I’ve read several books in the Objectivists library, including Atlas shrugged, the fountainhead, and the virtue of selfishness.
For a certain kind of person, I do think they have value in showing a different ethical/moral framework. To wit, if you have been raised on the principal that you must always sacrifice your own happiness for others, then Onjectivist philosophy is quite novel and can actually be helpful in moving towards a more self-actualized thought mode.
For most others, however, it can turn you into a raging a-hole.
In terms of how tenable the overall principles are in practice, just remember that Rand herself went on social security.
In terms of how tenable the overall principles are in practice, just remember that Rand herself went on social security.
That’s often raised against her, but there’s really no contradiction. She lived in society™ and worked within its rules. Communists don’t give up their beliefs when they (have to) go to work in privately owned companies either, and in the same way there’s no contradiction there.
I’m also wondering whether she went on social security because she had to or because of just reclaiming back part of what should have remained hers (by her philosophy)? Her books sold millions while she was alive, and she did paid lectures until 1981 (and died in 1982).
I’ve read several books in the Objectivists library, including Atlas shrugged, the fountainhead, and the virtue of selfishness.
For a certain kind of person, I do think they have value in showing a different ethical/moral framework. To wit, if you have been raised on the principal that you must always sacrifice your own happiness for others, then Onjectivist philosophy is quite novel and can actually be helpful in moving towards a more self-actualized thought mode.
For most others, however, it can turn you into a raging a-hole.
In terms of how tenable the overall principles are in practice, just remember that Rand herself went on social security.
That’s often raised against her, but there’s really no contradiction. She lived in society™ and worked within its rules. Communists don’t give up their beliefs when they (have to) go to work in privately owned companies either, and in the same way there’s no contradiction there.
I’m also wondering whether she went on social security because she had to or because of just reclaiming back part of what should have remained hers (by her philosophy)? Her books sold millions while she was alive, and she did paid lectures until 1981 (and died in 1982).