You're saying all dogmas have true believers who say other professed believers pervert the true teachings. Objectivism has people who say people pervert Rand's ideas. Therefore, you say, Objectivism is similar to dogma.
This seems like error of the converse and/or poisoning the well.

"a rationalization for despising others"
When people who seek personal happiness and have not read Rand meet a few people using it as a rationalization to despise people, they're inclined to avoid it figuring it's probably bitter and nasty stuff-- the opposite of what it's actually about. That is unfortunate.

She made that very, very clear.

+1 to the nth power

Disdain = "But I don't think of you."

As you know, Roark to Toohey.

Again, excellent............ BT

Yes, of course it is "both". That is the nature of the objective: concepts and principles referring to reality in the form of human consciousness. It is neither "intrinsic" nor "subjective".

Understanding Ayn Rand's philosophy as conceptual formulation of principles of philosophy is not a "rigid mindset" of "zealotry and hero-worship" and does not make her a "deity". Those who think in such religious terms don't know the difference.

Again, excellent jconne..............BT

Excellent, jconne.................hope you don't mind my inserting an expansion on your valuable counsel.

"I hope you are reading the non-fiction by Rand and her trusted associates. Most readers of her fiction don't do that and end up with an enjoyment of her writing without an understanding of [see below] that's the case."

[philosophy in general, Objectivism in particular, and how it differs (so greatly) from all others]

BT

We should respect those who deserve respect and disdain those who deserve disdain.

What gets me as much as the self-proclaimed Objectivists who use Ayn Rand's words to justify their own selfish and greedy agendas are her detractors who obviously don't understand her teachings.

Thom Hartmann is a good example. He has admitted to not understand Atlas Shrugged (he couldn't get past the first ten pages) but that doesn't stop him from tearing it apart.

Both sides do Objectivism a disservice.

many have tried too but have failed successfully.
in her case they are NOT AS SMART AS THE TEACHER. I have read people who contribute to this site who also think they know more than Miss Rand, it is just not so!

Hello Zenphamy,
I like it. :) I too grew up and still live in a rural area. I would not have it any other way. And courtesy is akin to one common connotation of the word respect. Perhaps my vernacular is a bit provincial? :) Hmmm, I will have to chew on that one a bit. Tally-ho! Back to Webster I go!
Regards,
O.A.

Rand espoused many great ideas and beliefs, but remember that even "A is A" did not originate with her.

Sometimes others make it difficult to respect them when their goal is to destroy any who would be free. Respect their potential and what they have learned and are capable of. When it comes to whom I would let be in my inner circle of friends the list quickly becomes very short.

Anyone who does not hold in reverence the actual rights and potential virtues inherent in other human beings, calls into question any claim they might make to holding them with regard to themselves.

You are right on track. People who work at it like you are well worth Objectivists' time.

@andrewph - bravo - you are on an exciting journey. I've been on it for over fifty years and keep learning. I can point you to some sources that help me continuously learn and improve my thinking. Some are from the new generations of Objectivists. For example, read what Alex Epstein is doing with his Center for Industrial Progress and the ARI supported STRIVE organization, targeted at students, to help future generations gain access to the ideas from the age of reason and Ayn Rand's insights. There's an exploding collection of good new work being done for laymen, students, business people and serious academics - all taking lessons from Rand's seminal contributions to philosophy.

I hope you are reading the non-fiction by Rand and her trusted associates. Most readers of her fiction don't do that and end up with an enjoyment of her writing without an understanding of that's the case.

@blarman - My answer is: they are both her teachings and observations of reality, since understanding reality was her objective. Identifying and articulating how to do that more effectively is the value of her teachings.

Philosophy is a human creation to effectively use our human capacity for conceptual reasoning to understand what's relevant to us in reality. That's a long sentence to clarify the essential nature of this stuff. Rand has made significant contributions to all five branches of philosophy while standing on the shoulders of giants like Aristotle.

