Anybody here ever read Ayn Rand's works?
Posted by deleted 6 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
Not intending to be objectionable or insensitive, I have to ask, especially considering some of the responses I have received lately:
Has Anybody Here Ever Read Ayn Rand's Works?
Yes, yes, I've been told a million times not to exaggerate so I know perhaps even most people here have some familiarity with her works and words.
But there are too many others who seem to have not the least concept.
Rand advocated, as her political philosophy, individual freedom. From her premise that each individual has sole ownership and control of his own life, she reasoned -- and I honestly see no other conclusion -- that therefore it is wrong to initiate force.
She quite explicitly opposed, to name one, the income tax, as well as other forms of theft.
Therefore, despite her own neurotic opposition to the word, Ayn Rand was a libertarian.
Now, please, you who are determined to react rather than think, note I said "libertarian," NOT "Libertarian."
Even though I have several times explained the differences between the two words, some leap-to-wrong-conclusion addicts keep trying to argue with me, without checking their premises.
For you folks who have not read her works and her words, Ayn Rand was probably the world's foremost advocate of reason ... maybe ever.
She was also, though actually allied with many thousands of others, a leading advocate of human freedom.
Only a cultist, only very misinformed cultist, can continue to deny that "libertarian" is the correct term.
She was not an "anarchist," not an agorist, not a voluntaryist, but I think she was a free marketeer and thus she was, yes, a libertarian -- though a minarchist.
So, I ask again: You people who keep calling yourselves "conservative" and/or "Republican," how do you rationalize or justify also calling yourself "Randian" or, especially, "Objectivist"?
I remember Rand explicitly forbidding people calling themselves "Objectivist." She said to call your self "student of Objectivism."
Finally, and I'm sure there will be hurt feelings from this, why on Earth don't you check your spelling as well as your premise?
I see comments here that are downright embarrassing because of miserable grammar and sloppy spelling.
If we truly care about truth, about reason, about Ayn Rand's legacy, shouldn't we be much more careful about how we represent her?
Has Anybody Here Ever Read Ayn Rand's Works?
Yes, yes, I've been told a million times not to exaggerate so I know perhaps even most people here have some familiarity with her works and words.
But there are too many others who seem to have not the least concept.
Rand advocated, as her political philosophy, individual freedom. From her premise that each individual has sole ownership and control of his own life, she reasoned -- and I honestly see no other conclusion -- that therefore it is wrong to initiate force.
She quite explicitly opposed, to name one, the income tax, as well as other forms of theft.
Therefore, despite her own neurotic opposition to the word, Ayn Rand was a libertarian.
Now, please, you who are determined to react rather than think, note I said "libertarian," NOT "Libertarian."
Even though I have several times explained the differences between the two words, some leap-to-wrong-conclusion addicts keep trying to argue with me, without checking their premises.
For you folks who have not read her works and her words, Ayn Rand was probably the world's foremost advocate of reason ... maybe ever.
She was also, though actually allied with many thousands of others, a leading advocate of human freedom.
Only a cultist, only very misinformed cultist, can continue to deny that "libertarian" is the correct term.
She was not an "anarchist," not an agorist, not a voluntaryist, but I think she was a free marketeer and thus she was, yes, a libertarian -- though a minarchist.
So, I ask again: You people who keep calling yourselves "conservative" and/or "Republican," how do you rationalize or justify also calling yourself "Randian" or, especially, "Objectivist"?
I remember Rand explicitly forbidding people calling themselves "Objectivist." She said to call your self "student of Objectivism."
Finally, and I'm sure there will be hurt feelings from this, why on Earth don't you check your spelling as well as your premise?
I see comments here that are downright embarrassing because of miserable grammar and sloppy spelling.
If we truly care about truth, about reason, about Ayn Rand's legacy, shouldn't we be much more careful about how we represent her?
I thought that Rand was a little off with her comments about primitive people not being civilized or not have been able to discover the laws of nature. Discoveries are made very slowly due to lack of the resources and methods of technology upon which new advancements are made.
The other thing that bothered me in AS was her description of some persons being "little" when just doing small jobs and depending on things such as cosmetics to feel good.
As for the concept of 'belief', look up the philosophical discussions of the difference between 'believing in' and 'believing that', the first believing regardless of facts and the second believing with facts and being able to change belief if the known facts change. The first could be called religious and the second scientific.
