RightJungle

That's a pleasant memory - the first exposure to those lectures. I am glad that you are having this opportunity now. Bill P The book and the lectures have been very helpful keeping me positive. I was laid off about 2 months ago, and though I am usually a pretty upbeat person, I have to admit for several weeks it really had me down. I am a recruiter, and usually have a good grasp on the job market for my field locally, but things have been really bad due to the economy in general. I realized that I was spending way too much time focusing on the negative things about my situation instead of working on how I could better my life. Listening to the lectures and reading the book both are helping to remind me that I am responsible for my life and own happiness regardless of external situations that can make things difficult. My goal - or you could even say purpose - right now is to focus on the other areas in life I can improve on. There are a lot haha, and I am grateful that Ayn Rand published her novels and essays, and that there are a lot of great people that have written about her philosophy. The most important thing I am finding, especially with his book, is that Branden lays out a way to actually put Objectivism principles in practice to improve one's life. I am not saying other Objectivist authors haven't done that - but his Six Pillars book and Tara Smith's book on Ayn Rand's Ethics are the two I have read so far that show how on a very personal level why it is truly the only philosophy for living on earth. Sometimes I feel like a nerd because I still get excited about what I am learning hahah. I hope my kids as they get older will experience the same "aha!" moments and excited I have had the past few years since my husband and I started studying the philosophy. Hey, another Tara fan? Cool. I am currently reading her "Viable Values". I too have a copy of the 'Basic Principles of Objectivism" CD's but I bought a set with very poor reproduction so I'm anxiously awaiting the transcripted book. However, I'm still listening to them and I recently went through those about Government and Capitalism again. Found a connection between Branden's description of the way the economy grows under Capitalism and the fact that under fully free markets, the economy doesn't dislocate in "fits and starts" so people have time to respond to the coming changes in the economy. I read books and web sites by the enemy so I see what they are doing and this morning I found one that said, "Consolidate the Various "Adjustment Assistance Programs" into a Single, Broad-based Adjustment Program. In the New Economy, where all Americans are potentially affected by rapid economic change, it no longer makes sense to limit adjustment assistance only to those affected directly by a government action (e.g., defense cutbacks, a new trade deal). The various programs should be consolidated into the single WIA system. This consolidated, comprehensive system should be locally based, well-financed, and linked to ongoing efforts at skill upgrading, and it should use public-private partnerships to marshal government resources." Now, obviously this is way not "Objectivism", but it is really interesting to me to see this description by the Progressive Policy Institute that was unable to point to non-government caused "rapid economic change". I suspect that we Objectivists need to jump on this subject with both feet as it is also heavily involved in the "green jobs" ecological movement that is going to help the Progressives get Marxism established in this country. If you are interested I found the site and the article when I was researching the "Athena Alliance" organization. Here is the site for any who are interested: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=175&contentID=929

Identification of a value does not make the value itself objective, Brant. For example, you and I obviously value retriever dogs since we both own one (labrador retriever/golden retriever). But this does not make the dogs an objective value since other people don't value the breed or even dogs at all. Conclusion: the owners of the dogs Saga and Mira subjectively attribute value to them. You are attempting to "save" the term "objective value" by using it in situations where the issue actually is about objectively assessing means and ends to achieve a subjectively chosen goal. For example, kamikaze suicide pilots crashing their planes into the targets too assessed (evaluated) the preciseness of their flight route. The Hiroshima bombers evaluated their means and proceedings, as well those who planned to kill Hitler. But the individual goal is always subjectively chosen, whether it is wanting to bake a cake or wanting to build a bomb. You have realized yourself that "objective" value does not apply here, since this would mean conceding that the enemy has "objective" values too, and this in turn would of course collapse the whole Randian concept of (absolute) objective values. As for "trite", I completely disagree. Actually it can be a matter of life or death. Just think of the millions who suffered and lost their lives with the rulers justifying their proceedings with alleged objective value judgements. "God's will", "sacred ideas", "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori", "virginity", any kind of racism - these are all results of arbitarily declaring subjective preferences as objective values. No problem, Brant. We might as well call them values only, which are attributed to this or that by individuals. You might want to take a look at Tara Smith's "Viable Values" her book that expounds with great clarity on Ayn Rand's value theory. She makes it really easy to grasp the difference between objective and subjective and provides an excellent description of the foundational objective values without which valueing is not possible. That book will just flat out clear it all up for you.

Identification of a value does not make the value itself objective, Brant. For example, you and I obviously value retriever dogs since we both own one (labrador retriever/golden retriever). But this does not make the dogs an objective value since other people don't value the breed or even dogs at all. Conclusion: the owners of the dogs Saga and Mira subjectively attribute value to them. You are attempting to "save" the term "objective value" by using it in situations where the issue actually is about objectively assessing means and ends to achieve a subjectively chosen goal. For example, kamikaze suicide pilots crashing their planes into the targets too assessed (evaluated) the preciseness of their flight route. The Hiroshima bombers evaluated their means and proceedings, as well those who planned to kill Hitler. But the individual goal is always subjectively chosen, whether it is wanting to bake a cake or wanting to build a bomb. You have realized yourself that "objective" value does not apply here, since this would mean conceding that the enemy has "objective" values too, and this in turn would of course collapse the whole Randian concept of (absolute) objective values. As for "trite", I completely disagree. Actually it can be a matter of life or death. Just think of the millions who suffered and lost their lives with the rulers justifying their proceedings with alleged objective value judgements. "God's will", "sacred ideas", "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori", "virginity", any kind of racism - these are all results of arbitarily declaring subjective preferences as objective values. No problem, Brant. We might as well call them values only, which are attributed to this or that by individuals.

One other thing regarding the hostility of our ivory tower philosophers toward Ayn Rand's hostility toward them. We need to remember her context. She had just left her family and a potential love interest behind in a country being eaten alive by BIG BAD IDEAS. For her, as it is for us today, her life was at stake, and a piece of it was lost in leaving everything behind to come to a new country. Imagine how she would have felt when she got here and found the same rats gnawing at the foundations of the USA that she thought she had escaped. To tell you the truth, I'm a little ticked off myself. For years I've said that Aristotle said that a man must have lived before he could philosophize, and Ayn Rand said that a man must philosophize in order to live. When I go to the Springer Philosophical Articles pages and try to find the important ideas there, I have to admit that most of it is gobbelygook to me. I have no idea what can make anything that incomprehensible available to me, the layman in the room. Technology makes science available to me in a graspable form. What do our ivory tower philosphers actually have to offer us if we can't make use of it on some level? Ayn Rand appeals to the young and the young at heart because she makes big ideas comprehensible. Branden's lectures expanded on that in such a perfectly clear way that only a deliberately obtuse person would declare these people to be irrelevant or naive. Rand was fond of saying that we needn't bother to examine a folly, just ask what it accomplishes. Once you understand the principles of objectivism, you can do that pretty quickly. Of course, to do so you still need to give it a cursory once over - like - read the bill. We're about to lose our country. If we are going to keep it we had better be able to understand philosphy. I'm counting on philosophers like Tara Smith to help with that.

