This "intro" is becoming quite an essay, but maybe that's OK.
FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN, BUT UNFAMILIAR WITH, OBJECTIVISM:
If you like philosophy and are looking for a better system of thinking, you have stumbled onto a special place!
Objectivism is a point of view developed by Russian immigrant, novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, during the middle of the 20th Century. We all need a high quality framework of ideas to think from. Whether Objectivism is the final philosophy one should use or not, Objectivism is that high quality framework of ideas needed to think from. All other systems have been found to be inferior.
The basics of Objectivism are really quite simple, but it takes a lot of great thinking to "get it", UN-LEARN all the trash that has gotten into your head, and see how the ideas fit together and apply to everyday issues. If you are dedicated to the whole truth of all matters, then this is for you. Some things you may have heard about Objectivism, or what positions a good Objectivist thinker would take, may be inaccurate. For example; Objectivism emphasizes "production", in contrast to "consumption". Proper Objectivists live GOOD lives, but they are not "materialistic", nor are they "greedy" capitalists. Certain self described Objectivists are poor examples of its expression and do disservice to it. Some well known figures seem to be profiteering from it (see note at bottom). Certain young followers sense something is special, but might lack the experience, maturity or aptitude to fully understand or practice it well. Many people who are attracted to Objectivism are never able to fully "get it", or apply it well. Most people who don't really understand the system eventually just drop out.
I recently read an article that points out the importance of being able to "think things all the way through". I thought that was a nice way to put that.
Consider giving the Objectivist outlook a try and do your own thinking. Contact the group and discuss, question, or challenge. When learning to understand this outlook it is important to recognize those who do have a better grasp than oneself and LEARN something from them.
The Objectivist way of thinking is for good people who want to lead good lives.
SOME WORDS FOR THOSE FAMILIAR WITH OBJECTIVISM:
I have been disappointed in the "mainstream" Objectivist organizations. My attitude toward the Objectivist movement is well embodied in the following thought: “any good idea will attract all manner of people, with all manner of abilities. I see Objectivist organizations as either too reluctant to take positions, or else taking too many wrong positions. It seems there aren't enough Objectivists who really "get it".
If my thinking thus far interests you, then read on.
I'm not about endless discussions of Epistemology. Scholars are groping to find out exactly how the human brain does what it does, and that is ok. But fortunately, complete knowledge of HOW the brain accomplishes reason is not at all necessary, and more than a few "objectivists" use these discussions as a diversionary tactic from simply thinking right. All theories on just how the brain does what it does are just that, THEORIES! I will say, however, that I think the "filing cabinet" analogy of the brain is very good and may explain a lot. What IS necessary for right thinking is true intellectual curiosity, and intellectual honesty.
Here is an example of how I think, regarding the "dispute" between some Objectivists and modern science. For the most part, sincere theoretical scientists are doing their best to understand the universe. And the fact that the "gravity" of Newton, and the "gravity" of Einstein are totally different things has no bearing on philosophical conclusions in ethics or politics. No scientific theory on the behavior sub-atomic particles, the "big bang", or the behavior of things around black holes could ever have any effect on proper ethical or political conclusions. Man inhabits the world at HIS scale, and there is certainty at HIS scale.
While I'm at it I'll assert that Objectivists attempts to prove the non-existence of a God are as silly as attempts of theists to prove that there is one. As philosophers we are under the maxim to not attempt to prove a negative. You cannot prove that there is no god. I'm aware of Peikoff's agrument in OPAR. It is flawed.
Our purpose here is to provide contact (intellectual or otherwise) for independent idea loving people. The small group is currently communicating by regular Email at email@example.com
Although the name "Independent Objectivist" is technically a redundancy, I regret that it is a necessary one for the forseeable future in the Objectivist community.
I am "Objectivist based". Ayn Rand is credited as being the most generally honest, thorough and correct modern philosopher; her works putting so many ideas together in one neat package to be considered- akin to the “Theory of Relativity” in physics. The ideas set forth by Rand and others is the most logically consistent and "proven" philosophy of which I am aware. No other system has gone to such great lengths to "prove" its ideas. I'm not overly concerned which ideas were Rand's original insights- she put it all together in one place, with the interpretations that she made, and that's important.
Otherwise, it is not my intent to adulterate / corrupt what is considered to be Objectivism. We are solid friends of the Objectivist way of thinking; however, since philosophy is a human observation, all peoples’ inductions and deductions are at least subject to sincere inquiry and evaluation. Ideas can be ignored, misused or misapplied by anyone. We are looking for the truth of matters. What is needed most are people who can achieve a decent deduction of existing Objectivist theory to all aspects of daily life.
Here are a few additional examples of positions I hold: That Objectivism is a theory and set of principles, and NOT a set of conclusions. If one is under the impression that some particular conclusion is the "correct" Objectivist position, do not assume that I automatically agree with it, (and I may very well agree with it); though MANY conclusions in the Objectivist movement are quite obvious. I believe that existing Objectivist NONFICTION materials on close relationships, love and sex is actually lacking in the logical rigor found in some other of its other topics - reading more like instructions for writing romance novels than something from a logical philosophy (note: I have now read Atlas Shrugged and I have no major complaints on the romantic accounts there).
Note: Defining "profiteering" in this context would be an admittedly difficult and complex task. I do not intend to use it here as a "floating" smear. I merely appeal to those readers who, after considerable observation and thought, think they too see that such things do happen in the Objectivist community. Profiteering, in this context, would have something to do with placing maintaining one's customer base above dedication to truth and reality, whether one realizes one is doing it, or not. In other words, being the "witch doctor", that Objectivists so eagerly despise. "Witch Doctor" means dealing in MIS-information!