About Objectivism

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. — Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged

In her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and in nonfiction works such as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand forged a systematic philosophy of reason and freedom.

Rand was a passionate individualist. She wrote in praise of "the men of unborrowed vision," who live by the judgment of their own minds, willing to stand alone against tradition and popular opinion.

Her philosophy of Objectivism rejects the ethics of self-sacrifice and renunciation. She urged men to hold themselves and their lives as their highest values, and to live by the code of the free individual: self-reliance, integrity, rationality, productive effort.

Objectivism celebrates the power of man's mind, defending reason and science against every form of irrationalism. It provides an intellectual foundation for objective standards of truth and value.

Upholding the use of reason to transform nature and create wealth, Objectivism honors the businessman and the banker, no less than the philosopher and artist, as creators and as benefactors of mankind.

Ayn Rand was a champion of individual rights, which protect the sovereignty of the individual as an end in himself; and of capitalism, which is the only social system that allows people to live together peaceably, by voluntary trade, as independent equals.

Millions of readers have been inspired by the vision of life in Ayn Rand's novels. Scholars are exploring the trails she blazed in philosophy and other fields. Her principled defense of capitalism has drawn new adherents to the cause of economic and political liberty.

Not necessarily. Once it is established that questioning assumptions is considered hostile, then you're dealing with dogma, and any further questioning is pointless. Dogma is, by definition, immune to reason.

Yes necessarily. I never said that you were being hostile (projection). I was not dogmatic (immune to reason i.e. dense).

But if dogma is to be considered, everyone has their own. Objectivists are not excused for theirs, either, if we desire to be intellectually consistent.

And today was a good day...

Sure it can, you have, as usual, chosen to refute what you'd prefer I'd have said to what I have actually said.

You keep changing your story when I catch you in a contradiction. If you insist, I will go back and find your posts where you clearly explained that each community decides its own morals, and make a liar out of you. When you you can't win the argument - equivocate and evade - are these part of your moral value system?

If I am correct about the source of moral precepts, than obviously, unlike you, I do not think they are infallible, than I accept that they could have been chosen in error, or they could have become erroneous due to changing circumstances. You would, in fact, expect this to be a rather common state of affairs that has to continuously guarded against, and could, in fact, produce utter failure of a culture.

YOu can only be correct within your community. From now on, every time you try to argue that moral absolutes are not correct, I am simply going to respond that I belong to the Christian community and our community is as correct as yours. All you can do at this point is tell me what morals you prefer - you cannot make any truth claims about morals without contradicting yourself.

Such a failure, contrary to your oft and loudly asserted assumption, is not evidence that nature is not, in fact, the source of moral inclinations since nature, unlike your version of God, make no claims to infallibility.

Nature is YOUR source - you cannot say MY source is wrong. My community decides what basis to use for our morals and you cannot say it is incorrect. Or, you can try to force my community to adopt YOUR system - good luck.

You show your ignorance of the law. First, they do have the same rights as me - they can marry anyone they want - of the opposite sex! They WANT SPECIAL RIGHTS, and they want to FORCE society to ACCEPT their perversion.

So, in other words, if they want to commit a non-violent act the threatens no one with force of arms, you think the cops should come and force them into jail. That is not a "special right". It is an act of conscience to marry whom you love. It is jack-boot behavior to arrest people for doing so, not the other way around.

Secondly, check the constitution and show me where it says there is a right to non-discrimination based on sexual preference!

Don't give me that. Arresting people for their sexual preference is hardly the same thing as workplace discrimination laws, and mixing the two in this argument is gibberish. Regarding your initial claim, see the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments.

I have not made TRUTH claims for you to be arguing with me about. I have made effectiveness claims that can be measured by mundane means. Some moral precepts may improve the fortunes of the community that adopts them, some may not. In either case, nothing is demonstrated about the source of these precepts thereby, your oft-voiced opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.

In what manner have I suggested that a community does NOT decide it's own morals? Put up or or shut up.

you can try to force my community to adopt YOUR system - good luck.

You have gone over the bend. Relax, breath, and try to focus on what I have said, rather than your incoherent gut reactions. Obviously, I am not trying to force anything on anybody.