As Craig Biddle has said, "Saying Ayn Rand said.." is not an argument. To be responsible thinkers, we need to keep clear and distinct - what I know - and what a particular other individual said or thinks. Those others' opinions, observations, etc. are raw material to consider in forming our own conclusions. And we may just rely on them as a trusted source when we think that trust is earned. We don't need to become a subject matter expert in every subject. One can buy by brand and keep that process clear.

Doing child abuse investigation, father was brought in for slapping is 5-year old son (big bruise). I asked, "Why?" His answer, "Because I want him to respect me." I asked, "What have you done to be respected.?" He shut up. He wanted obedience. I told him, "If you want respect, do respectable things." Case turned out okay.

Yes - we can help by clarifying terms - defining our terms and asking other to do that. It may get them thinking ;-)

It's important to acknowledge that terms have multiple meanings as evidenced by multiple definitions in a dictionary. The onus is on the speaker to say - I'm using the term this way, not that. Then one can talk about the value or disvalue of them. Peter Schwartz and other have been writing on package dealing and packing such packages to get clarity and objectivity.

This is a highly valuable thinking skill to learn. demonstrate and teach to others.

I agree, many have treated Objectivism as a rationalization for despising others. New generations of Objectivists learning from a new generation of teachers are getting a much more responsible perspective. It's about thinking about thinking rather than demonstrating superiority over others' stupidity.

With ARI's investment in spreading use of Objectivism as effective thinking tools for new generations of curious, bright individuals, we are increasing the critical mass we need to effect our cultural recovery. Consider the success of John A. Allison at BB&T and Cato Inst. as well as his two books. And he was even vetted as potential Treasury Sec. under Trump.

So there are two aspects to using Objectivism. First is for effective thinking and pursuing personal happiness. The second is to influence our culture out of a respect for humanity in principle and our progeny in particular. There's the people we love and those we could potentially love.

See Jean Moroney Binswanger's work in her Thinking Directions website: thinkingdirections.com.
This is original work, standing on the shoulders of giants like Rand and others to help us be more effective human beings. This is at an individual level and in the immensely valuable interactions and collaborations with others - think division of labor; cooperation where many hands make like work; teamwork in an orchestra or a sports team; or in my work, software development teams where we facilitate collaborative, cross-function teams of subject matter experts working to a shared (agreed to) goal.

Individual rights are inalienable. Respect for the rights of others is required in order to claim such rights for oneself. Subjective respect beyond that is not one's responsibility. True Objectivists understand this. They can attempt to educate others on moral principles. But those who do not show the necessary respect or are otherwise immoral must suffer the consequences. It must be made clear that such people are not Obj.ists - are not "representatives" of the Obj. philosophy.

I viewed being nice and polite as a common sense approach before I heard of Ayn Rand, and that was when I had Netflix send AS1 as some sort of speculative science fiction movie that aroused my curiosity after I retired.
I even used that approach as a corrections officer, though there were times when my inner allosaur was awakened.
Recall an inmate telling an infirmary nurse I was dating that I was okay but not to make me mad.
Old dino will even say "sir" or "ma'am" to a kid at a fast food restaurant. Figure that cuts down the odds of someone spitting on my food..

I have tried to understand her philosophy. I have now finished all of her novels, strangely in reverse order. I am trying very hard to undo what social and societal norms I was taught growing up to butter understand what she was saying. I have leaned that self is both morally and mortally important. Love of self is required to love others and that responsibility begins with respecting yourself. I do not profess to be a devout follower, i am at best a novice. To that I am also trying
To teach my children what I have learned from Ms. Rand and that is self is the most important part of living and that all other components come from that. Please let me know where I am going wrong and I wish I had an opportunity to meet and learn directly what her thoughts were on the evolution of both society and her disciples.

Well said.

I like to think that by virtue of being human, we innately deserve the respect for life and right to choice that comes with being a human, viz. that coercion constitutes a lack of respect for the other. However, if we make choices that coerce others, we can in turn lose that respect.

Reverence to me implies worship or emulation. IMHO, we would do very well for this to be a very short list.