Including, for example, the wheel.
The so-called "Indians" -- the North Americans -- did have wheels, but used as decoration or in toys, not as ... well, as wheels. Note their travois.
But especially note their truly savage ways of treating prisoners, such as slicing off eye-lids and leaving the victim, alive, staring into the sun; or the burning alive; or ... well, other horrible and vicious acts.
Which were also "savage" when done by any others, including Europeans.
Thank you again, PURB.
But correct, even if otherwise-wrong people also say it.
(From the Ask Dr. Ruwart section in Volume 20, No. 11 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!)
QUESTION: What is the difference between Ayn Rand’s Objectivism and libertarianism?Ayn Rand's Objectivism
MY SHORT ANSWER: In my opinion, the differences are more cultural than real, in political matters. Both Objectivism and libertarianism are based on the non-aggression principle of honoring our neighbors’ choice (not initiating physical force, fraud or theft) and making things right with our victims if we don’t.
Objectivism is a comprehensive philosophy of life that includes not just political beliefs but strong and unified beliefs on virtually every aspect of human existence, including religion, art, romance, and so on. Libertarianism, in contrast, is a strictly political philosophy.
Rand believed that government’s proper role was protection of rights and that government should have a monopoly on defensive force to fulfill this role. Many libertarians agree with her. Others believe that governments are a poor protector of rights and that competition in this realm is right and proper.
AGAIN, there is a difference between "libertarian" and "Libertarian." I do wish you would learn it.
People who call themselves "libertarian" believe, as did Ayn Rand, that individuals own themselves and that initiatory force is wrong.
And libertarians do indeed have a "philosophical base" for our political views even if not all libertarians accept entirely the Rand philosophical base.
You seem to be, in Randian terms, concrete-bound and intentionally blind to facts.
The fundamental differences between Obj. and Lib. are very significant. Since Libs are all over the place, I can't speak for you; but Libertarianism is certainly not a complete philosophy.
I agree than an intellectually consistent rational candidate cannot be elected in this emotionally drive. Culture.
Trump is not intellectually consistent either but DID get elected fortunately because Hillary was so bad. My hope is that he can slow down the march to socialism for a few years
There has never been a time when it was more important to consistently explain the proper principles of individualism and appeal to the American sense of life left while there is still some of it left to appeal to. When it's gone it will be much more difficult to speak out and convince anyone, and once collectivism is accepted and entrenched, speaking out against it becomes illegal.
That kind of nastiness is just why so many otherwise intelligent people just write off all Randians as "cultists" and, worse, "nuts."
I don't know who is "downvoting" you, but I certainly understand why anyone would.
In fact, on those rare occasions you have said something intelligent and worthwhile, I have voted up. But I won't again.
... Meanwhile we see "libertarian" groupies who couldn't even come close to Trump trying to be taken seriously. At least one such troll is here on this forum 'downvoting' Ayn Rand's rejection of them.
No matter what he says or said, the Libertarian Party opposes all drug laws.
(And he would still have been a better choice than Clinton or Trump.)
Aleppo, and frankly anything we are doing in the middle east, is not at all important in the scheme of things for the USA. It did show that Johnson wasnt anywhere near being sufficiently aware of what was going on in the world for the president's job. He should just have answered that we shouldnt be in Iraq in any event, rather than just admitting he didnt even know what or where it was. The MSM got him on that one.
It's true he has stood up to the agitators, propagandists, and liars of the "news" media better than most presidents, certainly better than the "news" media's favorite targets, Republicans.
But another philosopher, Sidney Hook, pointed out that having the strength of one's convictions is not good enough if one's convictions are irrational or immoral, as for example Islamic suicide bombers.
Then, again, does Trump have any convictions?
And I don't mean the convictions the Democrats are hoping for from a trial.
Ron Paul was probably the best.
Free market is the ultimate ability of men to make choices without being forced. Unfortunately for the experience of mankind this type of market place has seldom existed and not for long as those who would conquer and enslave have at their disposal a large populace that is not just willing but wanting to be led by anyone who will claim to offer them something for free in return for their freedom.