To Barbara and all of the contributers to this forum topic, I didn't know about TOC's approaching ARI. I'm glad you told me about that. Craig Biddle is on my favorite people list because of his announcement that TOC is going to enter the current events fray with a vengeance. We are going to need every able minded person available for that. I tend to wander a lot through stacks of books and on the internet, but I don't think that I would have recognized Tara Smith without having read her article on Pragmatism in TOC. I've gotten "Moral Rights and Political Freedom" under my belt. It took awhile - not a hard read, but slow because of the need to stop and really think about the last three sentences you've read. When you have to do that several times on each page, the going gets mighty slooooow. Don't you just love the concept of eudaimonia? What made the journey worth it is that about 50 pages into the book I began to suspect that this book contains the solution to our politial and economic crisis. Do you remember how Ayn Rand described the hierarchical nature of learning? Branden's lectures and Rands books already covered the subject that Tara addresses in this book, but that knowledge building process and Tara's treatment of the subject had to happen before I got it. But I digress. Back to saving the country. Do true blue Objectivists write letters to their congressmen? I do. Imagine being Senator Grassley and getting a letter that begins with, "The reason Americans hold their individual rights so dear is because those rights protect our freedom, and it is the obligation of every citizen in this country to respect the rights of every other citizen." If you ask me, that says it all. I add more to the letters of course, explaining how the bill to which I'm currently objecting violates those rights and threatens that freedom. I don't confuse the issue by pointing out that the principles in that sentence apply to every human being on the planet. The ideas surrounding globalization don't need to be stirred up by bringing that into the discussion. The beauty of grasping the principle of the thing is that your letters can be very short. I hope someone will comment on this because to tell you the truth, I don't know if my words are falling on deaf ears or not. So I trust that you will understand why I think Tara's book is so important. Sometime back, Nathaniel Branden put out a query to his newsletter list asking what we would like him to discuss next. I told him that my current number one issue is our nation's crisis. The next thing you know, he sends out the announcement that his "Basic Principles of Objectivism" lectures are being published. I thought, "Well, that's a perfect answer." I'm ready to make good use of it. Paying attention to Rand's (and Rudyard Kipling's) admonitions about not letting thought be your aim, I am proposing these action items to save the nation: 1) Straight from the final pages of Atlas Shrugged comes an amendment to our constitution that reads, "The congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade.." The Execute branch will issue no presidential directives that abridge the freedom of production and trade. I added that last part just to cover the loop holes. Then, we will use the method for amending the constitution that has never been used before, that is the states can get the job done without Congress having to approve it. The states are starting to take a stand against the outrageous behavior of the federal government. 2) Now that Congress has no power over the economy, the lobbyists will all vacate Washington D.C. and it is time to start rolling back all of the laws that now prove to be unconstitutional, starting with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. 3) Abolish the IRS. 4) Get someone who knows more about economics than I do (George Reisman?) to figure out how to close down the Federal Reserve and get our money and banking system back to a moral basis. 5) Invite ideas from some of the charities out there to come up with a good idea and a timeline for moving people off of welfare and into charity organizations that our citizens who are no longer paying ransom to the government will be absolutely delighted to help support. 6) Take a look at our immigration laws and make sure that the only people who are invited to become citizens understand our government and are willing to learn the fundamental principles that make freedom possible. 7) Stand back and thumb our noses at the critics of Objectivism who still just don't get it. 8) Guess number 7 means pivatizing education so we can get rid of the ex-terrorists who have become college professors. But now I'm getting personal. Not an exhaustive list of actions led by a little thought, but a start don't you think? Couple ideas like this with all of the education on how to be free and eudaimoniac individuals in all of the publications available, and I think we have a good chance of getting the job done. Of course, if any one has any ideas about how to actually execute these action items, I am all ears. If you have a better more complete list let me know that, too. My next personal project is going to be to take what I've learned from all mentioned here and others who have published books and articles and lay out a serious justifiable to do list for myself that will map out how to get from this place to the free country in which I want to reside (without violating anyone's rights). Sounds like a piece of that