Objectivism is it a closed or open system? Case Closed

I have written on previous Objectvism based articles that there is two different ways to look at the philosophy. One way being that it is a closed system and cannot have anything added or removed to it. The other way is as an open system open to change and revision while still being called Objectivism. Some people think the split is only about associating with libertarians, but, that is not the case it is two different ways of looking at the philosophy as a whole. However, what is the correct answer? Is it an open system open to revision, change and new additions? Or is it a closed system and only The Philosophy as discovered/espoused by Ayn Rand nothing more or less?

No matter where I fall I will turn off people whom have their own stance on the matter in the debate. First of all I need to clarify that if Objectivism is a closed system it does not make it dogmatic, insular or intolerant to other points of view. It does not justify those whom misunderstand Objectivism and treat it like a religion or even a cult. It simply means it is what it is and nothing more nor less. It means that things like benevolence being added as a separate virtue from justice is not correct to the philosophy. It does not excuse forgetting about benevolence and good will as being a form of justice for those around us. It does not mean one loses all form of empathy and sympathy for others. It also does not mean pushing it down peoples throats like religious evangelicals.

It does not mean either that one takes Objectivism as all of philosophy or anywhere near the whole of philosophy in general. It does not mean you even are an Objectivist or agree with the philosophy. It does not mean you get to become a bully that calls anyone that dares to misunderstand Objectivism as evil. It does not even mean you need to not associate with people that take an Open view even if said view is incorrect. It does not mean bashing classical liberals that use other means to their ends. It does not mean that you call every single atheist that disagrees with your views as deluded or irrational. Nor does it mean that you call people suffering from the delusion of a creator to not be fully human for not using reason thoroughly on their own views.

Nor does the closed view require that you be Peikoffinst that takes anything and everything Leonard Peikoff as Objectivist Gospel. Nor does it mean you need to listen and believe that Peikoff is the often sited intellectual heir to Ayn Rand and authoritative on anything either. Nor does it mean you need to agree with the Ayn Rand Institute on any particular matters. In fact, to consider Peikoff to be hair without any evidence from Rand herself in writing or audio/video evidence is in fact saying Objectivism did not consist of only the philosophy discovered/espoused by Rand. It is in itself an Open view disguised as the closed system.

Objectivism is a closed system it is what it is. I agree 110% with this classic episode of Philosophy In Action which I think case closed on the idea that Objectivism is an open system. Objectivism is the philosophy for living a flourishing life on Earth as discovered by and espoused by Ayn Rand in her philosophical based writings. Anything else discovered afterwards is not the Objectivist-this or Objectivist-that. Objectivism the philosophy is a closed system whose ability to alter fundamentals or core virtues and concepts died when Ms. Rand died. Even the so-called Intellectual Hair whom has never been proven as such Peikoff cannot add anything to it nor speak about it with any authority. Reality is the authority per Objectivism's own ethics and Ms. Rand herself in her own writings.

To quote Diana Brickell from the above linked episode of Philosophy In Action;

 The "closed system" view of Objectivism just asks that people respect Ayn Rand's philosophy as her own creation – and differentiate it from their own or others' ideas. Contrary to the advocates of the "open system," that approach doesn't lead to insularity, dogmatism, or intolerance.

Nowhere in the definition of Objectivism as a closed system does it say you need to agree with ARI and Leonard Peikoff. Nor even that you need to agree with Yaron Brook or anyone else on any given matter. Objectivism has a core virtue of independence which means just because someone else also is an Oist does not mean they are automatically right or automatically to be trusted. It does not mean you Worship Ayn as a Goddess or engage in the less than hospitable behavior of her old "collective" inner circle. It simply means Objectivism is Objectivism and that is it A=A.

I also echo Diana in saying that one being an Objectivist or not is not a good measure of a person being nice or reasonable. Nor is it that you can live a life that is full by isolating yourself unless you are around other Objectivist. That would be the worst thing you can do and it is mentally harmful to only deal with people whom you ideologically agree. Look instead for people of good character regardless of their views on your own ideas.

