New to OL but not new to AR and Objectivism

[Strictlylogical]

Hello All:

Joined a while back but only started participating recently.

I’m familiar with Objectivism and wish to explore the boundaries of it.  I have no dogmatic loyalty to any person or body of work, but the systematic whole of the knowledge and conclusions I have independently arrived at of which I am certain (as a fallible finite consciousness) will be very well established personally, and sometimes they might be the same as the ideas of other recognizable personalities.  The coincidence or departure of my convictions with or from anyone else’s does not have any cognitive or persuasive weight with regard to their objective correctness or incorrectness.

The principle that ideas stand for themselves and not he/she who said it is something I will stand by, both for myself, and for others.

 

Looking forward to good meaningful discussions with those interested!

 

Strictlylogical

 

[Brant Gaede]

Hi. No philosophy brokers reality. If you let it you are the brokered.

Thus Objectivism the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not Objectivism objectively speaking. Rand/Peikoff would disagree with this.

The four basic principles of Objectivism are linked together by the autonomous critically thinking mind and are centered on ethics/morality.

Reality reason, self interest, individual rights/capitalism. From these four you have detailing but this last is not dogma nor Objectivism per se.

That's my take.

--Brant

[Peter]

I don’t think objectivism poses “a threat” to religion, but the clearer a person is thinking, the more they must separate within their consciousness, reasonableness and faith. I like a lot of British shows that I see on PBS. In these shows religion and especially the Episcopal Church and ministers are despised and ridiculed.  

George H. Smith wrote on page 109 of “Why Atheism:” “Bacon’s secularism, while it did not challenge Christianity per se, exiled God to the nether regions of faith and theology  . . .  “ and George quoted Franklin Baumer about 17th Century thought: “Secularism, unlike free thought, posed no threat to particular theological tenets. What it did was to outflank theology by staking out autonomous spheres of thought. The tendency was, more and more, to limit theology to the comparatively restricted sphere of faith and morals.” 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

S,

Welcome--and a warm welcome at that.

Michael

[Strictlylogical]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

Welcome--and a warm welcome at that.

Michael

Thank you Michael.