Why should man understand everything? In fact that is most likely impossible.

All these logical/meaning problems are displayed clearly by the free market businessman that thinks war is good for the economy because his customers supply the war machine.

Religion is the proxy of raw political power.

You cannot be an Objectivist if you believe in the human gods. The new Republicans are far from this position for one reason or another.

Trader Joe's Organic Air Popped with Olive Oil.

Evidence for the existence of God is strictly anecdotal - it wouldn't stand up in court. But I find it comforting to think there's a possibility that some portion of my consciousness might continue after my physical form has ended. I enjoy life and don't want it to end. I choose, based on the limited, anecdotal evidence presented, to believe in a God. It is my choice and I would not presume to force it on others. BTW - given the slapstick comedy that is "Life on Earth," God has a warped sense of humor.

Here is a link to David Henerson's book: http://store.atlasshruggedmovie.com/the-...

I agree that you cannot be a theist and an Objectivist. That was not my point. The point was openess to discussion with people who are religious or people who are libertarians or semi-capitalistic, etc.

For instance, one can't say they are for capitalism and against corporations. Or for capitalism and against strong patent protection laws. I have read many such articles on Objectivist sites. This is not a "plastic" issue. Nor more than a christian conservative can claim to be pro-capitalist and believe strongly that man is evil and must be regulated to be good.

I am against all statism, but I have to ask myself-what has harmed more people recently in the US-a christian conservative or an atheist marxist? I take it very personally that I am living under Obamacare-the largest social program since Social security. I take it very personally that a non-trivial number of Objectivists voted for that to happen because they were so against christian conservatives.

This is EXACTLY what I've been seeing for years. Too many people think, "I am a Republican, therefore I am an Objectivist." I have lost count at how many times people who consider themselves Objectivists argue for forced vaccination, a military draft, labor camps, etc. I see this as a big problem for the Objectivist movement. A lot of people just don't get it. I'm so glad to see somebody else comment on it. Thanks MaxCasey.

I got it. It raises a lot of questions about natural language processing and the meaning of meaning.

I don't think I've noticed any of the posts you mentioned, though I have seen some by obvious trolls that aren't worth mentioning.

On a personal experience level, I have encountered a few "Libertarians" who quoted Rand liberally (pun not intended) but seemed to have little grasp of her ideas. Instead, they either believed they could do whatever they wanted, or made a point of carrying out trivial "rebellions" in order to "prove" that they were "individuals". I can recall one who refused to wear a seat belt and insisted on driving 10-15 miles per hour over the speed limit. A complete slave to the state, who had no idea that she was so.

Objectivism is an individualist philosophy. Above, I had a typo: "being" for "begin." Many concepts begin with Robinson Crusoe.

What does an individual need to survive? She must use her mind. She must choose to think. She must discover what is good for her and what is harmful. Her life is the standard of her values: good or bad; right or wrong. Moreover, in thinking, the individual identifies, differentiates, and integrates perceptions, concepts, and abstractions: salt water-fresh water; animal-plant. You can think about thinking: how do I know this? What makes this true? And so on.

You will accept that as "philosophy", am I right?

Enter another person on the island. In the actual story, when Robinson Crusoe rescued Friday from the cannibals, it was not from a causeless feeling. Would it have been right for him to feel that this was his chance to bring some vegetables to the feast? The nature of a human being is such that cannibalism is wrong. Taxation is just cannibalism in fine print and small type.

Understanding another person's point of view is critical to a rational discussion. That is the reason why Crusoe just shot the cannibals: rational discussion was impossible; and understanding their point of view would have done nothing for Friday.

Now, with 100 people on the island, maybe it would work out well if we all met once a week. Anything you want to talk about, write on this board before the meeting. And so on... Sure, at that level, all kinds of discussions and points of view can be considered. But at root, politics derives from ethics and ethics derives from morality.

Alone on his island Crusoe needed morality: right or wrong? good or bad? Pro-me or anti-me? Ethics is how you act toward other people. Ethical violations are not necessarily immoral; they do not necessarily take away someone's rights. In numismatics we have an ethical code that says that you share special knowledge. If someone comes to a coin dealer with an inherited collection and the dealer spots a great rarity, it is considered unethical to take advantage of the customer's ignorance. Is is immoral? No. Are the customer's rights violated? No.

If the customer pulled a gun and demanded an exchange, that would be immoral and a violation of several of the shop owner's political rights.

Really, the best way to start with politics from an Objectivist framework is with "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal." As it is, that book has two essays from "The Virtue of Selfishness" on 'Man's Rights' and 'The Nature of Government.' VOS underlies CUI.

Conservatives on the defense over pc and anti-christianity.
What they should put alot of that emotion and passion into is the radical advocating of Capitalism. Rand was clear that capitalism without a rational self interest philosophy is impotent, but it is the starting point that draws people in (in general). Also, the more capitalist societies are, the more they move to "civil liberties." But the more a society focuses on civil liberties/democracy they tend to not become economically free. Capitalism actively promotes your freedom of religion-the right of freedom of religion does not actively promote capitalism.

I missed the edit window. "search" I hate auto correct.

I do not see that my statement is inconsistent with what you are stating. Libertarianism is political. As well there have been several articles on Christianity and Objectivism including promoting marks book (btw a gulch member) . Perhaps you should go back to the site and seagull " Christianity " or "Thomas Aquinas "
I simply asked why the religion thing bugs you more than the bastardizing of capitalism? Ideduce it has a greater impact on our freedom. I see it as an Ojectivist blindspot just as I see the Christianity issue a blindspot for Christians.

