[fullshark]

To be reductive, I kind of feel like there's two Ayn Rands, or at least she's discussed in two contexts: One is as a philosopher (Fountainhead), and other is as a political philosopher (Atlas Shrugged, Anthem). The focus recently has been on the latter, as people like Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz would mention their affinity for Atlas Shrugged as a justification for shrinking the role of the federal gov't. This piece is clearly written in response to that, and most of the recent discussion of her has been re: what she thinks the role of the gov't should be in people's lives, or in a market economy.

You are talking about the former, and I think you can make the case that raising a child can be substituted in for "designing a building" like in the Fountainhead as a responsibility someone chooses, but I don't think it's so clean as usually raising a child involves a second person (and therefore compromise), as well as the child themselves who has to have some autonomy over their lives. This dynamic is pretty hard to navigate with purely objectivist principles imo as there's three individuals involved including the child who needs to be turned from a ball of emotions into a full fledged adult, and this is ripe for comedy. The OP failed to do so (look at that Muppets Take Manhattan joke, who the hell is laughing at that other someone enjoying a political enemy being mocked?). I think the Simpsons did a pretty good job with their joke.

[gspencley]

Yes I'm talking about the former, as I don't distinguish between "philosopher" and "political philosopher." There are 5 branches of philosophy and Objectivism deals with them all in a hierarchical manner (meaning each builds from the level below). Politics is the 4th branch and, therefore, one of the least fundamental. It's also treated a bit more nuanced in philosophy vs how people tend to treat it colloquially. In philosophy, politics is the subject of how individuals interact socially. Colloquially people tend to think of politics as pertaining to government and policy, but those are practical implementation details; consequences of much more fundamental considerations.

"and I think you can make the case that raising a child can be substituted in for "designing a building" like in the Fountainhead as a responsibility someone chooses,"

No, I don't think you can make that case at all. Unfortunately you proceeded to refute that case and, in doing so, were refuting a straw-man of your own construction. There's nothing really to comment on because all of your conclusions were drawn from a false premise that you established yourself.

Raising a child is nothing like designing a building. They are completely distinct endeavours with their own requirements, challenges, rewards, levels of commitment and so forth. An architect, such as Howard Roark in The Fountainhead, may metaphorically equate one of his creations as being "like my child" but it would only be a loose comparison made to illustrate the level of attachment and care that he directs to the pursuit of that value.

"This dynamic is pretty hard to navigate with purely objectivist principles imo"

What, in your opinion, are "the objectivist principles?"

You're starting with a lot of false premises so if you'd like to give me your nutshell overview of what you think objectivism is then maybe I can understand why you think Objectvsm is ill-suited to parents. Objectvism positions itself as a philosophy for human beings living on this earth. It exists to provide you with a world view and a framework for living and getting the most out of life. Having and raising children is definitely an important part of being a human being. Many, perhaps most, humans value family and having a family and so if Objectivism can not guide parents then it would be unfit for its own stated purpose. I happen to think otherwise, having raised two children through to adult-hood as an Objectivist, following my understanding of "objectivist principles" and teaching them objectivist values.

So please, tell me what you consider to be "objectivist principles" so I can help clarify because in my opinion you don't seem to understand what Objectivism is all that well. But you do seem want to have an honest discussion and so I'm happy to provide clarification if you seek it.

[fullshark]

I haven't really read or thought about it in years, clearly you have, but based on my recollection/paraphrasing:

* You should choose to live based on your individual desire / choices

* You should adhere to your own standards given these choices

* You owe other people nothing, and you are free to enter and leave relationships with other individuals freely

now internet searching:

https://theobjectivestandard.com/what-is-objectivism/

> In sum, the key principles of Objectivism are: Reality is an absolute, reason is man’s only means of knowledge, man has free will (the choice to think or not), self-interest is moral, individual rights are absolute, capitalism is moral, and good art is crucial to good living.

Hard to argue with any of that except self-interest is moral / capitalism is moral. The 2nd is the "political philosphy" I mention which you don't care about really, and the first is well I guess where you can get into a discussion vis a vis children and development, and if my paraphrasing was fair / a straw man.

I'm pretty tired of this conversation, and I think we both agree the OP was lame. I'll give you the last word and leave this conversation.

[gspencley]

What you copy / pasted is a good summation and it's worth noting that what that is referring to are the 5 branches of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics.

Metaphysics: the nature of reality and our relationship to it. Epistemology: how we acquire knowledge. Ethics: how we should behave / act in a given situation. Politics: how we relate to and interact with one another. Aesthetics: art.

The reason for the political view that capitalism is moral rests on the premises established below. Like I said, the branches are hierarchical. You can't form an ethical system, for example, without having an understanding of epistemology (otherwise how would you know what is ethical or not?) and you can't form a basis for epistemology without knowing what it is reality.

So objectivist politics comes from the fact that reason is our means of knowledge and that we have free will. This means that in order to survive as a human being, we need to think and to act. Thought and action are fundamentally independent processes. That doesn't mean we can't collaborate, it just means that a group acting in unison requires the individuals within that group to engage in action and it means that there's no such thing as a "collective brain". People "putting their heads together" are people thinking independently, communicating and using that process to further individual thought and communication and collaboration.

That leads to the question "what is the 'correct' system of politics?" The answer is a system that protects the individual's right to think and act freely. Free of what? Free of force and coercion. Force is the opposite of reason. If you have a system that protects your individual rights to think (freedom of expression and conscience) and act (freedom to acquire and own property, freedom to assemble, freedom of association etc.) then what you end up with is capitalism. Free markets are the consequence of a system that protects those rights.

And yes, objectvism rejects altruism as a moral system. It is important to understand the terms, though. Colloquially, people tend to think of altruism as benevolence and kindness. Philosophically what it means is that a moral decision is always to place the interests of others before your own. Following that to its logical conclusion, if given the choice to feed your kids or someone else's, it would be selfish to feed your own. To paraphrase something Ayn Rand said: "It is not an altruistic sacrifice to spend your life savings on a medical operation to save your wife's life. It is altruistic to give your life savings to a complete stranger and to let your wife die." Objectivism views altruism, as a moral framework, as unfit for human survival because it is a system that ultimately demands suicide. It is never right to do something for yourself when you could kill yourself for the sake of another. Give your food, your clothes, your savings, your life to complete stranger at your own expense. This is where objectivism tends to get controversial because the most common ethical systems are altruism-based, which teaches us that there is no such thing as "rational self interest", that doing anything for ourselves is immoral, that we should be using our lives to serve others instead. Objectivism views life as an end in itself, not a means to someone else's ends. In other words, you're not a tool. Your life has as much value as anyone else's, and it should have the most value to you since it's your life.