[r9etb]

If you point out the fact that Objectivism is a "philosophy of reason," they deny the existence of reason. If you point to the logic of Objectivism, they say there is no logic. Then they go on to tell you that "there are no absolutes." Of course, they don't even notice the fact that their very statement is a "statement of an absolute," and negates not only their entire philosophy, but the very statement they have made as well. I love being a proponent of a philosophy that allows me to "shut down" those who disagree with it so easily and completely, and with their own words.

Alas, the problem with Rand's objectivism is that her own claims are mutually contradictory.

For example, her highest, allegedly objective, moral purpose is "happiness."

Also, there is simply no way to square Rand's claims to absoluteness with the evidence all around us that weighs against her claims.

And, tellingly, the Objectivists never seem to be able to prove their claims -- which, as it turns out, are based on a foundation of assertions and assumptions.

You don't have to be a liberal to disagree with Rand. You need only to be honest.

[spunkets]

" For example, her highest, allegedly objective, moral purpose is "happiness."

That is not true. She does not base her philosophy on the greatest happiness principle. The motivations in her philosophy are whatever the individual holds as an interest, regardless of what that interest is.

[poet]

"For example, her highest, allegedly objective, moral purpose is "happiness.""

Didn't she say that you define your own happiness and that it is not governed by other people's definitions?

I believe her philosophy in a nutshell boils downs down to indiviualism.

[RJCogburn]

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.

[Lysander]

And, tellingly, the Objectivists never seem to be able to prove their claims -- which, as it turns out, are based on a foundation of assertions and assumptions.

Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem: Any adequate axiomatizable theory is incomplete. In particular the sentence "This sentence is not provable" is true but not provable in the theory.

[Hank Kerchief]

Objectivists never seem to be able to prove their claims...

It's true, many of the principles of Objectivism cannot be proved to many people, possibly most people. So what?

The principles of the Calculus cannot be proved to many people, possibly to most people. So what?

In both cases, they are true, and the fact that most people are to stupid to understand the proof, proves nothing.

Hank

[tpaine]

For example, her [Rands] highest, allegedly objective, moral purpose is "happiness."


Life, liberty, and the pursuit of "happiness" are seen by many to be self evident truths, -- among the highest, foremost goals of man..

What is your objection to Rands ideas on using its pursuit as a rational moral basis for attaining/keeping a life of liberty?

[MEGoody]

"You don't have to be a liberal to disagree with Rand. You need only to be honest."

Correct. Her statement about man's only moral purpose being happiness is so ridiculous it made me laugh.

[iconoclast]

You don't have to be a liberal to disagree with Rand. You need only to be honest.

Actually you need only to arrive at mature adulthood.

Randian ideas are a lot like pimples; many young people go through them but ultimately wind up just fine.