RESPECTIVISM
I have worked hard to for decades to grasp the principles of Objectivism in order to pursue my values, chief of which is the advancement of those very principles in a society dominated by skeptics who routinely turn a blind eye to outright mystics while attacking anything that might be not quite exactly what Ayn Rand may have wrote or may not have intended (when uttered by any person of professed integrity).
Therefore, I have a name for anything and everything that I have ever posted, or will ever post, that might be perceived by anyone as out-of-line (whatever the motive behind the attack):
"Respectivist's Oath": I vow to respect the objective (i.e., finite) nature of reality, the rational (i.e., volitional) nature of the human mind and reason), the nature and purpose of human morality (to achieve one's happiness exclusively by the consistent use of reason as against whim or any form of "just knowing"), to promote only individual liberty from force or fraud, and to promote only such works of art as I deem benevolent (i.e., rational) and expressive of human free-will (i.e., romantic).
Furthermore, when I perceive dishonesty I will not withhold moral judgement: I will identify it (whatever the consequences) and move on without further argument.
I have a positive praxis to promote that is broader in application than the philosophy (capital O-Objectivism) to which I have dedicated myself. That linguistic "praxis" may also fall under the title of my Respectivism: Ayn Rand never said you should memorize or recite her literary, poetic, principled manifestos. She did advocate gaining an inductive understanding in some form, and any form is valid that leads to an honest grasp of the principles of her philosophy.
Dishonest people will run for cover and attack discreetly, but mine is the "Atlas Spoke Transparency and I will not join with those who wish only to silence the "trouble-maker."
All honest and genuine egoists are more than welcome to engage with me, to question my formulations (as I will question theirs) and to constructively disagree with me.
No "psychologizing," "bait-and-switch," "ankle-biting," or "nit-picking" will be tolerated by me. But I'm done arguing with such as engage is such dishonesty, and will do my level-best to ignore the rabble-rousers (I'm a hero-rouser, and John Galt is the hero in your soul).
As a person who has suffered decades of rationalism, I am vulnerable to such criticism and may warrant it (text makes it difficult to avoid giving such "impressions"), but my mind is committed to fighting against this fatal tendency through my poetic-gestalt.
[Now please don't tell me I've departed from Objectivism or am in any way in contradition or error without concrete proof backed up by credible sources.]
Therefore, I have a name for anything and everything that I have ever posted, or will ever post, that might be perceived by anyone as out-of-line (whatever the motive behind the attack):
"Respectivist's Oath": I vow to respect the objective (i.e., finite) nature of reality, the rational (i.e., volitional) nature of the human mind and reason), the nature and purpose of human morality (to achieve one's happiness exclusively by the consistent use of reason as against whim or any form of "just knowing"), to promote only individual liberty from force or fraud, and to promote only such works of art as I deem benevolent (i.e., rational) and expressive of human free-will (i.e., romantic).
Furthermore, when I perceive dishonesty I will not withhold moral judgement: I will identify it (whatever the consequences) and move on without further argument.
I have a positive praxis to promote that is broader in application than the philosophy (capital O-Objectivism) to which I have dedicated myself. That linguistic "praxis" may also fall under the title of my Respectivism: Ayn Rand never said you should memorize or recite her literary, poetic, principled manifestos. She did advocate gaining an inductive understanding in some form, and any form is valid that leads to an honest grasp of the principles of her philosophy.
Dishonest people will run for cover and attack discreetly, but mine is the "Atlas Spoke Transparency and I will not join with those who wish only to silence the "trouble-maker."
All honest and genuine egoists are more than welcome to engage with me, to question my formulations (as I will question theirs) and to constructively disagree with me.
No "psychologizing," "bait-and-switch," "ankle-biting," or "nit-picking" will be tolerated by me. But I'm done arguing with such as engage is such dishonesty, and will do my level-best to ignore the rabble-rousers (I'm a hero-rouser, and John Galt is the hero in your soul).
As a person who has suffered decades of rationalism, I am vulnerable to such criticism and may warrant it (text makes it difficult to avoid giving such "impressions"), but my mind is committed to fighting against this fatal tendency through my poetic-gestalt.
[Now please don't tell me I've departed from Objectivism or am in any way in contradition or error without concrete proof backed up by credible sources.]