The Objectivist Epistemology; a dedication to rationality and the world as it is.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the validity and requirements of human knowledge. Epistemology includes those facts about how one thinks and how one should think which one must understand to minimize errors when learning about other subjects.
In essence, Objectivist epistemology holds that all of man's knowledge comes from the senses, and is developed in the following order- Percepts, which come from the automatic integration of certain sensations that lead to awareness of a specific existent, and Concepts, the mind's organization of percepts [as well as other concepts] into groups based on their essential characteristics that differentiate them from other entities. Furthermore, Objectivist epistemology rejects all forms of faith or mysticism as means of knowledge.
The foundational writing for Objectivist epistemology is Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE); Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR) further develops a number of the basic ideas of ITOE.

From sensations to concepts

Sensations are the basic information provided to the mind by the sensory organs, such as the light from the computer screen you're reading now. The awareness of these sensations is considered axiomatically"valid" on the grounds that it is self-contradictory to deny the efficacy of the senses as sources of genuine knowledge, because such an assertion implicitly assumes the validity of the senses. For example, something which is an "illusion" is something which is perceived falsely; reality contradicts your awareness of it. Since that is part of what "illusion" means, to suggest that reality is an illusion means that reality contradicts itself.
Sensation, or awareness of raw sensory data, counts as knowledge in a limited way. However, sensations as such are not retained by the mind and so cannot provide guidance beyond the present moment. (To refer to the previous example, if the computer screen you're reading turns off, the sensation ends.) Perception extends the awareness of the objects of sensation over time, a "percept" being a group of sensations that is automatically retained and integrated by the mind. Some animals other than human beings operate at the level of sensory perception and thus possess a measure of knowledge.
Human beings are unique in possessing another, higher level of cognition: the conceptual level. According to Objectivism, the human mind apprehends reality through a process of reasoning based upon sensory observation, in which perceptual information is built up into concepts and propositions.
However, humans are not guaranteed to achieve this level of consciousness, instead possessing a "volitional consciousness", reaching the "conceptual level" only by an act of volition to which no one can be led or forced from the outside. All humans by definition have the potential to achieve the conceptual level, but some may fail to actualize this potential — and some may lapse from the conceptual level by practising evasion, by which is meant evasion of reason, a deliberate abandonment of the rational consciousness.
Any mind, human or nonhuman, can explicitly hold only so many perceptual units at a time. But the human mind is able to extend its knowledge over a wide range of space, time, and scope by organizing its perceptual information into classifications.
For more information on the formation of concepts, see Concept formation

