ekalski

Hi Shane, I agree completely about Thomas Jefferson. I just have doubts that the average citizen in America would really know what Jefferson and his ilk were like, especially in regards to their ideas (other than the bare surface idea that they created the United States of America). I remember reading Ayn Rand when she said that the most important point about the formation of America was our founding fathers put a limit, not on the citizens, but on government. Those few men were the first to ever place limits on government and not on the people. I went to a public school and had never heard the constitution described that way. It's there for everyone to see, but somehow I think most people miss that. Today, we've strayed so far with such repidity from our founding fathers vision that it's... well scary. Objectivism could have made all the difference in the world. Now it's reached a point where you have fragments of movements fighting over, hell I don't really know what they're fighting over. They are so far apart on so many issues, it makes no sense. It's similar to what you say in your blog about liberals and conservatives. Like I said before, where is reason at this point in time? As far as an Objectivist movement versus a political movement based on rational individualism, I think we need more than politics. Think about where our culture is now. Think about what is portrayed in the movies and on television. So much junk. Politics alone won't cut it. Ayn Rand said something along the lines of politics is the outgrowth of philosophy. Barbara, a question - It's been over 30 years since Objectivism as a movement began. How is it that better, more rational ideas have not gained a better foothold agains irrational ideas? I see some movement in positive directions, but in such small proportions. I can't seem to figure it out. Ed

I am new to Objectivist Living. I was an Objectivist in the 1970's. I remember how exciting it was then and like so many others imagined a world where Objectivism would prevail. I later left the movement because I felt it was so judgemental that people wouldn't have a chance to learn what it was really like. I think Ayn Rand was the cause and the seed of that animosity toward certain people. I read the topics above and thought to myself, my god, what has Objectivism become? I now understand why Objectivism didn't become what I thought it could. What a shame. It seems strange to me that a philosophy of reason could be overwhelmed by emotion. Passion is important, no doubt about it, but look what it has turned many in the Objectivist movement into. When I read what some Objectivists advocate, I fine myself left with one question - Where is the reason? It's like a paradox to me. A philosophy of reason becomes a movement by many adherents into something that could promote the killing of innocent humans. Yes, there is collateral damage in war, but when I look at the ideas from the other groups of Objectivists... Wow. They are blinded by their emotions and they don't know it. The feeling I got from Objectivism in the 1970's was the love of life. That was at the base of the movement along with the concept of Individual Rights. Now... I can only shake my head in disbelief. What happened to those wonderful ideas? Where did things go so wrong? What can be done to get back on course? In a way, I feel that we need a George Bush for the movement. What? A George Bush? Yes, but only in regard to one part of what George Bush became after 9/11. He became a man who saw what needed to be done and has done it to a remarkable level. No, I don't like so many parts of his administration. In fact, there are only two courses of action I approve of. One is his fight in the war on terror and the other are the tax cuts he put in place. When I say we need a George Bush for Objectivism, I am talking only about finding a leader who sees important issues with great clarity and takes decisive action like George Bush did in his fight against Islamic Facists. There has not been a successful attack on American soil since 9/11. After that attack, we all felt a successful attack would happen again, and happen in less than five years. In that regard, George Bush has been very successful. It will be interesting to see if Objectivism finds those people who can lead the movement and teach others what Objectivism was meant to be, what I saw in the 1970's. Ed Kalski

It was built into Objectivism because it was built into Ayn Rand. She saw everything in black and white. You were either for her or against her. You are either 100% for Objectivism or you are against it. A major tenet is "No gray." The philosophy could not have existed without that attitude. It was the foundation upon which the strengths of Objectivism are built. I think the problem is two fold. 1) Once Ayn Rand developed the philosophy she knew it cold. Others did not. And like any genius, it is hard for the genius to understand just how difficult it can be for others who are not at that mental level. Other people have to work through mental and emotional habits. What does all the above mean? Answer - there wasn't enough patience with people from the beginning of the movement. Also, Objectivism is based on the concept of man the hero. It doesn't take enough into account man the human (not all humans are heros). It takes time to learn any philosophy. Mistakes are made. I know that Ayn Rand said she accepted mistakes, but it must be very hard to tell whether an action or statement is a mistake or a crime against Objectivism. Ayn Rand set the stage. Her viewpoint did not stop with her death. Therefore the purges continued. 2) In terms of emotions, the base is Passion. How hard it is for passion and patience to co-exist. So my final answer is the plague comes from a strength of Objectivism, seeing things in black and white - a foundational factor of the philosophy. But it also comes from a psychological flaw in Ayn Rand. Her inability to understand people who are not geniuses. She found things easy which others found difficult. And she had so much passion she found patience difficult. For others... their passion meant a mistake became an argument, for which they received excile from the movement. Ayn Rand guarded her philosophy at all costs. And cost her it did. I think when it comes to philosophy Ayn Rand was a giant, a hero. When it came to her personal psychology, her passion at times blinded her to important elements she would have otherwise seen coming. Ayn Rand was both hero and human. One led her to great heights, the other to some sadness only she and perhaps a very few people truly knew about.