Recommended Posts

Thank you, Chris!

I was introduced to Rand through a website, although I first heard of her in high school. The website is called the Political Compass. I took the test that they have on their website and my results put me in the libertarian right quadrant. The website also suggested authors that fall in the same quadrant. Rand along with Hayek and Friedman were the authors in my quadrant. I found myself agreeing with much of her philosophy in the books I've read.

A little more about me... I live in the western suburbs of Chicago and have spent most of my life here. I'm 32. No husband or kids. I love sports, watching and participating, and I love reading, historical fiction being my favorite genre. I have spent most of my career in non-profits. I actually began in Christian ministry, so objectivism is quite a change from where I was 10 years ago. At the same time, I feel that I'm finally being true to my core beliefs.

That's me in a bigger nutshell. I'm new to posting on sites like this, so may be a bit shy at first. It seems like a welcoming discussion board, though, so eventually I will get more comfortable and I think I will enjoy it as well. Thanks, again!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 259
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Welcome aboard. Make yourself at home.

There is a great group of friendly people here and you sound like another one.

I do envy you your first read of Atlas Shrugged. I'm not the first to ever say that to a newbie, but I sure know the feeling. Regardless of where you go with Objectivism later, it is a wonderful unforgettable experience.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Welcome to Objectivist Living. Come on in and say hello.

Thank you for your kind invitation.

My user name is BaalChatzaf which is Hebrew for cheeky guy.

You can call me by my real name, Bob, if you are so inclined.

I wish to post in this forum on mathematics and physics with their implications for epistemology. I consider epistemology the part of philosophy that is useful and important. Metaphysics? Well the only metaphysics I use is Reality Lite: Reality (the world outside our skin beyond our wishes and hopes) exists and we all have enough brains to understand it sufficiently to survive in it. Anything beyond this I consider excessive.

I am not interested in ethics or morality. Any intelligent sentient being ought to know the difference between right and wrong and if he/she/it does not, he/she/it will soon find out, sometimes painfully.

I consider mathematics, physics and flying airplanes the best things that humans do. Flying is the most exciting thing one can do while fully clothed. Next best is making war. We are rather good at it. We are not so good building fair and just social orders. That is a shame, but there it is.

Later on topics of interest.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob or Cheek; Welcome! How old are you? Where do you call home? What have read of Ayn Rand?

Thank you for inquiring.

71 years old, born in the Bronx. I now reside in the Bad-a-Bing state, New Jersey, but my heart is still in Massachussetts, the home of the American Revolution.

Yes, I have read Ayn Rand and I even subscribed to the Objectivist.

No, I am not an Objectivist, but I am joined at the hip to Reality. If I were still religious, my god would be the facts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It is wonderful to see you here. What a great morning to wake up and see you aboard.

You might be interested in knowing that my post in the "Politics" section giving a quote from your article on rights was not the first time I have quoted you on OL. Back at the beginning of January, I opened a thread in the "Psychology" section with some quotes from you:

Some bare bones basics

Robert Campbell, who, outside of NB, is the smartest guy I know in psychology (but now with your appearance, I have to make room for another), stated the following about that post: "I wish I could be as concise as Wolfer succeeds in being."

That, to me, is high honor. Your presence on OL is too.

Also, anyone who does not buy into that trash that is promoted by smaller souls about the Brandens and have had personal experiences they can state about their integrity is a very welcome presence.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the welcome.

I became interested in Rand in the mid sixties. I first saw Nathaniel in San Franciso where he gave the opening Intro to Objectivism lecture from NBI. All long, long ago.

I grew up in Wyoming, lived for many years in California, finished a 5 year contract in Hawaii and now I live in the Phoenix area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Campbell, who, outside of NB, is the smartest guy I know in psychology (but now with your appearance, I have to make room for another)...


Good God!

I left out Steve Shmurak! I believe his theories are going to make a small upheaval in Objectivist epistemology on the normative side.

In applied psychology (human resources manager), there is also William Scherk who sometimes graces our board with some amazingly informative and downright hilarious posts.

For Jungian psychology, there is Ellen Stuttle, who does not work with it, but knows it in depth and is a frequent and well-loved poster.

With NB, this counts as 6 really smart people in psychology, but I am going to stop using numbers. There is a category in my mind—the smartest people I know in psychology on OL—and leave it at that. You are among them, of course. I hope I didn't leave anyone out.

Anyway, who needs to count with all that talent? For me, with my stated goal of surrounding myself with people smarter than me to keep me on my toes and make me learn, this is hog heaven...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do remember Paul Eisen the San Francisco NBI business rep? Were you attended NBI when the split occurred?

Chris, no I don't remember Paul Eisen. I wasn't involved socially - I just took a couple of courses and read the books.

Then I went deeply into computer programming and lost track of Objectivism entirely for several years. I was surprised when I heard of the split but it didn't hit me with the force it would have had I been actively part of the movement. It was much easier for me to think of it as part of their personal lives and if neither of them had changed their position on basic issues, it had nothing to do with me.