Topics In Epistemology

The analytic-synthetic dichotomy

Objectivism explicitly rejects the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. This dichotomy — which stems from the views of David Hume and Immanuel Kant — is the view that there is a fundamental distinction between statements that are true in virtue of meaning, alone, and statements whose truth depends upon something more (usually, upon the way the world is). Rand rejected the view that there is any such fundamental distinction, because she accepted that the meaning of a word is its referent, including that referent's every attribute. Consequently, any true proposition is in a way true in virtue of meaning, while its truth simultaneously depends upon the way the world is. In specific, Rand holds that the meaning of a non-singular term is the concept associated with that term, while this concept somehow includes or subsumes all the particulars of a given class, including all the attributes had by these particulars. Which particulars a concept subsumes, according to Rand, depends upon what the concept-coiner was discriminating from what when he or she formed the concept (this appears to be how Rand accommodates Gottlob Frege's insight that there are different "modes of presentation" of the same content). This view is a version of content externalism, similar in certain ways to the views of Hilary Putnam and Tyler Burge.
The analytic-synthetic dichotomy is intimately related to the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, as some philosophers believe that analytic truths are known a priori (i.e., they are justified independent of any experience), while synthetic truths are known a posteriori (i.e., they are justified in virtue of experience). Rand rejects the view that there is any a priori knowledge. All knowledge, she holds, including mathematical knowledge, is about the world (though possibly at some very high level of abstraction or quantization). Justification always terminates in the evidence of the senses.
The analytic-synthetic dichotomy is also related to the alleged distinction between necessary and contingent truths, i.e., the claims of a distinction between truths that could not have been otherwise and truths that could have been otherwise. Many contemporary philosophers believe that mathematical truths such as "2 + 2 = 4" are necessary (could not have been otherwise) while statements such as "There are nine planets in our solar system" are contingent (could have been otherwise). These notions of contingency and necessity have led many contemporary philosophers to elaborate metaphysical systems-building. In constrast, Objectivism holds that there is no distinction between necessary vs. contingent facts in the natural world (that is, all natural facts are necessary) and that the concept of "contingent" applies exclusively to the results of human choice (that is, there is a fundamental distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made). All facts hold in virtue of the natures or identities of the entities involved. Man-made facts hold in virtue of actions that were initiated by volitional beings ("I went to the grocery today" is a man-made fact, because I could have done otherwise). Metaphysical facts, by contrast, hold without reference to any action of a volitional consciousness.
Objectivism holds that, in a sense, all facts are "necessary": all knowledge is knowledge of identity, i.e., a statement that an entity (or aspect, potentiality, condition etc. of an entity) is what in fact it is. Many contemporary philosophers claim that, while the proposition "1 + 1 = 2" is "necessary" because true in all possible realities, the proposition "the atomic mass of hydrogen is 1" is "contingent" because it is not constant across possible worlds. Objectivism would reply that the second proposition is just as "necessary" as the first: if the atomic mass differed, the substance in question would not be hydrogen. Objectivism recognizes no legitimate meaning of "necessity" other than this one.
Additionally, Objectivism also accepts so-called "nomological" possibility and necessity. Statements of nomological possibility say that certain states-of-affairs are in accordance with natural reality in the sense that they reflect the potential of an entity to act in a certain way. For example, consider the propositions, "This glass could break" and "It could rain this weekend." These report truths, because they say that, it is in the nature of glasses that they can break (given the right circumstances) and similarly it is in the nature of the weather that it has the potential to produce rain. Objectivism analyzes counterfactuals, e.g., "If I had dropped this glass, it would break," in similar terms. Objectivism does not insist, as many contemporary philosophers do, that there must be some fact in another possible world for this proposition to correspond with, in order for it to be true. Objectivism also rejects the now-popular view that these nomological facts should be analyzed using a "possible worlds" framework that builds on a distinction between the necessary and the contingent.

The problem of universals

Objectivism offers the foregoing account as the solution of the problem of universals. This problem has throughout the history of philosophy been regarded as a problem of metaphysics, but Objectivism asserts that its proper resolution lies in epistemology. Traditional solutions to the problem divide generally into realism and nominalism. Objectivism regards the first as "intrinsicism" (the view that universals are "intrinsic" to reality) and the second as "subjectivism" (the view that universals are arbitrary creations of the human mind). The proper resolution, Objectivism says, is that universals are concepts, created to meet the unique cognitive needs of the human mind, but objective so long as they are validly formed.

Objectivism, classical rationalism, classical empiricism

There are many notable differences between Objectivist epistemology and classical rationalism. While a classical rationalist would defend a "thick" conception of reason that includes a priori knowledge and the grasp of relations of necessity, Objectivism defends a "thin" conception that denies the possibility of a priori knowledge, tends to treat the grasp of necessity as something akin to mystical insight, and relegates reason to the role of classifying and organizing the information provided by sensory perception.


Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Epistemology&oldid=9367"

The Objectivist Metaphysics ; a dedication to Reality as it is.

Because Objectivism is an integrated philosophy with a hierarchical structure, all other branches of Objectivism rest on Objectivist metaphysics. Metaphysics includes those basic facts about reality which one must understand before one can learn Epistemology, because one cannot attempt to study knowledge until one has established that there is a reality to know.

Objectivist metaphysics relies on three primary axioms which are (in order of primacy): Existence, Identity (and its corollary Causality), and Consciousness. These axioms can be summarized as follows:

Existence 

Something exists, including the things I perceive.

Identity (and Causality)

Everything is something specific and acts according to its nature.

