I don’t see how this can be true. As having a “right” to an attorney means you must be provided one. And what if no one wants to do the providing? I’ll let you take it from there.

But I’m willing to be wrong or maybe I’m not seeing something here so I don’t see how you could have a right to an attorney

I recently finished reading the book “The Psychology of Self-Esteem” by Nathaniel Branden, a book written in 1969, whose innovative approach treats psychology in a way “outside the standards” so widespread in academies in this field.

Among the various insights that the book, in a slow and careful reading, can provide the reader, I would like to share something focused on living with people who have difficult relationships, whether within the family, at work or in any social environment.

Branden emphasizes the importance of self-esteem as a fundamental pillar for emotional and psychological well-being. According to him, the way we deal with others directly reflects the level of respect and self-confidence we have in ourselves. People with low self-esteem often allow themselves to be dominated by toxic relationships, accepting abusive behavior out of fear of rejection or loneliness. In this sense, when dealing with difficult people, whether within the family or in other relationships, it is essential to recognize the impact of self-esteem in the process. Self-worth must be the basis of the stance we adopt, protecting our integrity without giving in to the destructive behavior of others.

Dealing with difficult people requires a stance of firmness and rationality, central elements of objectivist ethics and the psychology of self-esteem. Branden argues that "self-esteem is the willingness to consider oneself competent to deal with life's challenges and worthy of success and happiness." Applying this principle means that when faced with disrespectful or irrational behavior, we must keep our dignity intact without compromising our values.

We can “link” this understanding to what Ayn Rand explains in her philosophy that “the mind (reason) is man’s only means of survival” (Atlas Shrugged). This means that in moments of tension, we must act based on the facts, seeking to discuss in a logical and objective manner, without giving in to emotional impulses. When we deal with people who insist on being irrational, regardless of the social cycle, it is essential to stay focused on the principles of logic and reason, instead of being drawn into unproductive discussions.

Another practice of self-esteem and a virtue is integrity. Rand states that integrity involves fidelity to reason and one's principles. Therefore, it is necessary to set clear limits and not allow someone else's actions to make us compromise our values. As Branden points out, “living with integrity means living in line with what you know to be true” (Psychology of Self-Esteem).

Finally, independence also plays a vital role. Instead of seeking approval or change from others, our focus should be on our own actions while maintaining our emotional and intellectual independence. This reflects the search for autonomy. “The man who lives for others is trapped in a fruitless search for acceptance” (The Fountainhead).

By applying these insights as well as these virtues, responding to difficult people becomes an opportunity to strengthen our self-esteem and defend our values ​​with rationality and respect for ourselves.

In order to become knowledgeable, you need to judge what sources give a comprehensive, true (and intelligable) account of real facts in the field you want to become knowledgeable in. A proper understanding of basic epistemology comes a long way: It gives one the knowledge to dismiss floating abstractions and unsubstantiated generalizations at the outset.

Some fields, mostly the hard sciences, are for the most part undisturbed by bad philosophy: It's easy to maneuver one's mind in order to come to know real facts. Fields such as nutrition, history & psychology are philosophically consensually less united, depend less on individual experimentation and more on testimony.

Which methods can be used to find out what the best sources are amidst the gamut of literature within a scientific field? The consensual theory within a field might not always be the most accurate description of reality, so how does one circumvent the 'appeal to authority' fallacy?

I've already watched Salmieri's lecture series Objective Thinking, which has some intersection with my question. I'm primarily interested in the methods you yourself have come across (heuristic methods and cognitive 'rules' are also welcome), which keeps your scientifically cautious and precise.

Questions for objectivists:

Someone at the edge of our town breeds hundreds of dogs and cats, only to subject each of them to extreme and drawn out torture. He doesn't eat them or otherwise put them to productive use. He tortures them because he gets a sick enjoyment out of it. He does this on his own property and inside a barn, so the sound does not carry to his far away neighbors. However, the practice is well known and he readily admits it to whoever asks him about it.

1. Does the government have a right to intervene to stop the man from doing this, or would that be a violation of his rights?
2. Is the man commiting a moral evil against the animals? Surely he's harming his character and reputation, etc. But is a moral wrong being done to the animals themselves, apart from how the man is effected?

Objectivists please respond, and explain how objectivist principles apply to these cases.

My view is clear from the post title. If objectivism cannot recognize that animals have some moral value, I consider that a reductio ad absurdum of objectivism.