I had moved to Los Angeles and didn't see Nathaniel again till I met him at a self-esteem intensive at his house in about 1972.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you involved in the Phoenix Objectivist group?

No, I'm not. I've been here for about a year and it still feels like I'm getting settled in. There are boxes I haven't unpacked (of course, to be honest I'd have to admit that one or two of them are still packed from my move to Hawaii six years ago.)

Are you familiar with the Phoenix Objectivist group?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jackie Hazleton founded the group. Bill Perry, and James T. Kirk are founding members who have attending TOC summer seminars in various years. I would urge looking at the Atlas Society website which has list of groups in various places. On the Paul Eisen question from what I have heard you don't miss anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi. I'm Steve Gagne and I'm new here (this is only my third post here.)

Although (as a recent convert to Catholicism) I do not self-identify as an capital-"O" Objectivist, I appreciate reason, rationality, and reality. I have studied most of AR's (non-posthumous) books, as well as several of NB's, and owe them both, at the least, a debt of gratitude. And where I meet people of good will, I hope to respond in kind.

About thirty years ago, when I was first studying AR, I found there was an undercurrent of humorlessness and ill-will in the Objectivist community that I found...unpalatable. So I kept my distance. Maybe ten years ago, when I finally got online, I happened upon some Objectivist chat rooms, and ARI, and LP's peculiar versions of AR's works...and thought to explore the Objectivist community again. I've talked to Jehovah's Witnesses who were more rational and reasonable -- as soon as they found out I wasn't toeing the party line as they saw it, I was k-lined/banned/& bounced faster than you could blink.

So a few days back when I clicked a link elsewhere and ended up here, I found a pleasant surprise -- believers in reason who practiced what they preached! People who showed the goodwill that AR said would exist among rational men! Ahhhhhh yesss.

So a little about me....I'm a working man, married for 30 years. Three kids (opera-singer daughter full grown & married, out of the house; two teenage sons in high school, one a lazy bum, the other an honor student). I've dabbled in music, computers, and languages most of my life; I've been a systems engineer, a driver, an educator, a business manager, a baker, a preacher, a safecracker, a street musician, a salesman, and a welfare bureaucrat.

My intellectual history is that I was raised to be an atheist by parents who were "recovering catholics". An intense interest in science gave me enough knowledge at a young age that I started to question scientific orthodoxy, at a time in life when most start to question an inherited religious faith, and for much the same reasons -- that most of what passes for knowledge is that A told B who told C who told A....etc. Secondhand knowledge and circular reasoning, accepted on ***faith*** and the fallacious argument to authority. This led me to independent study in comparative religion; especially in the area of native american religion. For years I absorbed some of those practices, until a broken heart, combined with a loss of the sense of my integrity, made me crazy. Then the religion didn't help; but following a failed suicide attempt, it was a personal encounter with Jesus Christ, and the offering his friendship, that did. I don't expect you to believe that, and I am not here to thump you with it. He is the one who led me to study AR & NB, to help restore my rationality and heal my broken mind. I learned that much that I had doubted about myself -- my objective observations of the world around me -- had always been true, and could never have been otherwise. And I have to say, that although I may have had some low points since, I have NEVER AGAIN wanted to give up on life since that time. Life is its own reason.

So I hope to be able to share something intelligent here once in a while, and if not, at least to have the wisdom to keep my mouth shut. Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve G; Welcome! It's nice to have you abroad.

Humorless and uptight whatever could you talking about? I think that is very accurate description and perhaps one of the reasons Objectivism has not caught on.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

I wonder what has happened to these posters? Some I don't recognize as recent posters anymore even though I joined this board recently. Interesting stories.

Perhaps M. Kelly and Kat can send out emails to them inviting them back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Hello. I'm Darrin, and I'm a graduate student, mathematics instructor, and stormchaser living in Ames, Iowa. I'm in the middle of recovering from a long, dark period of my life, but I've rediscovered Objectivism recently in participating in (rationally controlled) theological discussion.

The more I listen to philosophers and scientists develop their arguments for nontheism and the typical pragmatic worldview they think gives rise to it, the more I'm beginning to think "maybe I was wrong about Objectivism." The most emotionally cool Christian philosophers are winning, not because their view is true, but because their view at least has logical structure based on premises. The "side of science" does not. See

on Youtube for a perfect example on how poorly taking science as one's entire philosophy holds up to any logical and philosophical structure.

I am not Christian, but I'm abandoning science as an entire philosophy, and recognizing its true, valid use. What, then, to hold? I've been dodging the question for too long. Before now, I never was able to call myself an Objectivist because of some lingering questions I had that I was a bit too scared to ask (including questions on why Objectivism was structured so that I would be scared to ask such questions in the first place) so I'm relieved to find a forum where I can seek answers from people who consider it an open system.

I am off to Texas for a few days, but I wanted to place an initial post to make sure I establish interest in using my account on this forum in the near future. I'm looking forward to my membership here.

Edited by Flagg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now