Consciousness 

I am conscious of the things I perceive and my perceptions reflect reality.

The three axioms are also implicitly stated and affirmed by any statement made, which boil down to: "There is [Existence] something [Identity] that I am aware of [Consciousness]."

The Axioms

The Primacy of Existence

The Primacy of Existence premise says that reality is objective: the universe exists independently of the particular psychological states (beliefs, desires, etc.) of individual cognizers. This view was also held by Aristotle. Objectivism distinguishes The Primacy of Existence from the Primacy of Consciousness. The Primacy of Consciousness holds that consciousness is prior to existence. It is the view that one could, in principle, be conscious exclusively and entirely of one's self. Objectivism rejects this view: it holds that objects present themselves to consciousness in such a way that they must be genuinely "other," that is, non-identical to one's own consciousness. This axiom is the basis of the Objectivist refutation of both theism and idealism. Though Objectivism grants that some particular existents are mental (e.g., minds, thoughts, desires, intentions), it holds that, if what fundamentally exists is independent of any consciousness, then the universe as a whole is neither the creation of a divine consciousness nor itself mental. (This argument is laid out in Chapter 1 of Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand).

The Law of Identity

The Law of Identity states that everything that exists has an identity. In saying this, Objectivism is asserting more than the tautology of self-identity (i.e., "everything is identical to itself"). It is asserting that everything that exists has a specific nature, consisting of various properties or characteristics (as Rand wrote, "to be is to be something in particular"). Moreover, Objectivism holds that the properties and characteristics in question must exist each in a specific measure or degree; in this respect "identity" also means finitude. According to Objectivism, then, everything that exists has a specific finite nature. To have a specific, finite nature, is incompatible with having a self-contradictory nature. Therefore, the whole of reality is noncontradictory; though contradictions might exist in thought, there are no contradictions in the real world.

The Law of Causality

Each thing's specific nature determines how it acts. This principle is Objectivism's formulation of the Law of Causality; it is held to be a corollary of the Law of Identity (see above). Contemporary philosophers define the Law of Causality differently, e.g., as "Every event has a cause." Objectivism rejects this contemporary definition because it leads to paradoxes concerning free will and cosmology. A further implication of the Objectivist account of causality concerns explanation: since genuine explanation is causal, nature can only be explained in terms of nature (i.e., without reference to the supernatural).

The Axiom of Consciousness

This axiom states that consciousness is an irreducible primary. It cannot be analyzed in terms of other concepts and it is at the foundation of all knowledge. While we can study the faculty of consciousness, we cannot study what it means to be conscious as such. She writes that "consciousness is conscious," affirming both that the thinker is conscious and that he is conscious of something external to himself. She writes, "If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms" (Atlas Shrugged, p. 1015). One cannot be self-conscious without first being aware of something other than one's awareness. Rand's axioms of consciousness is different from Descartes' Cogito principle in that Descartes' Cogito is an a priori principle, while Rand's axiom of consciousness is a self-evidency only available in perception.

Mind and body

Objectivism rejects the mind-body dichotomy, viewing man as a single integrated being, with both the mental and physical realms having particular causal properties.


Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Metaphysics&oldid=9213"

What is Objectivism? The basics of the philosophy in the simplest terms.

Objectivism is the name chosen by Ayn Rand for her philosophy. Some essentials of Objectivism are that reality is real (i.e., Existence exists), and that we are conscious of reality (Consciousness is conscious).

From this, Objectivism propounds that knowledge is objective: it is not simply revealed or "obvious", nor is it whimsically subjective. Knowledge is the result of a consciousness gaining understanding of reality.

The better we understand reality, the better we can deal with it. Ayn Rand described Objectivism as a philosophy for living on earth -- by which she meant that it was a philosophy grounded in reality with the purpose of enabling its adherents to better deal with reality. A common thread running through all of Objectivism is the sanctity of the individual, rational human being. In Rand's own words:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Ayn Rand rejected the idea that men who pursue their own interests must end up in conflict with one another. Objectivism holds individual rights to be the mechanism by which men can pursue their individual interests without being in conflict with one another.

