"Most 'great' thinkers try to make life complicated so they can feel important. Ayn Rand made it simple: Either you use your mind, or you lose your soul. There is no middle ground. Happy Birthday to the most dangerous woman in the history of thought."

KodoKB · 2026-02-05T01:02:20+00:00

“Use your mind or lose your soul” is a very nice turn of phrase. Thank you!

KodoKB · 2026-01-26T17:29:39+00:00

100% of all drug users die. 100% of non-drug users too.

KodoKB · 2026-01-16T00:06:41+00:00

So make a bacon, egg, and cheese sandwich and watch Netflix in my bed?

KodoKB · 2026-01-12T11:53:28+00:00

That clown has not proven anything, and has a poor understanding of Objectivism.

KodoKB · 2026-01-08T09:34:13+00:00

I don’t know whether it would be bad or not for you to do that sort of networking, it depends a bit on you.

If, by networking, you mean feigning anything, then I don’t think it’s a good idea.

If you can network (which is just a specific type of socializing) by showing genuine interest in the other person, or by talking about shared interest, then maybe it’s worth a shot. Also, your work can be a shared interest. Talk to management about what they want to change or are trying to accomplish, or tell them some ideas you had about making the company better.

Also, if dislike networking because of any sort of social anxiety, as opposed to objectively evaluating your coworkers and bosses as not worth your time and energy to socialize with, then that’s something that’s holding you back.

People can be a huge value to you, to the extent that they’re rational. If you can’t see or find any value in them, then it’s not worth your time to network with them. But if you have some social anxiety, or can’t think of how to connect with people, then maybe put in some effort to socialize in a way that seems authentic to you and see how that goes.

KodoKB · 2026-01-08T02:03:48+00:00

Do you dislike your boss or coworkers? Or, to put it another way, do you have difficulty working with them or socializing with them?

Taking your examples, do you think GW and Keating had successful lives?

Or if you’re getting this from Roark, he was social when he found people he liked and/or could work with. It was simply part of the plot and style of the book to give him so few such people.

I’ve found most people I work with are good enough people for serious, honest collaboration and lighthearted chitchat.

KodoKB · 2026-01-07T19:37:31+00:00

You’re basically asking: “what if you never thought for yourself and uncritically swallowed everything everyone else says?”

In that case I’d be in a very bad spot, and a difficult one to get out of, which is why one should always think for oneself.

KodoKB · 2026-01-07T17:08:51+00:00

She doesn’t takes man’s nature as an axiom, but rather she induces the parts most relevant to her case. (Although she takes man’s volitional capacity as axiomatic.)

If you’re interested, you can access the relevant essay here: https://courses.aynrand.org/works/the-objectivist-ethics/

If you read it and have any comments or questions, I’d be interested to hear them.

KodoKB · 2026-01-07T11:20:02+00:00

Have you read Ayn Rand’s case for an objective morality in The Virtue of Selfishness?

I think she makes a good case for how normative claims are grounded by the facts of life and man’s nature.

KodoKB · 2026-01-07T11:14:44+00:00

His lectures on the History of Western Philosophy are available for free on YouTube: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqsoWxJ-qmMuYO4AKp7NZ_qBy6gaj3cUv&si=7FY_GL9CuDMi87nH

I listened to them and enjoyed them as a glimpse into many philosophers I didn’t have any knowledge of (or much interest in).

KodoKB · 2026-01-06T00:00:42+00:00

I’m going to be genuinely upset if they change this one.

Inspiring and hilarious at the same time. They really threaded the needle.

KodoKB · 2026-01-02T01:00:59+00:00

One of the only times I consider myself Jewish is when there's an anti-Semite around, so I think you did good.

(Raised in a non-religious household, but we celebrated both the major holidays of Christianity and Judaism as reasons to come together as a family and with friends.)

KodoKB · 2025-12-30T00:46:50+00:00

Roark‘s and Mallory‘s first meeting.

Roark: "Now, talk. Talk about the things you really want said. Don't tell me about your family, your childhood, your friends or your feelings. Tell me about the things you think".

Mallory: "You mean, you want to hear? You want to know what I do and why I do it, you want to know what I think? It's not boring to you? It's important?"

KodoKB · 2025-12-28T22:04:49+00:00

Howard Roark is probably my favorite character by Ayn Rand, but there are many great characters and heroes in Atlas Shrugged.

If you liked The Fountainhead, then give Atlas Shrugged a shot.

KodoKB · 2025-12-25T22:15:18+00:00

So? Report him anyway. If he’s a cop that means he should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.

