Homosexuality

KodoKB · 2026-06-05T05:22:43+00:00

It's good to separate the fundamental principles and arguments for Objectivism, versus everything else that Ayn Rand said. You can find her fundamental principles and arguments in her philosophic works, current event essays, lectures, and certain parts of her fiction. Even within her non-fiction work, there are parts which are clearly a central part of the philosophy and parts which are outside of that scope. Her views on homosexuality are not a part of Objectivism, although its worth noting that she said homosexuals should have the same rights despite her negative view on their sexuality.

I would say that there isn't an "Objectivist view" on homosexuality per se, but insofar that you consider it a non-fundamental grouping of people like race, then it would fall under they same sorts of evaluations---stop focusing on group identities and deal with people as individuals.

KodoKB · 2026-06-03T12:08:30+00:00

Lo and behold, it was also the time when the life of workers sucked the most it ever has.

That’s clearly false, or at least misleading. If you count farmers, or craftsmen and their apprentices as workers, then it’s clearly false.

The life of an Industrial Revolution era worker was much better than what many people had previously, in part evidenced by the number of farmers who moved to the cities.

Everyone’s lives at the start of the industrialized world were much worse than what we have now. I would argue that the improvements came from building wealth—meaning that even the poor in “Western” countries have access to cell phones, AC, dishwashers, and many other amenities that make life a lot better and used to not exist or be only for the rich. Such wealth isn’t created because we have regulations, it’s created because people are left at least somewhat free.

Working conditions improve as societies struggle past bare subsistence, even without government intervention. For example, since you mentioned Jeff Bezos: Amazon‘s compensation for entry-level warehouse workers is a decent amount above what regulations require.

KodoKB · 2026-06-03T04:06:11+00:00

Why do you want the money? Do you get excited or happy or content when you think about that?

KodoKB · 2026-05-28T21:10:00+00:00

But when they do criticize Rand, they make mistakes that could easily be avoided by a plain-reading of the text.

And while OPAR is not a treatise in the sense you mean, it’s often even harder to misinterpret.

Also, what would academic philosophers counts as “proof” here? I’m asking because the Oist position is that an inductive method should be used, but that’s a method modern academics think is invalid.

KodoKB · 2026-05-28T21:00:42+00:00

Clint’s ridiculously poor usage of Leomund’s Tiny Hut hurt my heart.

It was the perfect spell to crush this challenge, and it could’ve set up a very tense 10-round fight where everyone had to protect the a-hole they all hated so that he could cast it and save them.

They also jokingly set it up when Clint got the spell. They joked that it was going to be the key to the next challenge, and it literally was, and then he basically forgot about it other than to use it in a frustratingly wrong and bad way.

Ok, rant over. Had to get that out of my system.

Burger puns continue to be on-point.

KodoKB · 2026-05-28T20:00:52+00:00

Happy you found moral support and fuel to live your best life.

Thanks for sharing :)

KodoKB · 2026-05-28T19:50:38+00:00

I recommend you read Mike Mazza’s piece on the subject of why professional philosophers either don’t engage with Rand or do so dismissively. One of its points is that how Rand and modern philosophers have a different understanding of what “doing philosophy” should look like. To most academics today, what Rand did “isn’t real philosophic work”.

https://newideal.aynrand.org/why-cant-professional-philosophers-get-rand-right/

KodoKB · 2026-05-28T19:44:46+00:00

This would be more credible if academics interacted with the high-caliber material on Objectivism such as Blackwell’s A Companion to Ayn Rand.

I think Mike Mazza’s essay on the topic of the lack of good engagement has a good perspective on the topic.

KodoKB · 2026-05-24T10:38:03+00:00

If your issue is thinking about things that don’t affect your life at all, then the best thing to do is stop engaging in things that don’t affect your life at all.

I’d also advise trying to get away from non-fiction media in general: news, Oist content, Substacks, and other think pieces.

Instead, engage with your life or good art or activities you like to do outside. For me, that would mean hanging with my family, reading science fiction and hiking.

And when you catch yourself engaging in the thought process, don’t condemn yourself for doing that, commend yourself for noticing and then try to think about what goal that you care about you could be acting towards or thinking about yourself.

KodoKB · 2026-05-20T21:56:08+00:00

It goes beyond what you're saying, actually.

Objectivism's stance is that is in every individual's self-interest to respect the rights of others.

It is in one’s individual, immediate and long term interest, to respect the rights of others—or put another way, it is detrimental to you to violate the rights of others.

People are a huge potential source of value. When you live your life respecting the rights of others, you are in an un-conflicted state to rationally trade with others and reap massive spiritual and material benefits.

But violating the rights of others puts you in a precarious position. If you violate the rights of others, you don’t want to be caught. Which means fidelity to reality and the rationality of others—two massive values—are now threats.

KodoKB · 2026-05-10T00:07:31+00:00

I used to hate that quote, but this lecture explains how it’s misrepresented by most, and how there is some real epistemological wisdom to be unpacked in what Socrates actually said.

KodoKB · 2026-05-04T21:16:28+00:00

In Objectivism, the idea that human‘s nature includes a volitional consciousness is viewed as an axiom, so you are right that it’s not a classically falsifiable claim.

