Is Objectivism a Religion?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I will not get involved in responding to anything other than a reply to one of my posts. Otherwise, I'm responding to responses to mistaken characterizations. It is too much work for too little payoff to not only persuade her opponents but also to correct her defenders.



[/ QUOTE ]

Could you respond to these 2 questions as I wish not to give my own view of ethics since he is asking specificaly about AR.

[ QUOTE ]
1)exactly what she means by survival. I'm wondering if there is a philosophical component of survival of self into the future.

2) This hierachy of values. Because I believe values have structure (or at least ethical actions have structure) its not obvious that they can be ordered into a useful hierachy. Sometimes its obvious whats best but in normal practise when people offer some sort of ordering of the value of action it looks contrived and any outcome can be justified.


[/ QUOTE ] I don't know the answer to #1

For #2 I've gotten as far to understand that mans highest value is his life, his survival. Every other value comes from this and is a means to this end. But I have yet to find other levels to her philosophy.

[DougShrapnel]

Yes it has been very interesting, I have tried to get DDT to answer these specific questions regarding AR philosphy, because I think he can do it better.

I think we will find AR's heirarcy of values lacking. And I'm loooking forward to our debate over what this heirarchy should consist of. A new thread for that tho.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, Ayn Rand never said that to be alive *means* to be alive and to be happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No [censored]. You took what I said out of context. She *did* write that when people want to live, "live" in this context means MORE than simply *being* alive. That's what I meant. Simply being physically alive is *not* the primary goal of a rational human being. My copy of The Virtue of Selfishness is with a friend right now, but I believe that's where she wrote this. She also alludes to it when writing of a "sense of life" in The Romantic Manifesto.

In the future, don't be such a dick when you respond to people's posts, especially when you've misunderstood them. You come off a total ass, even when it's clear that you're knowledgeable on the subject. It's counterproductive.

[ QUOTE ]
To those ask, I will be happy to provide references to sources on any topic Ayn Rand discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I asked for some reference material on the web. The one URL you gave didn't have much information. I responded to it, though, and you have not responded to that post (instead, you responded to the person who responded to my post, which, as you said, was counter-productive).

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
That would seem to be a contradiction to website I quoted, then. Can you provide a better resouce with more accurate information than the one DTT did?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is as good as I can do online. http://www.objectivistcenter.org/obj...QuestionID=102

[ QUOTE ]
Objectivism has the tradition that suicide might be justified in circumstances when life, or human life, was truly impossible. Ayn Rand illustrated this in Atlas Shrugged by John Galt's willingness to submit to torture and presumably death rather than betray his love or serve an evil system of government. Common examples are life in a torture-camp such as a gulag, or life with a terminal, highly debilitating, and highly painful illness.



[/ QUOTE ]

As DDT said, you should really read her work directly if you're interested.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes it has been very interesting, I have tried to get DDT to answer these specific questions regarding AR philosphy, because I think he can do it better.

I think we will find AR's heirarcy of values lacking. And I'm loooking forward to our debate over what this heirarchy should consist of. A new thread for that tho.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hopefully others will join without insisting we study Rand's work first.

I don't understand why people insist on going back to the original work, I agree its useful and interesting but its not necessary or very efficient. Lively dialog with some informed people chipping in is the best way imo.

Ideas stand seperate from the people who first described them . No-one suggest you have to study Einstein's writings to learn relativity.

chez

[jthegreat]

Kip, I provided a source. You ignoring it or what?

Just read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" and you will know all you need to know about Objectivism.<p>

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Just read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" and you will know all you need to know about Objectivism.<p>

[/ QUOTE ]AS is way to long, which is OK if everything in it was necessary to understanding rands philosophy. But I'm not sure if there isn't just a bunch of extra stuff or if rand is on the right track regarding ethics.

She is in a way but her adherants have taken it to a quasi-religious level as you put it.

For instance, they do not believe in love per se'. They believe that you fall "in love" because you get something from the other person. If you didn't get something out of the deal then you would not be "in love".

I find this (While perhaps technically accurate.) to be grotesque. I also find it to be incorrect. I will give you another example.

Suppose you choose to be in the Secret Service which means you will sacrifice yourself for another. An objectivist would say that you are deriving self-worth from your job therefore it is your selfish desire for validation that leads you to this career.

In a certain sense they are correct but they have gone overboard and I agree with you. What I meant is that the only thing of value I find regarding Objectivism was in these books and I dismiss the whole movement afterwards.

There are such things as compassion and altruism in my world. Perhaps folks can qualify them in an objectivist manner but I don't. I do things I hate which have no value to me all the time. A Randian would say "That's because you do it out of YOUR own sense of honor." Again, technically to the most sophist level of argument true but not true to me.

Does that make any sense?