| | (A little Reader's Digest joke there for you old-timers.)
So we have this new guy at work named Joe Rowlands. He and I went out to lunch today, and I asked him what he used to do for fun before he joined the company. (There's little time for fun now, of course; we're a startup.)
"Philosophy," he says.
"Oh, really." I replied. "Like what?"
"Objectivism." It's a mark of the assumed respect we have for each other here in Silicon Valley that he didn't immediately launch into an explanation.
Somewhat startled, I asked, "Oh, so you're a Randian?" That's usually a quick way to figure out what kind of Objectivist you're dealing with.
"Uh, yeah." The cautious answer, not the snappy one; a good sign. He was probably relieved that I didn't say "Randroid."
Anyway, I let him off the hook. I've been more-or-less Objectivist since 1982. I was pretty active for a while. I ran The John Galt Line TBBS, a bulletin-board system, for about seven years in four cities. I read "Atlas Shrugged" most recently about six months ago, and just bought _Journals of Ayn Rand_ over the weekend.
But on the other hand, I was pretty fed up with the antics of the Ayn Rand Institute, and I've always been an independent-minded fellow, so I eventually took to calling myself a small-o objectivist and ducking the occasional efforts to get me take sides.
And I've spent the last 20 years working on my own understanding of Rand's fundamental ideas and conclusions. To me, they don't seem to form an entirely self-consistent set. I've reached the preliminary conclusion that Ayn Rand was a human being. I hope that isn't too controversial a claim... I have the same problem myself.
Joe told me about this place, so I figured I'd take a look, and I'm generally impressed. You've got a lot of interesting people creating a lot of original content. I look forward to reading through it and offering my own comments as time allows. Remember, we're at a startup...
. png
|
|