In what manner have I suggested that a community does NOT decide it's own morals? Put up or or shut up.

You have claimed just the opposite - that they do decide their own morals - that's your problem. On that basis, you can't argue against the morals of the Christian community - you can only say you do not "prefer" them, and I don't care about YOUR moral preferences. What else is there to discuss?

Physical traits are not the same as moral traits.

Prove it.

Show me the morality gene!

As soon as you show me the spear throwing gene, or the humor gene. Or the dancing gene.

Ooops. Can't do that. YOu can't make ANY "claims" - you can only state your preferences. My community doesn't care about YOUR opinion as to how nature relates to OUR community. As I said, we Christians don't care what YOU prefer in your atheist community.

You have claimed just the opposite - that they do decide their own morals - that's your problem.

So you aren't going to put up the contradiction like a man are you? You are just going to ignore your insulting claim, now that you've noticed your full of it.

On that basis, you can't argue against the morals of the Christian community - you can only say you do not "prefer" them, and I don't care about YOUR moral preferences. What else is there to discuss?

The fact that my preferences, unlike yours, can be due to a reasoned analysis of available evidence regarding the likelihood of valuable results from a choosing a given set of moral prefererences.

The fact that my preferences, unlike yours, can be due to a reasoned analysis of available evidence regarding the likelihood of valuable results from a choosing a given set of moral prefererences.

Morals are either preferences or they are not - you have said they clearly are (need I repost for you?). Your community reasons your way, we reason our way - in the absence of absolutes, any "objective claim" you make regarding morals is contradictory. Period. You are busted - why don't you just quit? I don't care about your preferences - get it? I have my own.

Physical traits are not the same as moral traits. Prove it.

You are the one that made the claim that moral traits are inherited so the burden of proof is on you - it's YOUR claim. If you can't back up your claims, don't make them.

So you aren't going to put up the contradiction like a man are you? You are just going to ignore your insulting claim, now that you've noticed your full of it.

I don't know what you're talking about. I have stated at least 10 times what you have also stated at least 10 times - assuming your position that each community decides its own moral preferences, you can't make any objective claims about the morals of any other community outside your own. That is the basis for your logical downfall. What are you trying to pull? You lost the debate - why do you extend your agony?

Yes necessarily. I never said that you were being hostile (projection). I was not dogmatic (immune to reason i.e. dense). But if dogma is to be considered, everyone has their own. Objectivists are not excused for theirs, either, if we desire to be intellectually consistent.

I took the statement that I "seem to be attempting to cast doubt" as a perception of hostility. When I say that dogma is immune to reason, I don't mean irrational or "dense", only that it cannot be tested externally.

I freely admit that we all have our dogmas.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

The fact that my preferences, unlike yours, can be due to a reasoned analysis of available evidence regarding the likelihood of valuable results from a choosing a given set of moral prefererences.

[yawn] - and why should I care how you formed YOUR preferences?

I have not made TRUTH claims for you to be arguing with me about. I have made effectiveness claims that can be measured by mundane means.

In view of this 2000+ post thread, and all previous 2000+ post threads where we have had similar exchanges, what possible motive could you possibly have for arguing so vehemently about mere personal preferences? I like vanilla, you like chocolate. What's the problem?

They used to murder witches in Salem on the basis of "spectral evidence": the meticulously recorded dreams of children. Mists and vapor from your Medulla, or a million other Medulla's that are similarly disposed, are good evidence for psychiatrists to evaluate you with, but they are not a good thing to bring to the courtroom or the legislature.

Right. But legal scholars and skeptics have looked into the veracity of the Scriptures based upon rules of evidence and have as a result believed and obeyed them.

Click on "To 1,225."

I am unable to verify God's perspective in the laboratory with any precision at all. I am able to determine in the lab what is going to benefit all humans and what is not, with some approximate measure of qualitative accuracy.

Your approximations won't get you where you need to be, ultimately. That is why God has given you revelation. Trying to obviate God's revealed instruction doesn't do you any more good than an eight year old simply ignorning what his father is telling him he must do and going by his own determinations instead. Stop playing in the street.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.