I'm sure many here are aware of the story of the blind men and the elephant.

In the story, six blind men examine an elephant by touch, and each concludes, with absolute certainty, that an elephant is like some un-elephant-like object; a tree, a fan, a wall, etc.

I made two posting asking very simple, fundamental questions: "What is a right?" and "What is Objectivism". Not surprising to me, there was not a great deal of interest in answering the questions. But, enough did to demonstrate that even here, where everyone agrees with the *idea* of Objectivism, and everyone agrees upon the existence of "rights"... no two people could come up with the same, concrete definition for either.

Imagine the colossal task the Founding Fathers faced, when even among the delegates there were massive philosophical differences, from royalists to anarchists, from atheists to fundamentalists.

Yet they managed to forge a country that lasted over 200 years.

The Wikipedia article on the tale is quite interesting, btw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_...
---
An elephant joke inverts the story in the following way:

Six blind elephants were discussing what men were like. After arguing they decided to find one and determine what it was like by direct experience. The first blind elephant felt the man and declared, 'Men are flat.' After the other blind elephants felt the man, they agreed.

Moral:

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
---

Unless Ayn Rand was handed the philosophy of Objectivism from on high by some sort of divine being with all the answers, it must have been the product of her reasoning.

The human mind is imperfect; this has nothing to do with Original Sin and everything to do with evolution. Our thinking is affected by our past experiences, by our mood, by our environment (from room lighting to the society and era in which the reasoning takes place), by distractions, by our prejudices, preconceptions and agendas.

It would take a miracle of colossal proportions for Rand to have gotten everything "right" in her Objectivist philosophy in her lifetime. Again, I go back to the Founding Fathers, who forged an incredible nation, which is now crumbling due to circumstances they could not have anticipated.

Therefore, while it might seem blasphemy to some here to question the various aspects and tenets of Objectivism (which no two people have been able to come into concrete agreement on), to not do so is to fall into the same theo-ideological pitfall the Climate Change advocates have fallen into.

If Objectivism can't stand up to critical analysis, it must be modified or rejected. And, of all philosophies, Objectivism should be subjected to critical analysis, since one of the few aspects everyone seems to agree on is the supremacy of reason in the philosophy.

I have no intention of doing so. I have said that I am a conservative. Some seem to have gotten the mistaken impression that I came here to embrace Objectivism; others that I came here to defame it. Neither is true. I came here to learn about Objectivism (although at the time I thought I came to learn about Rand's books); then to use what I learn the same way I have always used everything I learn: to forge my own, personal philosophy, modified and (hopefully) improved by what I've learned.

I have learned a great deal. Not what I expected to learn, and I'm sure not what others here (hi, there, sdesapio) might hope I've learned, but that's the wonderful thing about learning.
It's an endless path into new landscapes of knowledge.

And to reassure all the elephants here... I am indeed flat.