Top ten things I hate about Objectivists. &#40;Not all Oists, only the A holes&#41;

10/ The know it all attitude

9/ Dislike of non objectivists.

8/ Dislike of libertarians.

7/ Unwillingness to examine the suggestive evidence of parapsychologists studies.

6/ The intellectual ghetto they have created for themselves. (the ARI anyone?)

5/ The ARI affilliates

4/ Unwillingness to see benevolence as a virtue.

3/ The insistence that Rand wasn't a materialist ( did Rand believe in the soul? NO. Did she believe that our minds were products of our body? YES.)

2/ Bad etymology. (no selfishness doesn't mean what mankind has used it for centuries to mean)

1/ Pro american imperialism. (nuke em all, they don't believe in the american way)

Post 1

Sunday, February 8, 2004 - 2:14pm

BTW this is a semi serious list.

Post 2

Sunday, February 8, 2004 - 8:46pm

I'd say the biggest difference in Objectivist politics and Libertarian politics is globalism. Libertarians hate it and Objectivists want it.

Post 3

Monday, February 9, 2004 - 7:17am

Globalism? What's that? You mean we believe the world isn't flat? True, that's us.

Post 4

Monday, February 9, 2004 - 10:22am

"Bad etymology. (no selfishness doesn't mean what mankind has used it for centuries to mean)"

This decision was made by Ayn Rand herself. She chose to redefine this word because it was too important to be left at the mercy of altruists. I love that she did this. She attempted to pull the rug from under the altruist code. Only history will tell if she will be successful.

"The intellectual ghetto they have created for themselves. (the ARI anyone?)"

I am dissapointed in many aspects of ARI, their treatment of Reisman, Sanford, Kirkpatrick and Packer for starters. However, calling them an "intellecutal ghetto" is infantile. Peikoff, Harriman, Binswanger, Lewis, Salsman, Ridpath, etc. There are many powerful minds associated with ARI. Do they have flaws? Yes. But these are intellectualy capable people nonetheless.

"Dislike of libertarians." Libertarianism has much to offer, but it is also a philosophical minefield. I wish that ARI would not dismiss it so readily but engage it and in essence help clean it up. But unfortunately they show no such willingness. Thus, SOLO.

Post 5

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 2:20pm

Actually, as far as I understand AR did believe in a soul - a self-made soul made possible by our highly conceptual, aware faculty of consciousness, made possible by the brain. Just not a mystical soul.

Post 6

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 2:40pm

I have had no luck trying to "clean up" Libertarians. Many of them seem to start from the premise that an advocacy of liberty necessarily means a repudiation of ethics -- and everything else on down. If I valued liberty -- but lacked a means of proving its validity -- I would welcome with great enthusiasm any attempt to generate a reality-based philosophy for defending it. But that is not the reaction I normally get.

Post 7

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 3:41pm

This decision was made by Ayn Rand herself. She chose to redefine this word ["selfishness"] because it was too important to be left at the mercy of altruists.

Actually, in her introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness she said:

[T]he exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word "selfishness" is: concern with one's own interests.

This is borne out by my own dictionary. Dictionaries usually list the various senses in which words are actually used, and Rand's is one of them. She seems to believe her sense of the word (the neutral meaning) is the basic one and the "overly concerned with oneself" (the evil meaning) is a derivative one. I do not know whether she is correct on that, but the fact remains that modern thinkers use the term as an intellectual package deal. And, unlike Nathaniel Branden, I love her deliberately provocative answer to those who dare ask out loud why she uses the term to denote virtue: "For the reason that makes you afraid of it."

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 4/15, 4:58pm)

Post 8

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 10:31pm