Objectivism is a closed system -- it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter).

There are philosophical truths which were not incorporated into Objectivism. You should not assume without proof that everything in Objectivism is true.

In fact, to assume without proof that everything Ayn Rand said is true, contradicts Objectivist Epistemology.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=What_is_Objectivism&oldid=9366"

James "The Amazing" Randi Lecture at Princeton: The Search for the Chimera

James "The Amazing" Randi in his visit to Princeton University in 2001, gives us his classic style of scientific scepticism mixed with his ability to expose the most irritating flaws in our society, and the fakers who push their tricks and gimmicks like a cheap drug. "The Amazing" Randi is the perfect mix of Science and Magic, a true conjurer of visual machinations that can fool our senses while, at the same time, explaining to us how our senses are fooled. In my opinion this is the best example of a "human mind debugger", he gets right into the machinations of analog tricks and sees how our brains mistakenly manifests them as a possible reality. Randi also teaches us that illusion and trickery may be comforting to the human mind, but truth is far much more wonderful as it shows us the machinations from the chaos, the sense as well as the awe in both the tricks and the real world. For several decades, Randi has gone on to expose hundreds of psychics and teach millions across the globe about how they could be fooled into believing in a system which could potentially make them vulnerable to trickery and perhaps psychical harm. Randi is not afraid to go against popular opinion, as shown in his battle against so-called psychic Uri Geller in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Randi has also gone against the bizarre practise of faith "healing" and contacting the deceased, and has exposed the cruel, callous and cynical nature of the people who claim to be performing "God's will", such as Peter Popoff. Randi has also warned us time and time again about the fraudulent practise that is homoeopathic medicine and how it is essentially water solution, dished out as hocus-pocus medicine. James Randi is the founder of The James Randi Educational Foundation, an organisation that attempts to bring reason to world by luring potential psychics into a trap, baited by a million dollar prize to prove their psychic "powers". "powers" here is a kind of vague term,as Randi knows, so the tests are usually on the so-called psychic's terms. No self-acclaimed psychic has ever won the prize. Whether or not some form of psychic power exists is still an open question, however many psychics often do not properly gauge their so-called skills and instead brag about them, hence scepticism about such claims should not be so strange to their ears. Unfortunately the vast amount of psychic powers they have seem to remove all self-esteem as many psychics are often uneasy about Randi's reasonable request and attractive reward. Regardless, psychic frauds come and go in droves but there will only ever be one James "The Amazing" Randi. Enjoy this lecture and help share his noble message of skepticism and critical thinking of irrational claims.

James Randi - Surviving the Quacks!

In this special two-part presentation from NECSS 2012, James Randi discusses his experiences investigating Peter Popoff, Oral Roberts, and other self-proclaimed "faith-healers." He is then joined by Jamy Ian Swiss for a far-reaching Q&A session with the NECSS audience.

Truth, Objectivity and Self-Interest (Dave Rubin Interview with Harry Binswanger)

This is the eighth episode in a series looking at Objectivism's approach to Happiness. Philosopher Harry Binswanger joins Dave Rubin to discuss truth, objectivity and self-interest. Watch more of this series here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... To receive notifications as each new episode is released, subscribe to the ARI channel: https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... ****** Dave Rubin Host of The Rubin report Dave on Twitter: http://twitter.com/RubinReport Harry Binswanger Author, How We Know For more from Harry: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... ****** Like ARI on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti... Follow ARI on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AynRandInst Explore ARI: http://www.aynrand.org ****** The Ayn Rand Institute is funded through subscription and one-time donations: http://aynrand.org/donate

Do not use Scripture for a moral guide please.

Reality is the arbiter of all things!

Ignorance of science is no excuse to believe in fairy tales.