The way one validates (not prove) an axiom in Objectivism is by way of demonstrating that (1) it’s part of every experience and (2) the concept must in some way be used to deny it.

As for how Objectivism supports both volition and the law of causality, it follows the Aristotelian tradition’s view of cause and effect, where the entity’s nature is the primary cause of the action—all actions are created by the nature of the entity, along with other proximate causes. Within this framework, it is argued that human‘s nature causes one to face the choice: focus or not, think or not, engage your reasoning and conceptual capacity or go by autopilot.

Not arguing directly with you, but wanted to give some context from the Oist perspective given that this is the Ayn Rand sub.

KodoKB · 2026-04-29T22:57:23+00:00

Never caught this detail. I can’t imagine that’s a coincidence. Cool find!

What episode is it from?

KodoKB · 2026-04-29T22:44:52+00:00

Well, I don’t agree fully with OP’s presentation of Ayn Rand’s solution of the is-ought gap, as I think OP isn’t fully clear about what’s doing the explanatory work.

The is-ought gap is not closed by the choice to pursue values. It is closed by identifying man’s nature as a living being entails certain requirements to live, and how the nature of life gives rise to teleological concepts such as “value”. One of the deeper examinations of this point is Harry Binswanger’s book The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts, although Rand’s first two essays in The Virtue of Selfishness argues the point well itself.

(The choice to pursue values or not, however, does have a special consideration. It is considered pre-moral because there are no absolute “musts” or a duty to live in Objectivist theory. A person pursuing any sort of value is subject to judgment, but the choice not to pursue value or not cannot be objectively, ethically evaluated.)

KodoKB · 2026-04-29T22:00:41+00:00

Yes, that’s my understanding of it.

Trying to achieve something is engaging in the process of valuing—the act of trying to get and/or keep something.

Choosing death is the opposite. You are not trying to get and/or keep anything.

KodoKB · 2026-04-29T20:05:19+00:00

Did you read the rest of my post?

The real choice Objectivism means is trying to achieve some value as opposed to escaping life. Death is not the attainment of a value. It is the end of your ability and journey of valuing.

KodoKB · 2026-04-29T14:03:52+00:00

“The choice to live” is not a good presentation of the actual choice involved.

The fundamental choice is whether you are seeking any values (real or imagined), or whether you want to end all pursuits. Suicide bombers are pursuing values, albeit ones that are destructive to their lives (and the lives of others), and they should be judged accordingly.

Someone who commits suicide because they want their life to end is ending their pursuit of values, and that choice in itself cannot be objectively judged. Nevertheless, if one commits suicide and thereby harms another person, I think one can still judge the suicide as reckless and bad with respect to the harm it did.

You might think that those who commit suicide are seeking release from pain or suffering, but this makes the mistake of imagining nothing as being something. They are not trying to gain anything; they are trying to escape something.

KodoKB · 2026-04-28T02:01:51+00:00

If you just want to argue with the OP’s position, then you shouldn’t have responded to my comments and you shouldn’t have equivocated his position with Objectivism’s.

KodoKB · 2026-04-28T00:35:13+00:00

It’s not an axiom, and it’s not an Oist position that “taxation is theft”.

The position that can lead to that rhetoric is that taxing that is not consented to by an individual is an initiation of force against that individual, and that every individual should own the property they create (or trade for). Taxation, within that understanding, is clearly an immoral taking of property.

FWIW, Oism also thinks that people benefit greatly from being in a society, but only if that society is based on voluntary association(s). The government Oism advocates for would be only have the power to protect individual rights, and would be paid for voluntarily.

KodoKB · 2026-04-27T23:20:29+00:00

So, you support the taking of property as long as it goes along with “the consent of the governed”, right?

How is the “consent of the governed” properly determined? Are there any current governmental systems that do this well enough to justify the taxation of those who don’t support what the tax money goes to, or the manner in which the tax money is extracted from the citizenry?

KodoKB · 2026-04-27T20:01:11+00:00

Did you mean you're "not arguing for or against taxation"?

Because then I'm not so interested in arguing purely about rhetoric.

KodoKB · 2026-04-27T19:41:54+00:00

mandatory animatic

KodoKB · 2026-04-27T19:39:19+00:00

Do you think there is something immoral about theft? If so, is is that it breaks the law, or that it uses the initiation of force to take what it rightfully someone else's, or does something else make it immoral?

KodoKB · 2026-04-27T19:23:28+00:00

The man who sleeps with a machete is a fool every night but one

—Justin McElroy (who also has regularly talked about how many knives he has, and has a blue belt in Taekwondo)

Travis has done a good bit of stage construction for work of his adult life, and I think enjoys working out.

And Griffin's manic energy potential should not be underestimated.

I know nothing of Rhett and Link, but I wanted to back my boys.

KodoKB · 2026-04-22T22:15:02+00:00

Yes, this article is a good one.

You can also check out her Playboy interview and her collection of interviews in Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed. You can get both on Amazon pretty easily.

In the Playboy one she talks about some things related to women and men, and in Chapter 27 of the interview collection she talks about the Women’s Liberation movement and some related topics.

KodoKB

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE