I mean, what are the basic ideas behind objectivism? That man is a rational being. (For all
you feminist types, "people are rational beings." By the way, I think it is for sake of
convenience and not for sake of sexist ideas that people like me say "man" instead of
"humankind" and "he" instead of "he/she." Using the latter complicates the writing.) That
this reason allows him to integrate the information of the senses and make generalizations
about the world around him.That life itself is positive and not negative. That human affairs
are the most important. For the more controversial main ideas: the idea that the world is
objective. First of all, back to my previous point, many widely accepted philosophers --
most notably Plato and Aristotle, the philosophers on whose ideas western society was founded
-- agreed on an objective reality. Most anybody religious believes in objectivity to a certain
degree, although objectivists are no friends of religion. And although religion (particularly
christianity) is also looked down upon in academia, its very mention does not elicit the
scathing response that does objectivism in places like Stanford. To stay on this point, there
is something else that bothers me about subjectivist academics' reaction against objectivity:
the blatant contradictions inherent in it. Subjectivists claim that there IS no truth. Why, then,
do they talk their righteous mouths off regarding the virtues welfare state, about the evil of
America (????), about how communism is idealogically the best possible system? If there IS
no truth, then what right has the subjectivist to righteously defend anything? And even worse
... what right has the subjectivist to believe in the equal worth of all idealogical systems? (All
those people who say it's possible that the Al-Quaida (sp?) and the Taliban may possibly be
in the right come to mind. They say it's even remotely possible that it's right for renegade
nationals to attack innocent people in a country that treats its citizens like HUMAN BEINGS
in order to defend a way of life that dates back to the bronze age, in which women are
stoned to death for being RAPED? << excuse my tirade) The Al-Quaida, in some vague form,
is excused in the subjectivist's mind because they MAY be right in this world of transience
and subjectivity, but I am told to be wrong, horribly wrong, closed-minded, because I
believe that the terrorists are objectively evil. Does anyone else see the ridiculousness in
this? (PANT.)
On to the second controversial Randian idea, and probably the most controversial: the idea
of rational selfishness being a virtue. First of all, one must know what rational selfishness is.
It is the idea of focusing on one's own interests. For example: an objectivist will not try to
save a random stranger from drowning if in doing so he risks his own life. However, an
objectivist will probably save a spouse or good friend from drowning, because he rationally
gauges whether the risk is worth it. I say, this makes perfect sense. I believe that rational
selfishness moralizes a tendency in human beings that is completely natural and that exists
in them for the purposes of self preservation, and thus removes it from guilt. Randians say
that sacrifice is wrong. Altruists will say that sacrifice is what makes life worth living. Randians
would then redefine sacrifice: sacrifice is the rejection of a value for a lower value or
non-value. Sacrifice is a man killing his wife, whom he loves most dearly, to save the life of
another woman towards whom he feels nothing. Sacrifice is devoting your life to a worthless
cause. From an objectivist's perspective, selfishness is response to one's own values, rather
than to those of someone else, or to those dictated from the tower of some dubious authority.
And finally, in the way that individualism is good, collectivism is bad. Why? Because
collectivism is founded loosely on some idea of a collective consciousness. A collective is
composed of many individuals, each of whom does and should be driven by different
interests. It is impossible to make people happy in a state founded with a collectivist spirit
because too many individuals are necessarily subjected to the tyranny of the majority... or of
some corrupt power presuming to speak for the good of the people. Thus, some of the greatest
atrocities ever to blight the face of this Earth were made possible through appeals to
collectivist sensibilities -- the outrages of Stalin, the furnaces of Hitler. Look at all the damage
collectivism is done...and the scholarly world points at Objectivism, which has done nothing
of the sort. Objectivists support capitalism. Sure, sweatshops and employee abuse have
occurred under employers lacking the fundamental objectivist respect for human rights, but
please...this pales in comparison to Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Bin Laden, the animalistic
terrors of the third world, so eagerly excused by academia as unfortunate mistakes that happen
when some psycho is given too much power. Believe it or not, such nutcases do not come
into power unless the populace supports them on some idealogical base. And back to
capitalism...would the world be able to support half of its population without it??? AHHH,
what I meant to be one short paragraph ended as a lengthy tirade (I just recently came to
realize that I grossly mispronounce this word), but I just want people to somewhat understand
what I go through every day at Stanford, where I stand alone and where my ideas get
little or no support. Even relativistically speaking, wouldn't the comparable ridiculousness
and disastrous fruition of rival ideas make mine somewhat accepted? THE HORROR!
Here I am posting an article by Ayn Rand herself on how and why ideological monopolies in public and semi-public institutions should be fought.
HOME THE ENEMY: HOLE CHILD THE ALLY: PINK FLOYD HUMOR GOOD LITERATURE A LITTLE STORY I MADE UP QUOTE(S) OF THE DAY A BIT ABOUT ME RANDOMNESS PHOTOS LINKS GUESTBOOK CREDITS
