slavery, theft, or both. leading to the point: you do not own yourself.
Rationalism is not reason. Rationalism starts with an arbitrary premise not based on logic, or observation, and following it rationally to its conclusion. start with greatest good for the greatest number of people, you will always end up with totalitarianism, based on that asumption.

Response #1: Why are logical system rigid? Do they HAVE to be?

Logic, especially when applied to non-concrete topics like philosophy, are generally recognized rules that, in theory, allow us to evaluate a series of statements to see if their premise supports the conclusion. It is not hard-and-fast. This is why it is called "informal logic." The study of logical fallacies is its evil twin sister. Only when a series of logical propositions leading to the conclusion are shown to be free of logical fallacies can we call the conclusion an authoritative one.

Logic is only one of the sub-fields within the greater field of philosophy. From my reading and listening, I do not believe this is a sub-field she was interested in. She seems more focused on the moral, ethical, political branch of philosophy. Although she did write a book on epistemology, yet another branch of philosophy, but since I know nothing about that text, I will have to leave that part go for now.

Having said that, epistemology is strongly driven by a form of rationalism and reasoning, so I could accept that her focus was on both, or either -- or she didn't care a fig about the established sub-fields, and was simply branching out into her own, unique, vector space, if you will. As a philosopher -- especially in a field that is as loosely defined as this is, she could, with impunity, define her own parameters.

As it is, rationalism really started (for our purposes) with Descartes and Locke. I'm not sure how far into this topic we really want to delve, but one of their basic tenets is that all we really have to work with are ideas. There was even some discussion about if our thoughts and reasoning could be used to conclude a reality exists.

Descartes is the one we famously quasi-misquote with the "I think, therefore I am" line. If memory serves, I believe his actual thought process was more like "I doubt, therefore I am actually thinking, therefore I must exist."

The bottom line, though, is that not all philosophers even agree that we can use pure reason to determine that anything is actually real, or that our concept/idea/thought actually describes a reality.

That being the case, how do we judge a philosophy which rigidly demands reasoned, logical conclusions, all based on the thought processes of one individual?

For *ME*, I judge it as being of real value, as a good starting point.

I attempted to make my thoughts clear enough that you wouldn't be able to say what you just said. Please go back and re-read my last paragraph.

me too!

From LeeCrites:

"My caution to the current Randians is to not be like the Freudians, and stomp on those who might make the attempt to further the concepts of Objectivism and correct some of the fallacies which exist in it. I'm not really sure that caution is needed here (for present company). Considering the potential that my comments on Rand could have whipped up a frenzied firestorm against me, and the fact that they did not, tells me that at least most of the folks in this group are open minded about these things. Thanks!"

He is thanking us for not "stomping", and keeping a civil debate going.

I, for one, am enjoying the discussion!

I also want to distinguish between a philosophy built on logic and psychogical theories. apple/orange

Where do you see "stomping" going on in here exactly? To be just, Lee, in this thread, you have many times used tactics to discredit Rand as an individual, discredit her philosophy by name calling-(ex: obtuse, prejudices, arrogance, etc.)
While the philosophy may evolve somewhat, it must adhere to its rules in order to be defined and distinct from other philosophies. As with any philosophy, take from it what you will, but to fault it on the basis of its tenets for not being inclusionary, would be to dilute its definition.
To suggest Rand is more predisposed than a Christian or other religious practitioner does not make sense to me. You want to discredit her rigidity without qualifying your own rigidities in your faith. Bottom line: logical systems are rigid.
about brussel sprouts: the bitterness is nicely removed if one tosses them in olive oil, a little salt and pepper and broils them long enough to caramelize. ;)

you divided by 0, therefore it is not a logical progression, and does not show how algebra works. You may not divide by 0, it renders the equation meaningless.
Reason and logic are like algebra. They are. Her personality is a curiousity, not essential at all to Objectivism.

(my second response -- read the other one first)

Ayn Rand has given the world Objectivism, and done her best to define it as she understood it, from her point of view and her life. She deserves credit and honor for doing so. But now the world has Objectivism, and it will be massaged and worked on by others. Rand deserves her place in history as the founder. I happily give her that distinction and honor.

Much like Sigmund Freud with psychoanalysis. He, virtually single-handedly, created a new industry, and validated an entire field of research and analysis. He deserves his place in history. For a period of time during and after his death, his disciples held rigidly onto his every dictum. They were the gospel on which these individuals built their empire. Yet over time, others found the errors in his original comments, and corrected them. Freud's personal proclivities, his hangups on sex, etc, were eventually overcome by other individuals who did not share those issues. Today there are few truly Freudian psychologists, even though most of them still use much of the same techniques and have benefited from his life's work. It took a long time and a lot of effort to overcome Freud's original disciples and move on, but it happened.