cake that you can't have and eat it, too. One last issue before I head in to "knit up the ravelled sleeve of care". Leadership. I read somewhere, maybe on this forum that Objectivists don't need leaders because they think for themselves and trust no one's judgement but their own. I spent years managing IT projects and I was working with some of the brightest, most ethical people you can imagine, but every project needed a leader. Can you tell me what is wrong with my thinking that leadership is needed to accomplish goals even with the most consistent Objectivists? Feel free to get tough here, because this looks like a pretty important issue. Thank you all for the information and clarifications that you have provided on this forum topic. Barbara, if you are sitting there seriously considering sending me a complmentary copy of "Efficient Thinking", I promise, I'm going to be o.k. Next time around I will try to match your focus on the subject at hand a little better. Mary Lee

That bunch of posts was sort of interesting, so since I don't a have life tonight, I will tell you a story. My husband, Jay Loveless, who died in 1993 in Pleasanton, Ca. knew Ron Hubbard back in his "sowing wild oats" days in New York City. Jay was a minor player in the Actor's Studio bunch and described Ron Hubbard as a hanger on who was always trying to get the attention of men and women who had no respect for him and spurned him at every turn. He was thought to be a very poor writer. Later, Jay was genuinely surprised and dismayed to see Dianetics take off the way it did. His final word on L. Ron Hubbard was "pathological liar." Dr. Branden was way more diplomatic in his response, but ... no excuse and too late to think one up. I will just let that stand. Mary Lee

Darrell, I can see how you would be very interested in reforming education. The link in your topic said it had expired, which is o.k. because I was only going to read it out of courtesy before asking you a slightly related question. My subject is the Montessori school system. I had gotten the idea from friends who had children in Montessori schools that the kids loved it and the parents thought the kids were getting a better education than they would in public schools. That was back in the '70s. In just the last year, when I brought up this subject to my cousin-by-marriage who is teaching in a private girl's school in Arizon, he had nothing good to say about it. He launched into a description of those Montessori teachers that he saw in restaurants - they had piercing, tatoos, were loud and raucous and they smoked. According to him they have a bad reputation. Then I mentioned it to a middle-aged public school teacher here and she said very snidely, "oh yeah, learning by playing", and the conversation changed to something else before I could get more info. My question is, do you have an opinion one way or the other? And if so, why? What supports your opinion? And all that. Thanks in advance, Mary Lee

In March of this year I attended a meeting of freedom lovers. When it came my time to introduce myself I said, among other things, that I owed this group of young people an apology. I said, "I have known what is wrong in America for 43 years, but I thought that Ayn Rand's ideas were out there and that their very existence would prevent the tragedy that is happening today. I even misinterpreted Ronald Reagan's arrival in the White House as proof that freedom was on the march again and that our country was safe." Looking back over those 43 years, I also realize that there were several opportunities for me to discover that all was not well in Objectivism Land. The first was when I went to New York to meet Ayn Rand in the 70's. When I arrived at the office in the Empire State Building I found a note hanging on the door frame that said that the office was "closed to the public". I was horribly disappointed because I had driven all the way from Lincoln, Nebraska to meet my heroine, but I thought about it for awhile and came to the conclusion that she probably had so many fans clamoring to meet her, that she had to close the office to protect her privacy. As a fan who only read her books, but was not a member of the Objectivist Movement, I had no idea that there had been a conflict between her and the man she had referred to when she said, "Don't tell me that men such as I write about don't exist. This (pointing to Branden) is my proof that they do." Another opportunity was when I was at dinner with another Rand fan in Houston, Tx. just before the release of Branden's "Judgement Day" and she said, "I just don't understand what could have caused the break. I've read all of Ayn Rand's books and all of Nathaniel Branden's books and I don't see anything that could have caused this." You can imagine the conversation that she and I had after we read that book. I too had read everything I could get my hands on by both Rand and Branden over the years. Barbara Branden's book provided a list of those whose work had come out of the Objectivism Movement, but nothing did the job like having the internet to search for all things Randian and Brandian - which is how I found this site. Long before I found this site, though, I had found "The Objectivist Standard", The Atlas Society, David Kelley's books, especially "The Art of Reasoning", Tara Smith's books, especially "Moral Rights and Political Freedom". I've spent way more than I could afford on all their books as well as books by Ludwig von Mises - "Human Action", George Reismman - "Capitalism", Ed Younkins books - what a wealth of intelligence I've discovered. I've even got a very bad recording of the original "Basic Principles of Objectivism" from the Branden lectures. And you'd better believe my order is in for the transcripted version, "The Vision of Ayn Rand"... In his article "My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand" Leonard Peikoff describes a conversation between his eighteen year old self and Ayn Rand in which he was wrestling with a question about the problem of lying. After several attempts to help Peikoff work out the issue, Rand became fed up and blurted, "Can't you think in Principle?" I want to know what the members of the Objectivism Movement were thinking when they let "the break" bring the power of the Objectivism movement to its knees. Didn't you read Branden's books and articles? Couldn't you see that philosophically he was not some immoral ogre? He was and from what I can see still is her best disciple. You know, as an ardent Ayn Rand fan, I was not put off by the story about "the break". I just thought "Ayn Rand was not a God, she was a human being and she spent an agonizing period of time seeing what occured between her and Branden OUT OF CONTEXT. Branden was not a God either. But it sounds like he was shaking in his boots about what Ayn would do when he tried to extricate himself from the relationship that they had foolishly created. And judging by Ayn Rand's willingness to disinherit him, I'd say he had a very clear view of the CONTEXT of the train that he saw hurtling down on him. As an aside, when I was living in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 90's, I attended a 1/2 day seminar that he presented there. I didn't go just because I wanted to learn something. My goal was to make sure I didn't miss my chance to meet him before he died. You see, I never got to meet Ayn Rand. I had just wanted to say Thank You to her. And I wanted to say thank you to Nathaniel Branden. Got that done. I'm just delighted everytime I see him working on a project. I achieved my goal with years to spare. So, I'd like to ask the "Objectivism Pure" supporters the same question that Rand asked, can't you think in principle....when it comes to the importance of philosophy? Can't you see the desperate condition of our country (not to mention the whole world) and ask what responsibility you, especially Ayn Rand's heir, have dropped? Have you forgotten Ayn Rand's own lessons about the way new knowledge builds on and expands existing knowledge? Why can't you break out of the chains of Orthodoxy and start flourishing in your own right? Or as Tara Smith would put it, find your eudaimonia? And yes, I see the irony of suggesting that anyone has a responsibility to anyone else. But I am heartened by Tara's theory that we do owe each other one thing, and that is to "respect the rights of others." There is another lesson that I've learned from reading Ludwig von Mises and that is that competition guards an economy, but that the people in that economy could be cooperating with each other rather than competing to get things done. So how about it? How about serving as the vanguards who are going to save this country from collectivism? Don't do it for me - no - do it for yourselves. Your lives are at stake, too. We are living in dangerous times. TOS is struggling to fight back, as are the Atlas Society and probably many others that I haven't discovered yet. It is such a big battle. It's like facing the ugly white Queen in the climactic battle of "Narnia". The problem is that there is no magical wild lion coming to save us (Nathaniel Branden already told us that "no is coming".) And we know that having someone like Colbert suggesting that we all "Go Galt" isn't going to get the job done. So it looks to me like all of the Objectivists, Pure or Evolutionary, might want to group up and beat back the enemy who is behind our country's rush to the bottom. Analysis of root causes show us that the problem started with dingbat philosophy, but now we have OBJECTIVISM all grown up and ready to put on the armor of rationalism and win the war of ideas. With the responsibility for this epic battle being taken up by "God Fearing" conservative talk radio hosts competing with MSNBC for the minds of the American people, we (the "as rational as possible at this moment" public) are desparate for the rationality and Principled leadership that the Objectivists could be providing. You know what I would like to see? A single big, splashy, full color, videoed, stereoed site where your best minds address the principles underlying every curent events issue that comes to our attention and where you offer both short term and long term solutions that the freedom lovers of this nation can grab onto and promote to save themselves from this awful disintegration. Let Binswanger and George Reisman, David Kelley, and Leonard Peikoff and NATHANIEL BRANDEN, cooperate in the building of a Galt's Gulch that stretches from sea to shining sea. Rather that entangling the minds of potential Warriors for Liberty in an endless battle for ownership of Rand's ideas, her MIND, set yourselves free to achieve and produce the greatest country on this planet. I'll be right there with you. I'll subscribe to your journals and magazines, I'll buy your books and I will cheer at the top of my lungs with every insight that you put forth. Our battle cry could be, "Remember the Fountainhead!!"