Krieger

Randism/Objectivism is just another religion like Marxism!



I've always found it extremely hypocritical when someone that agrees with Marx's writings is accused of being part of a "religion" by someone that agrees with Rand.

Objectivist "logic" ...

pug846

Wow, that�s quite penetrating analysis Red Dave. Thanks for the thoughtful insight.

Krieger said:

Actually, Rand has been quite popular for some time now. Atlas Shrugged ranked number 2, right behind the bible, in a 1991 survey by the library of Congress for being making the biggest literary difference in someone�s life. (http://lcweb.loc.gov/loc/cfbook/bklists.html)

And how do you define a �religion?�

FloatingEgg

Objectivism is a secular philosophy.

Krieger

Shrug, that was in 1991. And here is the whole list from 1991 from your link:

I suspect now that LotR would be much higher for sure, and the Book or Mormon would be higher too (the LDS has grown quite a bit over the past 10 years).

Try asking the Randians that idiotically rant about Marxism being a "religion" ...

This is how the dictionary defines religion: a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Religions have to involve the supernatural and worship. Trying to claim that a particular political view is a "religion" is complete stupidity.

Kip

I tend towards libertarianism but I have not read Rand - yet. I do not read much fiction in general. But there are classes about her philosophy at my school (UT Austin) and Michael Newdon (my role model!) seems to admire her. I agree with all four of Objectivism's points about reality, reason, self interest, and capitalism. I think I will start by watching the old black and white movie. But I will be approaching Rand with a good deal of skepticism thanks to threads such as this one.

Krieger

Good luck with your political/philosophical journey.

Just don't call Marxism a religion or I'll have to beat you with my hammer and slice you with my sickle!

Gurdur

Not at all necessarily.

I've known Christians who were Objectivists; we even have one on this board (Radcliff Emerson).

Objectivism is a set of assertions which pretends to being a coherent philosophy; the reason why most philosophy departments of university don't include it in their teaching programs is that it was a very half-baked creation very late in the day; it said nothing new, and said it all in quite ridiculously pompous tones, all terribly easily refuted just on logical grounds, let alone empirical ones.

Its claims to being the Ultimate Truth � are of course contradicted by its being such a minority semi-religion; you'ld think "objective morals" --- if they really existed as claimed --- would be recognised by more people worldwide than a tiny political party in the USA, just for one example.

fando

One more question I have, and this is fairly important for me: Does Ayn Rand tend to take shortcuts with her philosophy? By shortcut, I mean someone who likes to simplify the process of generating opinions by adhering to an ideal set of concepts, like the 'objectivism' mentioned here. Is Ayn Rand the sort to come up with an idealism, then generate opinions based on them, or the other way around?

The reason I ask is because the world isn't black and white. It is my experience that opinions generated from purely idealistic or purely pragmatic stances tend to paint the world with too much contrast. For instance, it's possible to be a social libertarian and simultaneously take an autoritarian perspective towards the economy. If Ayn Rand is prone to generating opinions by adhering to a sole, fundamental philosophy, then it would be nice to know this in advance before pursuing her work, as I intend to soon.

99Percent

Objectivism starts by saying:
A=A
How much more fundamental can you get?
The world is certainly not black and white but the truth of facts are, at least at the human experience of things. Anyone can recognize the truth and communicate what reality is to other humans. That people deny it or claim that absolute truth does not really exist and therefore you can do anything you want or formulate any philosophy or moral theory you can think of is an intellectual copout.

Gurdur

Yes.
She had a number of prejudices (among others, she thought rape was erotic , she disliked homosexuals, and she really disliked trade-unions), and she justified her prejudices by specious back-reasoning.

The entire Libertarian doxology is founded upon one unsubstantiated assertion - that the source of all "rights" comes from the individual --- this is extended to there being such things as individual contracts and responsibilities, but they claim there is no such thing as social rights and responsibilities.
They do all of that by blithely closing their eyes to the facts, and often show a certain contempt for democracy, science and philosophy (and yes, I have the quotes from one Libertarian on this board showing that ).

It is an idealistic philosophy which ignores empiricism - and often used as a camouflage for other things, like simply not wanting to pay "high" levels of taxes.

It's a very minority semi-religion - you'll find bugger-all attention being given to Libertarianism outside the USA, and even there it's hardly making any headway.