I believe there will come (and it looks like it is already happening) a new generation of Objectivists who do not share Rand's prejudices and proclivities. They will redefine Objectivism by taking her issues into consideration, and re-expressing the tenets of Objectivism using more generalizable terms. They will ferret out the fallacies and replace them with corrected statements. They will make the obscure, perhaps obtuse, tenets more serviceable and useable to the common man.

I'm betting these movies will help push that along. People who are not aware of Randian philosophy will watch the movies, then, perhaps, do some research into her, the story, Obiectivism, etc, and see where it matches their life and where it doesn't. Some of them will be sociologists and philosophers, and they will have the skills needed to correct some of the things they perceive to be errors.

Objectivism now belongs to the world. Ayn Rand deserves her place in history as the woman who made it happen, It is a powerful philosophical and political concept which will demand the attention of all sentient beings (meaning those who still can actually *think*). But I doubt what my grandkids will understand as Objectivism will be the same as what we think of it today.

Rand will forever be honored for her place in history. Just like Freud is. She **DESERVES** that honor!

My caution to the current Randians is to not be like the Freudians, and stomp on those who might make the attempt to further the concepts of Objectivism and correct some of the fallacies which exist in it. I'm not really sure that caution is needed here (for present company). Considering the potential that my comments on Rand could have whipped up a frenzied firestorm against me, and the fact that they did not, tells me that at least most of the folks in this group are open minded about these things. Thanks!

You are on an Ayn Rand website, and I will leave it at that :) Your personal civil war.

Thank you for the quote. It was enlightening. It was, also, chock full of false dichotomies.

It is quite possible, for instance, for me to identify things in my life which are neither good nor evil. I am completely indifferent to them. So I DO have a choice about my capacity to feel that something is good or evil, and, additionally, there are a plethora of areas in-between. There are things in life which do not bring me joy yet are not painful to me; things I do not desire, yet are not fearful of.

This comes back to my previous comment about her black-and-white false dichotomy. She cannot, it seems, see the gray area in-between.

Perhaps the worse fallacy in the quote was the "love or hate." I know we continue to hear that these two are opposites, but they are not -- repetition does not equate to correctness. If they were, it would not be possible to hold both emotions in your heart for the same entity at the same time. The opposite of love is indifference; the opposite of hate is like. As a food, I am indifferent to brussel sprouts and, at the same time, I hate them.

We can all understand how an individual (perhaps us) can hate an abusive relative, and at the same time love them. It is the love we feel which drives the exquisiteness of the pain in the hate we also feel.

Hence, hating brussel sprouts probably does not cause emotional pain, while hating an abusive friend or relative very easily could cause more emotional pain than we can deal with.

If love and hate were opposites, we could not simultaneously hold both emotions for the same entity at the same time.

I found this link...http://www.solopassion.com/node/3637
a little helpful...but no definitive answer.

way to come up with that

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure she mentioned it only in her speech about a woman who had returned from Russia and said "How nice it was over there because everyone is equally as shabby." Imagine believing something like that would be a good thing. Uggghh.... The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought by Leonard Peikoff

Do you know the name of the book or the author of that quote? I'd like to put it up on my site.

Hmmmmm Contradictions...

excellent section.

In reading, "The Virtue of Selfishness" today, I came across this paragraph and I think it is appropriate in understanding Ayn Rand's philosophy, although it is only a small part of the bigger picture. " Man has no choice about his capacity to feel that something is good for him or evil, but what he will consider good or evil, what will give him joy or pain, what he will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standard of value. If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mechanism from the role of his guardian to the role of his destroyer. The irrational is the impossible; it is that which contradicts the facts of reality; facts cannot be altered by a wish, but they can destroy the wisher. If a man desires and pursues contradictions - if he wants to have his cake and eat it, too - he disintegrates his consciousness; he turns his inner life into a civil war of blind forces engaged in dark, incoherent, pointless, meaningless conflicts (which, incidentally, is the state of most people today)."

Wow, I have used that "equally as shabby" quote so many times to people in describing what the communist in our country believe in. It is refreshing to see this again :)

there is another person in the gulch-the christian egoist. he just posted something yesterday or the day before, but he has a blog at that name. I have argued with him plenty as well. ;)