NationStates Jolt Archive

Even though I am a libertarian, and have been accused on one occassion (possibly more) of being a "Randroid", in all actuality I've never read any of Rand's work or read any in-depth analysis thereof. From what I've gleaned, I'm not sure that I would agree with what she has to say philosophically. Her philosophy seems to encourage people to act in methods that seem self-centered and discourages altruism, whereas I think it is better if people choose what they want to do as long as it does not cause conflict between individuals. Also, I do not believe that natural law would allow for most abortions, whereas from what I've read she seems to believe that it is permissible. I'm not sure if all of this is accurate, seeing as how I have not really looked in-depth, but it seems a bit nihilistic.

So, the question boils down to- would reading about Objectivism contain elements that I may agree with and therefore add substance to my philosophy, or should I just read it for academic, inquisitive purposes?

Possibly; certainly if you believe that morality is objective. Your ideology is similar enough that it might help you in articulating it.

Oh... That offspring of Scientology?

Well, I'll believe in something like this only after the Flying Spaghetti Monster touches me with his noodly appendage and tells it is true.

According to Objectivism, self-sacrifice can be a self-interested act. You just really have to want to do it. Rand herself would use the example that she would, in a self-interested manner, throw herself in front of a bullet to save her husband. She'd rather not survive knowing she could have saved him, so she chooses to save him.

You could apply the same reasoning to any act of supposed altruism.

Philosophically, I cannot accept the Objectivist position on moral realism. There is simply no evidence to support it, and thus holding the belief is something I deem irrational. If I could somehow skip the belief in an objective world with objective morals, I'd probably be a fervent Randroid myself. But (and I've met a fair number of Objectivists), they're so wed to their foundationless philosophical basis they try to justify everything based on it. They're like a priori libertarians, and it's not a rationally tenable position.

To me, the strength of libertarianism is its a posteriori measurement of outcomes. Objectivism completely ignores that, and thus paints itself into a corner in any debate.

Oh... That offspring of Scientology?

Well, I'll believe in something like this only after the Flying Spaghetti Monster touches me with his noodly appendage and tells it is true.

You're involving religion with objectivism? Wha?

You're involving religion with objectivism? Wha?

I believe he/she is insinuating that the adherence of Objectivists to Objectivism and Ayn Rand is similar to the behaviors of the cult of Scientology.

In fact, Ayn Rand was deeply involved with scientology, and it inspired her objectivism.

And, in fact, the objectivism is as objective as scientology is scientific. It is based on a belief that every human being has the Higher Morals and inherently understands the Right and Wrong... well, a nice thing to believe. But the history has proven that morale changes all the time and differs between nations; just compare the Honor of a warrior and the Humanism of a pacifist.

The objectivists don't even back up their claims. They say - "Everyone understands what is Right and what is Wrong - don't you?". It is a nice belief, but without a solid ground. They are floating in the sky, believing in what their inner voice tells them; the same inner voice you know from many other religions.

That does sound like Scientology, with inherently knowing right and wrong. Wow. I never knew that Rand was inspired by Scientology, I guess you learn something every day.

I am a Libertarian who has to admit a certain sympathy with Objectivism, after all Ayn Rand is an important influence on the development of Libertarian views on Liberty and Individualism. However I consider her arguments to be ill-founded and not developed enough in certain areas in order to function in the real-world (but they can work on paper though).

However I find in interesting that people refer to Objectivism as a cult when it is in fact one of the most anti-religious groups to exist in the modern world.

Also Ayn Rand was never a Scientologist nor did she ever study Scientology at all, nor did she and L. Ron Hubbard (who ADMITED he was a fraud) ever meet. From all indications from biographies written by people who support Objectivism and people who are against it they all agree that Ayn Rand was an atheist since her yearly teen years and never wavered from that position period.

It's that simple.

Not as antireligious as one may think. Objectivism is as atireligious as any religion is: opposing other religions and ideologies. Scientology as well is a strongly antireligious thing: why one would need religions when there is the truth, open to any operating thethan?

They have a lot of similarity, and one can found information that Rand was interested in Scientology. No, they didn't meet. No, she wasn't a kind of notable participant; but some sources (including both sci and obj) say she was inspired by it. In fact, they are very similar. The major difference is that Objectivism is free of Hubbard's poor pulp fiction, free of worship, and basically free of everything unnecessary except the basics; it is just well refined and aimed at more intelligent audience.


See a comparison.
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/ayn-rand-and-hubbard.htm
You may also read this. As much as pro-Rand corresponding part of WP is (Jimbo is an objectivist), facts are still there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_movement

Not as antireligious as one may think. Objectivism is as atireligious as any religion is: opposing other religions and ideologies. Scientology as well is a strongly antireligious thing: why one would need religions when there is the truth, open to any operating thethan?

They have a lot of similarity, and one can found information that Rand was interested in Scientology. No, they didn't meet. No, she wasn't a kind of notable participant; but some sources (including both sci and obj) say she was inspired by it. In fact, they are very similar. The major difference is that Objectivism is free of Hubbard's poor pulp fiction, free of worship, and basically free of everything unnecessary except the basics; it is just well refined and aimed at more intelligent audience.


See a comparison.
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/ayn-rand-and-hubbard.htm
You may also read this. As much as pro-Rand corresponding part of WP is (Jimbo is an objectivist), facts are still there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_movement

And? You've only been able to show that they share similar features. I've still yet to see any reference to the fundamentals of scientology. Just like Thomas Hobbes Leviathan embodied many of the basic philosophical principles of Modern Liberalism (International, not American style) they are not the same things.

I am no objectivist, because at the foundation of Objectivism is some sort of viewpoint that right and wrong can be objectively determined, and, it really can't. But I cannot stand for falsehoods.

You must remember that Rand wrote The Fountainhead well before Hubbard founded scientology, and the fundamentals of the objectivist viewpoint can be found in that book.

Very similar, in fact.

The Fоuntainhеad? It's a novel containing only a little bit of philosophy, barely related to Objectivism. Compare it to Atlas and you'll see how Dianetics and Scientology infuenced it, like it was a new author. Yes, of course, Rand always held certain beliefs; otherwise she simply wouldn't become an objectivist. But the influence is well seen.

Slightly off-topic but does anyone else get the distinct impression that Rand was characterised by a Pervasive Development Disorder?