Mike; I'm not sure I get the 'philosophy is derived from ethics which come from morality' bit nor that politics is a consequential study of how people live in society statement.

My understanding of the definition of philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Ethics and morality strike me as more feeling than philosophy, though I can agree that a philosophy can drive a certain set of ethics and morality.

Politics seems to me to be the understanding of other's perceptions, opinions, actions, etc. and the how to's of affecting those things in order to govern/influence.

Please help me see what you're trying to say there.

What you seem to be saying is that since we all agree on capitalism, why are we arguing about religion? Religion cannot be used to establish and defend capitalism. That is a fundamental truth in Objectivism. Capitalism has an objective basis in society. Objective means "rational-empirical" the two sides to the same truth.

Ah, bitcoins of the mind. Now that's an idea.

>>"one of the reasons Atlas Society formed was to be more open to the political realm and those of faith"<<
So does that imply a bigger umbrella, an effort at education, or a redefining of Objectivism? Objectivist, IMHO measure opinions, thoughts, decisions, actions, etc.. against external reality which seems to find faith a little lacking as a basis for a philosophy. I realize that religions in general and livers of a faith have entered the philosophy realm, but I always question their true purposes. I've always wondered if they're really interested in studying philosophy, or are they looking for a philosophy that would add support to their faith, or looking to learn the language in order to gain more strength for the arguments of their faith.

Questioning the Objectivist is usually welcomed by the Objectivist, but questioning faith is usually rejected pretty strongly. It's hard to see a conciliation of the two.

You cannot claim to be a logical positivist who denies the validity of mathematics. Ayn Rand's work similarly demands acceptance of certain fundamentals. She outlined them more than once. You cannot claim to be an Objectivist and a socialist, or a Christian, or a logical positivist. (In the "Principia Mathematica" by Russell and Whitehead, the Law of Identity is derived about eight proofs into the work.)

You can argue whether and to what extent corporations can be created as legal entities - artificial individuals with rights. Ayn Rand was ambivalent and ambiguous about gun control and capital punishment: she sketched some questions but had no answers and said so.

Ayn Rand's own personality also colors many discussions of her ideas. In a letter to John Hospers she denied differentiating her personal opinions from her work as a philosopher. So, when she condemned midi-skirts and women running for the office of President of the United States, those became elements of Objectivism to her. Others demurred. If we were speaking of Paul Feyerabend or Noam Chomsky, their personal opinions (and foibles) would be delineated from their formal presentations.

khalling wrote: "Ojectivists in general are not religious. However, one of the reasons Atlas Society formed was to be more open to the political realm and those of faith. Atlas Productions is promoting a book about Objectivism and faith as well Atlas Society.
An Ojectivist does not have to agree with every aspect of the philosophy as Rand nor agree to apply it identically."

1. Objectivists are atheists. You can accept certain elements of Objectivism and reject others, and be whatever you call yourself. But when it comes to fundamentals, the choice is Either-Or, A or non-A.

2. The Atlas Society was NOT formed to open up Objectivism to politics and religion but to take Objectivism to those who are still confused by those and other problems in popular culture:
"Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism was set forth in such works as her epic novel Atlas Shrugged, and in her brilliant non-fiction essays. Objectivism is designed as a guide to life, and celebrates the remarkable potential and power of you, the individual. Objectivism also challenges the doctrines of irrationalism, self-sacrifice, brute force, and collectivism that have brought centuries of chaos and misery into the lives of millions of individuals. It provides fascinating insights into the world of politics, art, education, foreign policy, science, and more, rewarding you with a rich understanding of how ideas shape your world. Those who discover Objectivism often describe the experience as life-changing and liberating." -- http://www.atlassociety.org/about-us

2.a. Everyone who does not know should know that the Atlas Society was formed over a disagreement between Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley over the utility and morality of sharing venues with libertarians. The attacks and replies are under the rubric "Fact and Value." The Atlas Society generally regards Objectivism as an "open" system available to extension and expansion in areas not addressed in the canonical works of Rand and others. The Ayn Rand Institute promotes the existing works of Ayn Rand and publishes elucidations of them.

3. If you go to the Atlas Society and enter "religion" in the search box, you will not find any attempt to reconcile the two doctrines, but rather many clear statements about the limitations of religion. I was told verbally that John Aglialoro's son-in-law wrote a book reconciling Objectivism and religion and when I was told, I remembered reading about it briefly on the Atlas Society website. On the other hand, although Ayn Rand personally found homosexuality "disgusting" you can find "Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation" by Chris Matthew Sciabarra. The difference is that human sexuality is obviously more plastic than the laws of metaphysics.

4. Whether and to extent a person agrees with every "aspect" of any philosophy and yet remains an adherent depends on what you mean by "aspect." You cannot say that you are an Objectivist except that you feel that life is futile... that service to others is important... that taxation is necessary and proper for the existence of government... that morality is fine, but we must be practical...

you can only stop the govt from discriminating enforcement of rights. Protection from private discrimination would be an additional right which you want for certain groups
not all groups. If allowed to be laisse faire, capitalism is the most expedient way to the solution of discrimination. Capitalism will educate the quickest, lower bounderies geographically and cerebrally, encourage wellbeing and de factor freedom for individuals. Men focused on producing have less incentive to nurture hatreds.

Absolutely!