j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
A surprising number of people in this thread do understand the core principles of the philosophy - the core principles are just retarded.
No, they do not. The understanding demonstrated in this thread is feeble-minded at best. Let's take the worst fallacies:
"Objectivism says that helping other people is bad."
No, Objectivism says that other people don't have first claim on your life, i.e. that you are not a slave to other people's desires, wishes, whims, and needs. If you wish to help people because you like them or you enjoy spending time with them, that's fantastic. All the Objectivists I know are amazingly benevolent--myself included--because we recognize that all other human beings are, at least, a tremendous *potential* value to us even though particular individuals may fail at the bar.
Compare this with the lovely approaches of other philosophies where men are inherently depraved or congenitally defective and must purchase forgiveness from god or society by "serving" said god or society. Any *personal* ambition, pleasure, joy, love, or interest is a guilty sin to be snatched in the moments you can pry loose from taking care of the "other", and the happier/richer/better off you are, the greater you degree of guilt.
Everyone I know who truly believes that the only excuse for their continued existence is to help other people hates and resents other people as slaves hate and resent their masters--and for the same reason. Either that, or they are a horror-monster beyond all belief: someone who enjoys and is willingly complicit in his own slavery.
"Objectivism is elitist/white supremacist/whatever."
Far from being an accurate description of Objectivism, this is actually a nasty psychological confession on the part of the person making the claim. Ayn Rand's stated purpose in writing was to project the ideal man, someone who embraces and lives up to the heroic possibilities in Man--Man qua Man. Everyone who possesses a human being's unique heritage, a rational faculty, possesses the ability to demonstrate heroism of principle just as the characters in her books. What made John Galt or Howard Roark great was not that they were genius inventors or architects but that they *refused* to compromise their principles for the sake of "getting along with people" or equally idiotic goals.
The psychological confession is that some people are riddled with envy--I say envy, the actual emotion involved is far worse and uglier--and hate anyone or everyone who demonstrates any sort of ability. They don't desire to be good and live up to their potential, they just want to make sure that everyone *else* is *bad*. Their reaction on meeting a hero isn't "awesome!" but "who does he think he is?!"
Why, I ask, is seeking to become the greatest person that you can become a "white" or "elite" or whatever trait? Are you saying only
white people care about being good and that you can't expect anything out of anyone else? I'd find such an insinuation insulting, and I certainly know many people of all varieties whose pursuit of excellence far outreaches my own. In fact, Ayn Rand's novels were considered controversial when they came out because she advocated careers for women at a time when women were considered incapable of such ambitions.