Charlie Hebdo, the West and the Need to Ridicule Religion

Attacks like the one on January 7, 2015, against the newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris are becoming all too common. Threats by Islamic terrorists and dictatorial regimes have been happening since Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie in 1989. In this talk, Ayn Rand Institute senior fellow Onkar Ghate discusses how to defend freedom of speech in the face of religious attacks. This talk was recorded on Saturday, July 4, 2015, at the Objectivist Summer Conference 2015 in Charlotte, North Carolina. CLICK ON A TIME STAMP TO JUMP TO THAT SECTION: Main lecture: 0:00:03 How Western reactions to attacks have emboldened Islamic totalitarians 0:08:37 The need to mock and marginalize religion (historical evidence and current state) 0:18:38 How the term “Islamophobia” stifles rational discussion 0:29:30 How the doctrines of multiculturalism and ethnicity stifle rational discussion 0:35:33 How religionists attempt to place religion beyond rational criticism 0:45:17 The need for bold atheists to marginalize faith through satire and ridicule Questions and Answers: 0:52:31 Q&A #1: What’s your opinion of Pat Condell’s videos attacking and ridiculing Islam and religion in general? 0:53:53 Q&A #2: Can you comment on Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s view that Islam has to go through a reformation? 0:58:01 Q&A #3: What does your view of Islam’s evil imply for how Muslims should be treated? 1:00:52 Q&A #4: Does deism belong in the same category as Christianity and Islam? 1:03:43 Q&A #5: Do the West’s values and actions cause Islamists to attack us? 1:05:15 Q&A #6: How can atheists best explain that their stance on morality does not depend on faith? 1:08:12 Q&A #7: How do we fight political correctness, especially in the form of anti-blasphemy laws? 1:10:43 Q&A #8: Is ridiculing blind faith really an effective way of combating it? 1:13:53 Q&A #9: What is the current state of the culture with respect to faith and atheism? 1:15:35 Q&A #10: What is the value of art that depicts, without causal explanation, the horrors of religious movements? 1:17:55 Q&A #11: How does your use of the term “Islamic totalitarianism” relate to your rejection of the terms “moderate” and “extreme” Islam? 1:19:49 Q&A #12-A: How does one reason with an individual who is addicted to faith? 1:25:27 Q&A #12-B: Don’t people need to root out the things that interfere with their ability to reason? SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today. EXPLORE ARI http://www.AynRand.org FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER https://twitter.com/AynRandInst LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti... EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS https://campus.aynrand.org/ BUY “DEFENDING FREE SPEECH” ON AMAZON https://www.amazon.com/Defending-Free...

Religion and Morality

From the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in the classroom to federal prohibition of the funding of stem cell research to the Terri Schiavo case, religion is playing an increasing role in America’s public life. The advocates of religion claim that only religion can restore values to America — by combating moral skepticism and relativism with an absolute view of right and wrong, applicable to everyone. If God is dead, it is often thought today, then everything would be permitted. But , Onkar Ghate asks, does morality rest on religion? Can it rest on religion? Are moral absolutes possible with religion? Without religion? What approach to morality can actually bring values to American culture? These are the questions this talk addresses. Recorded October 18, 2006 --- Subscribe to ARI's channel: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c... Headquartered in Irvine, California, ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. ARI is composed of a dedicated board of directors and an energetic staff of more than 45 people. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today. Explore ARI: http://www.AynRand.org Follow ARI on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AynRandInst Like ARI on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/AynRandInstitute

Ayn Rand's Sacred Atheism (OCON 2014)

At the age of thirteen, Ayn Rand decided she was an atheist. Her reason: “the concept of God is degrading to man.” One major form of this degradation is religion’s effect on genuine values, including sacred values. This idea is prominent in her early writings and continues to be featured in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, as well as in her nonfiction. In this lecture and Q&A, recorded at Objectivist Summer Conference 2014 in Las Vegas, Nevada, philosophy professor Robert Mayhew examines this aspect of Ayn Rand’s distinctive approach to atheism.

Headquartered in Irvine, California, ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. ARI is composed of a dedicated board of directors and an energetic staff of more than 45 people. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today. Explore ARI: http://www.AynRand.org Follow ARI on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AynRandInst Like ARI on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

Into The Fringe The Complete Series