Which way do you blow? Objectively speaking.
Not to start a flame war (I'm sure we can all be civilized), but I think it an issue of vital import to the efficacy of our political will and might as "Objectivists."
I would like to know (if you are willing to enter the fray), are you primarily or exclusively with ARI, The Atlas Society, some other? Or perhaps you see yourself as an equal opportunity consumer of Objectivism (I myself, though always exclusively ARI/Charles Tew like Dr. Hicks quite a bit, but on Nietzsche and Postmodernism not Objectivism (he holds another view).
So this is just about the meta-principle of systematic unity, all or nothing integration vs. ____ (I'll let you fill in the blank).
I would like to know (if you are willing to enter the fray), are you primarily or exclusively with ARI, The Atlas Society, some other? Or perhaps you see yourself as an equal opportunity consumer of Objectivism (I myself, though always exclusively ARI/Charles Tew like Dr. Hicks quite a bit, but on Nietzsche and Postmodernism not Objectivism (he holds another view).
So this is just about the meta-principle of systematic unity, all or nothing integration vs. ____ (I'll let you fill in the blank).
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Then you are a "Truthist" not an "Objectivist." Which is fine if you're honest enough to admit it. You can be a fine ally on a myriad of social issues. Mine is to convert you and others here to that method, that Aristotlean-devised mechanism of integration that powers our knowledge of all things that are true without extraction or or crypto-contrarian contradiction. There is no space for pluralism (or time for monism) in Objectivism if Ayn Rand's Revolution is to stand a chance of success in changing the culture (let alone your mind -- the one is an extension of the other, which way is up to you): https://youtu.be/hhwDQBVYuH8
Not to sound like a rationalist, but in my (and Ayn Rand's) view, her philosophy is a systematic integration of a specific set of principles that may be legitimately applied in limitless ways. That only works to define your existence on earth by being limited to the system she set forth in its entirety.
You have a different (pluralistic) "truth." Or a reification of something "outside" to be "open" to. I get that. I've had the ad hoc mentality myself driving my mental "hodgepodge." But homey don't play that game anymore. Now it's time to get focused, serious, integrated within the fortress of your soul if you want to be part of Ayn Rand's Cultural Revolution, in the "eye of the storm" as it were.
You can do it by an act of will, by turning your mind off (for a time) from everything else once you've seen the truth of my argument:
https://youtu.be/gkXlg0ypjqg
I view most aspects of life through the lens of economics, meaning I judge any proposed policy by what behaviors it will reward or punish; and I have great, but not total faith in Adam Smith's invisible hand.
I am active on other forums too, but come here because it is an island of sanity.
By the way, Ms. Rand excoriated Nietzsche but never made a big deal of it.
In the end, I suppose what matters is what one DOES. If the decisions are based on pure emotion, they are likely to be the wrong decisions. Collectivists I think make this mistake and then use collectivism to justify what they already did.
I'm trying to carry out -- not "a flame war" -- but "a controlled burn."
Benevolently,
B-)
If I do something for someone else it's because I believe they are worthy of my help. I don't tolerate whiners or the self-absorbed, but I do support those who have a downturn because of the actions of others against them, or because the forces of nature (illness, natural catastrophe, etc.) work against their own efforts on their own behalf.
A real Objectivist doesn't waste time pontificating or seeking converts like a religionist. Rather we gain support and interest from our actions and success as an example.
The Rothbard Ancaps were a former sect of objectivism, and the people that follow them today only follow, they do not think for themselves. This is the result of abandoning the philosophy and picking sides and following your favourites.
I sometimes wonder what would have become of me had my first Objectivist friend in the early "90s not led me away from what I call "the hangers-on."
And I'll agree with you that those individuals you mention are moral...but dishonest.
(A...but non-A).
These various groups do not always agree with each other and sometimes outright disagree. It is for each reader of Ayn Rand to decide for themselves whether or not they agree with her philosophy in whole or in part and what that means for their involvement in promoting it or studying it.
I also like the notion that humans, living free, created personal freedom and wealth unthinkable to our ancestors. I have a hopeful notion of this continuing. In AS I see people unwilling to be denied. My reading is that great people are amazing, but people doing politics, living for some reaction in others undermines people's efforts to provide one another value in honest trades. If this gets bad enough, even the greatest person cannot overcome it.
I am only vaguely aware that there are different schools of Objectivist thought. Many people who claim to be fans of Ayn Rand seem to take away exactly the opposite of what I took away from it, 180 degrees opposite.
"Which way do you blow" sounds weird to my ear, but I think I got the meaning. :)
I don't "Believe" anything, I observe and I do so as objectively as humanly possible; for "There is some value in all things, good, bad and ugly, if only to recognize, that which is not." (The Fight for Conscious Human Life, author...yours truly).
I am, however, a fan of Neothink (Mark Hamilton) for it was he that introduced me to Ayn Rand and Julian Jaynes. I am an active member of all three along with several scientific groups.
One should always keep an open mind and be ready to add new ideas and discard old when necessary.