By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Do you consider yourself a Objectivist (Randian)?

I noticed there where a few Ayn Rand fans here so I thought I would do a poll and see how many.



"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."

Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist. Especially if you think the moon landing was faked.


ioi + 1
Around the Network

Definitely not :)

 You can count me as an Anti-Randian activist!



Beware, I live!
I am Sinistar!
Beware, coward!
I hunger!
Roaaaaaaaaaar!

 

 

 At least 62 million Wii sold by the end of 09 or my mario avatar will get sad
Copycon said:

Definitely not :)

You can count me as an Anti-Randian activist!


 Ditto.



I love Objectivism, though it has its faults. Atlus Shrugged is the book that turned me toward Libertarianism all those years ago in college.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/


I liked it when I was younger (when I was 12, that's when I read the Fountainhead). Atlas Shrugged was a good read. I found out that applying Objectivist principles and standards in relationships with friends, relatives and lovers was unpleasant. But hey, that's just me.


Around the Network

To me, it's stupid. It basically implies that our actions should be considered as though in a vacuum, and the effects on others should be ignored, since, I don't know, those people didn't work hard enough to avoid being adversely affected by other's actions.

Take Cortland, from the Fountainhead. If Rourke had just destroyed the plans, since he designed them, he might have a point, but because he designed it, we are expected to believe he has a right to trespass on property that another man likely earned with his own work, and has a right to destroy construction that other people built by their own hands.

Basically, objectivism is too inconsistent to actually work.

Plus it implies that altruism can only be forced, it can never be a willing choice to help others.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

I think all of this is riddled with theological inconsistencies.



 

 

DSLover said:
I think all of this is riddled with theological inconsistencies.

Philosophical inconsistencies, unless you are referring to parts directly dealing with theology. 



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs


I think he's referring to the part in the Fountainhead that deals with the biblical knowledge between Howard and Dagney.


fkusumot said:

I liked it when I was younger (when I was 12, that's when I read the Fountainhead). Atlas Shrugged was a good read. I found out that applying Objectivist principles and standards in relationships with friends, relatives and lovers was unpleasant. But hey, that's just me.

It's only unpleasant if you have a problem with saying "You are of no use to me. Leave." on a regular basis.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/