UPDATE: I'm very sympathetic to much of objectivism, but this thread reminds me how ultimately shallow and incomplete objectivist philosophy is, particularly its ethics. Rand loves touting Aristotle, but he had a much richer and more satisfying account of ethics than that of Rand. Y'all should read some other thinkers.

This doesn’t seem to make much sense to me with seeing how long objectivism has been around (1930’s. Almost a 100 years). You would think with that much time there would be more than a couple hundred people in this Reddit and 18 thousand in the main one. So what gives?

Why are there so few objectivists? What is the problem?

https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/electric-motors-are-about-to-get-a-major-upgrade-thanks-to-benjamin-franklin-e96f339d

"Out of the lab in Wisconsin"

This seems to make no sense to me and on its face completely subjective and rights violating.

In the U.S age restrictions of congressmen, senators and president exist. 25 for congressmen. 30 for senators. And 35 for president. Now I know the why in the great wisdom of the founders but like other decisions the founders made this seems to be a violation of rights.

Why can’t a person at 20 run for president. Etc etc etc.

Hi there,

I would like suggestions for good books, articles, essays, videos, or other content written from an Objectivist (or "Randian") point of view which is relevant to the law, particularly American law. The content can describe and comment on a particular law, it can be about philosophy of law, or it can describe some episode of interest from American legal history.

Here are some examples of good work along these lines that I am familiar with:

• Tara Smith's chapter on philosophy of law in the Companion to Ayn Rand (published by Blackwell)

• C. Bradley Thompson's book America's Revolutionary Mind is not about law per se, but it provides crucial historical background for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

• James Valliant has some good videos on YouTube about how he believes the founders viewed the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as opposed to contemporary liberal and conservative judges.

You can assume I am familiar with the Objectivist canon and OPAR, but there's probably at least some later work in the Randian tradition that I have not heard of. If you know of such work, I would appreciate your input, particularly if you personally read it and found it interesting or useful.

Thank you.

Today I had a town hall meeting where there was a lot of discussion about creating an ordinance to not only have a 200ft set back from the property line but also a “buffer” required of planted vegetation for a camp ground

But the cause of this ordinance was an argument of sound. That the camp ground was creating sound that was disturbing and thus should be contained and nullified.

Now I’m not sure what to think of this. On some level I do think sound can violate rights. Case in point if I yell into your ear and shatter your eardrum clearly that violence and property damage. But on the level of “annoyance” I’m not sure you can make the claim that you have a right to not be annoyed.

HOWEVER. I can see the argument that extended periods of noise production could stop someone from sleeping or the like. That could cause real damage. I mean there are torture systems designed to not let people fall asleep for a reason.

But what do you guys think about this? Cause I’m not entirely sure what to conclude about this problem

I read The Fountainead late in life, last year in my early 30s and feel like it completely changed the way I think, and was a vindication of so much. I read Atlas and didn't like it as much honestly (maybe because it's female protagonist) but have been trying to model my life on Howard Roarke while also being authentic to my own life and path.

I don't have any friends or family and find loneliness to be something that is tough to deal with. While Roarke seemed a borderline Schizoid until he met a friend worthy to be a friend, he also had a romantic partner. He had quite a bit of support even though for most of his life he did not.

While reading The Fountainhead I felt as if I let everything go and just didn't care anymore about unimportant things, and also had my first foray with a woman who threw herself at me (who was in a relationship with another man). The rape scene in the book and Dominiques obvious BPD frankly made me loath her character and I found her completely not worthy of Roarke (while in Atlas Dagney WAS worthy of her 3 lovers). That level of sexual violence I am uncomfortable with if not only for the lack of self preservation let alone any moral issues which I do not abide by, especially with them already being with someone else. Anyways as I stumbled from inexperience, and they pulled back and played the let's just be friends I am with someone (I now feel as if they 'baited' me) so I have cut things off with them.

But the issue is now I feel an intense loneliness that I never did before especially as the season turns colder and darker. I work remotely and so do not interact with anybody outside of professional work emails. Roarke never sought out a partner and friends however I find myself craving them. Is this a contradiction I need to resolve, need to focus more on my work, or what? The main thing is I want to experience is real companionship and intimacy both with friends and a lover. But does this not contradict what it means to be a staunch Individualist?