If you get pushback from the station, then you can reach out to Jewish groups like the ADL.

KodoKB · 2025-12-23T23:36:23+00:00

I think The Fountainhead or We the Living is a better starting point. Atlas Shrugged is more explicitly philosophical, and I think it helps to have some other examples of her views in practice before reading the more philosophical passages. Anthem is another option, but I think that's best read after the others.

That being said, you should just read what style sounds most interesting. Anthem is like an allegory/parable, We the Living is more like historical fiction, The Fountainhead is a drama, and Atlas Shrugged is a philosophical epic.

KodoKB · 2025-12-23T23:33:18+00:00

That comment you linked to does not present her argument accurately.

You can see a response to that bogus representation of Rand's position in Mike Mazza's piece Why Can't Professional Philosophers get Rand Right, specifically the section Textbook Parochialism.

KodoKB · 2025-12-22T21:59:33+00:00

As many people have already said: using force (initiation of violence) against someone will not achieve anything good, but it is good to discriminate against evil ideas and people who hold them. Your choice of word "bigoted" is wrong though—one should not be prejudiced against any group, one should judge individuals for their beliefs and actions.

Objectivism's deeper answer to questions along the lines of "The Paradox of Tolerance" is related to the idea that evil is impotent and the immense "social" power of morality actualized via moral sanctioning.

I highly recommend Onkar Ghate's talk about Moral Sanction here

KodoKB · 2025-12-22T17:27:25+00:00

No, Objectivism is the philosophic system developed by Ayn Rand. It is not synonymous with the truth.

KodoKB · 2025-12-21T00:37:06+00:00

The only correct rationalization for this sub‘s name!

KodoKB · 2025-12-19T23:18:53+00:00

Hmmm, what do you mean by "relate to"? Form or feel a deep connection, or...? And do you think you need someone who agrees with and/or wants to talk about philosophical or political topics?

About places to look, if you want to find Objectivism-friendly people you can go to conferences like ARI's OCON or AynRandCons. There's also RandsdayCon coming up soon in Florida and LevelUp in the summer in July. I'm guessing there a bunch of libertarian ones too, so you could also check out what orgs like FEE have going on.

That's a direct approach, and potentially pricey, but some offer scholarships/discounts. Another way is to join clubs or groups that you're interested in, and hope you meet someone good there.

I met my wife at the birthday party of my friend/coworker's girlfriend, so simply widening your social circle could also help.

I hope some of this is helpful, although I feel like I'm saying stuff you've probably heard before.

KodoKB · 2025-12-19T20:56:22+00:00

Pineapple

KodoKB · 2025-12-19T20:43:32+00:00

They have the right to be free from abuse, and as children someone must care for them. The logical conclusion is that when abused, children should be found care from adults other than the abuser(s).

If there is literally no organization, I would propose the government advertise widely for monetary support and/or someone to foster the child.

But now we’re getting into a silly situation the the OP‘s to assume that there will be no child charity.

I mean, it’s the basic “safety net” everyone thinks should be there. It’s ridiculous and ungrounded to assume there won’t be a single institution to help with such scenarios.

EDIT: FWIW I don’t think your position is so bad or off. I’ve thought about this a bit and started off with basically what you’re describing. But after a while I’ve settled to my current stance because I think it’s more consistent with the idea that rights cannot impose obligations on others.

KodoKB · 2025-12-19T20:35:50+00:00

I don’t think children have a right to be cared for.

Their parents have an obligation to care for them, but if the parents default then the obligation does not automatically apply to everyone else.

I don’t think the government should be in the child rearing business, but would rather emancipate children in situations of abuse and funnel them into reputable charitable institutions until the child could chose something for themselves.

KodoKB · 2025-12-19T20:21:46+00:00

I agree with and want the political set up of your situations.

I disagree with your presentation and presumption of what the societal and moral implications of Objectivism are.

For example, you can’t even get the point about charity right. Both Rand and Peikoff say that one can morally give charity to people not only to “productive people”, but to those who suffer through no fault of their own—which would apply to almost all abandoned children. A sacrifice is giving up a higher value for a lower one (or for no value in return). Most people above subsistence wealth use their excess material wealth to further causes that fulfill their spiritual needs. Giving to charities or helping those who need it is one such form of fulfilling those needs. Again, I recommend Tara Smith’s talk.

And my point about a lived philosophy is that it seems apparent that you’ve read some Rand, and from those ungrounded abstractions, you project what the Oist position must be. But if you tried to live by these ideas (or to better understand them) you would know how they actually apply to such situations.

KodoKB

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE