created by coppockm56 on 13/02/2025 at 04:40 UTC
12 upvotes, 3 top-level comments (showing 3)
I’m going to drop this here. It seems apropos.
Comment by Arbare at 16/02/2025 at 17:50 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
"I would say that one shouldn’t claim that one’s philosophy is “Objectivism,” because that’s the name that Rand gave to her philosophy as she laid it out. Just give your philosophy its own name."
Exactly. I think that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and by being independent, that is, orienting yourself to reality primarily, you have to conclude things and have a direct relationship with reality by means of reason. Ultimately gaining clarity in terms of fundamental quesitons is a human need and the outcome its gonna be "My worldview", and if it coincides with objecitvism, tthen that's that.
Saying **"I'm an Objectivist"** feels like a very second-handed label to attach to oneself. I think it's more rational to say, **"I'm inspired by Objectivism"** or **"Objectivism (Ayn Rand's philosophy) is a major reference for me."**
Comment by No-Resource-5704 at 16/02/2025 at 04:07 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Those who associate themselves with Objectivism are a mixed group of (generally) independent thinkers. I've observed that there is a political split between those who support "economic" Objectivism as primary and those that support "social" Objectivism as primary. The center left in the U.S. tends to support the social goals of Objectivism (abortion, religion, many social aspects) but the center left also leans strongly toward communistic economics. The Center Right is socially restrictive, but tends to support more freedom in the economic sphere. This makes supporting particular politicians rather difficult, as neither left nor right allows anything near "pure" Objectivist practice. This may also explain Leonard Peikoff's endorsement of Donald Trump -- the alternative after 4 years of the left regime of the Biden "handlers", our economy was in serious danger. Sadly, politics in the U.S. is often a choice between bad and worse, especially from the Objectivist view.
As for Ayn Rand, herself, she was a product of her times -- influenced by norms of the social realities during her life. "Women's Lib" only appeared very late in her life and it was a rather foreign concept to her social situation. (My mother, living generally in the same generation as Rand, was quite open to some of the early aspects of Women's Lib -- but rejected aspects that became more extreme.)
Ayn Rand was very protective of her copyright(s) with respect to Objectivism. Copyright law is very complex, and it requires that an author be actively protective in relation to them. (Failure to object to non-authrorized use could result in materials falling into the public domain.) With Rand's background in the movie industry, it is very likely that she was particularly sensitive to this issue. Unfortunately, this protectiveness may have hurt the spread of her philosophy into the broader society. However, I think I can understand her position, since she earned her living from her writing (and speaking).
This brings us to the (sad) factor of the schism(s) within the Objectivist movement. There are those who complain that this or that person has become an apostate, and is then "rejected" from the "official" keepers of the philosophy. This revolves around the question about Objectivism being "open" or "closed." The "closed" folks say that Objectivism is "exactly what Ayn Rand has said" nothing more or less. Yet they publish papers, articles, and books that describe Objectivism and explain (and dare I say, "expand") objectivism in light of issues that Ayn Rand had not encountered nor had explored at length. I find the distinction between the "closed" folks and the "open" folks as being an argument of little merit. Yes, the "open" folks have explored the relation of toleration within Objectivism. This is an area that Rand never directly addressed. Her writings were often intentionally written with a black and white distinction between good and evil -- but life isn't always black and white. Distinctions are not always so easily discerned in day to day living and social interactions. (I would risk being "ex communicated" were this not a (more or less) anonymous posting.)
I live my life following Objectivist principles and evaluate my choices based on what is best for me (and my family). I don't go out of my way to argue with my neighbors (or even my non-Objectivist friends). Indeed, we've been friendly with a Mormon family. They became curious about our "religious" views and we responded that we (my wife and I) were "Objectivists." They were curious, so we gave them a book on living an Objectivist life (not by Rand) and told them they could keep it if they wished. Apparently they read it (or enough to get the understanding of where we were coming from) and they returned the book. We are still friends, but we do not discuss religion or philosophy. The did comment that they appreciated that we had "good values" but that was the end of that topic.
Comment by 21stCenturyHumanist at 13/02/2025 at 08:15 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think it would be better now to view Rand as a kind of independently minded humanist philosopher, and to refer to her philosophy as something like "Randian Humanism."