First of all Im not an expert on ethics and the only ethics Ive really concerned myself with were ethical egoism, natural rights based ethics and the utilitarianism vs deontology debate. I like to think about moral philosophy in two categories: one for the day to day use in personal matters and one for the organization of a polities/commonwealths and its laws.

I understand the virtue ethics + ethical egoism (for simplicity sake) combo for personal day to day use, but I dont understand how one can translate virtue ethics and ethical egoism to run a government and set up ethical laws without it collapsing into natural rights (or individual rights in case of Ayn Rand)-based deontology.

Im a classical liberal and I dont mean natural rights as in "rights from god" (I think this is a very antiquated and poor definition), but natural rights which can be derived from reason and such thought experiments as the state of nature - the basic belief is that the government should serve to protect natural rights which are life, property, liberty - from that you can get other principles like the idea of self-ownership, harm principle, voluntaryism etc. I read stuff from Nozick, Mises, Auberon Herbert, Stuart Mill, Hayek, Locke, Bob Murphy etc

I think the concept of natural rights is pretty much the same (if not literally the same) as individual rights from Ayn Rand - feel free to correct me here. But even if Im wrong the question still stands, does it not collapse into "individual rights" based deontology?

TLDR: Do Objectivist virtue ethics not collapse into "individual rights" deontology when applied in the polity/government setting?

From page 136 of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (expanded second edition).

The full quote is "I also would like to add that the study of sensations as such is much more the province of science than of philosophy, since we are not consciously aware of single, isolated sensations."

I understand that visual sensations are automatically integrated into entities with depths, from a chaotic flurry of indiscriminate sensory colours, therefore we cannot experience visual sensations directly.

But what about touch sensations? Surely I can experience an isolated sensation of touch if someone pricks me with a pin, even if I did not have the language to name where the pain is located or the knowledge of why I was feeling it.

I am rereading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Is there any way of interpreting objectivism as not reductively related to capitalist aims? Justice, truth, or beauty?

Are there any feminist or class consciousness readings? One is not born “great” necessarily but rather objectivism might guide those with less power, resources, or knowledge towards greatness?

Lastly, Greenspan was a contemporary of Rand. One’s rational best interest may vary by profession or discipline. A stockbroker or venture capitalist may be different in comparison to a civil rights attorney or a policy expert, but could not all benefit nearly equally from objectivism? Particularly if one has certain earlier developmental patterns that may predispose them to less healthy coping strategies and swing reality more clearly?

I am not conflating objectivism with some self help ethos, but might it be perceived as helpful to people seeking to live with integrity and honor?

Thank you. I am eager to learn and appreciate any suggestions. Rand is disregarded often, yet are there any contemporaries that embrace objectivist tenets?

How would someone write a fiction short story using Objectivism ideology?

I've alway had a hard time with Rand's view that our mind ultimately controls our emotions, like she puts it here:

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are “tabula rasa.” It is man’s cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.

Rand isn't a psychologist, she's a philosopher, so where is she getting this? This seems like a scientific question that would need to be studied, and it seems wrong or at least overstated to me. The emotional part of our brain evolved much earlier than our rational part, and it exerts powerful influences on our mental state that we can't always control. Now, I agree with Rand that we should reject the Humean notion that reason is and ought to be a slave of the passions. That is clearly wrong. But I think the true relationship is more complex. Therapeutic approaches like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy are predicated upon the idea that we can, through a careful process, influence negative emotional states. So clearly we do have some rational control over our emotions. But it seems like these are two parts of psyche that are constantly interacting with and influencing each other - neither is master or slave, it's an interaction and interplay of mental forces.

Could someone make a convicing case for Rand's view of the emotions?

I've notices that other subreddits that have a helpful FAQ or a list of resources that is in the sidebar, linked in the sidebar or in the community highlights.

I've notices certain questions get asked regularly here and people often ask suggestions for further reading. I think it would improve the quality of this subreddit to have some of these things easily accessible as other subreddits do. I think it might also be helpful to list common misconceptions about objectivism. This would all help save beginning objectivists or curious visitors from reaching erroneous conclusions about the philosophy and its application.

P.S. I know there is a community bookmark linking to ARI. I don't think it's that inviting or helpful. I think the threshold to learn more should be as low as possible.

Hi everyone, to make it easier to communicate your current philosophical stance and stage of learning, i've added a handful of user flairs.