I too have been surprised at times to find here at this meeting place those who often subscribe to the idea that it is important for man to be mostly free but not completely because they are convinced that one aspect or another of living must be under the control of a leader and a governing monster that has the right to inflict violence on all it deems a threat to its existence. This opens the door for all manner of tyranny and then it is only a matter of degree and time before there is no liberty left and all choices are inflicted by the munificent state that is stealing what it gives away.
I used to think that there were some things that only a state could do and therefore it was assumed that a state must exist. After watching the destruction of a country that started out with ideals of individual liberty for 70 years and studying its past I realize that there was not a single president or politician who did not have an ulterior motive to destroy liberty to the degree they can and that they will benefit from.
If individuals do not have the right to say no when they are forced to do something then they are not free at all. Voting (or begging for permission from the state) is not a viable form of protecting yourself from a state that, if it has not assumed immoral authority over the life of an individual yet will do so very soon, with the support of most of the neighbors who fear a free individual even if there is only one.
Voting is NOT accepting the result, no matter what, no matter if a tyrannical statism wins.
But NOT voting is accepting the statist quo.
Or at best it is foolish simply because tyrants will never remove themselves from office; a tyranny will never abolish itself.
Voting might be seen as shooting people: It is not necessarily a nice thing to do, but when one is acting in self-defense, it is acceptable, and in some people's views, a duty.
The current situation is not a random lottery, it is a consequence of the basic ideas that are accepted across the culture. That is what determines the kind of people who are on the ballot who continue to dominate as most electable. Vote when it may make a difference, but change in the long run depends on the spread of the rights ideas.
I am a scientist and realize that scientific advancement only comes as a result of a recognition of objective reality. Objectivity is difficult because hidden assumptions cloud reason behind an insidious veil. Because of the limitations of our senses we can view reality only indirectly "as through a glass darkly". We see behavior but the nature of the underlying mechanisms remain out of our reach. Such is the task of the scientist to make the best of a difficult situation.
The "collected works of Ayn Rand" is not limited to the four novels and does not mean the novels as interpreted by contemporary philosophy in the name of 'science'. Ayn Rand developed her philosophy to make Atlas Shrugged possible, then explained and developed it as non-fiction for over 20 years, and it isn't Kantianism, Logical Positivism, and Pragmatism.
I say I'm a "fan" of Ayn Rand. I don't mean it to sound glib. I'm not knowledgeable enough about other philosophies to be an Objectivist or any other philosophical school of thought.
To me her books are about how beneath the trends and forces of human development, there are individual people. We say "the time was ripe for someone to discover..." The books are a reminder that individual people did the work, put up with people calling them crazy, and moved humankind forward. When we say "moved humankind forward," they generally weren't doing it for humankind but because they wanted to. When we say "he did it all for himself", it sounds like a human foible, but it's a human virtue. Who wants to be the beneficiary of charity? People are a balance of doing things to benefit themselves directly and to benefit their family, tribe, team, or country. We sometimes think it's more noble, but do something for other, but Ayn Rand says we're all others, so it's noble to do something for ourselves. It's actually way more virtuous when we act with reason to accomplish what we personally want than one side of our emotional self vs tribe instincts.
I see all this as showing humans following reason and their own desires as beautiful in itself. I could be completely wrong because it feels like most other Ayn Rand fans get a kick out of watching one group either make another group look bad and political stratagems to make people look bad in meetings-- it's the opposite of what I took away from the books. The lights going out at the end of AS, IMHO, was intentional juxtaposition of great people following their own way with the result of second-handers' falling over one another. It was saying great people are almost unstoppable... almost, but even a worm will turn and fight if you step on it enough.
My only disagreement: A stepped-on worm will not turn and fight. It's squashed. Dead.
Which seemingly is where we're headed. Unless we turn and fight now.
Try Calvera's famous quote, which is how politicians view us: "If God didn't want them sheared, He would not have made them sheep."
Especially when race cards are pulled and bike locks are swung.
The producers at the end of AS, though, were not dead. The worm had turned. They were 100% full of life.
I have read and re-read and re-re-read "Atlas Shrugged" -- in fact, I have lost count of how many times -- and keep a copy here at my desk for reference.
It's a great story, filled with powerful and important ideas.
And there are lyrical passages that are downright poetic, and that can, after all the re-readings, bring me to tears.
But as I look back at my own, I see the apostrophe.
What type of device are you using? What language is it set at? What language is the keyboard setting at?
http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/57170/...
(Do your apostrophes show up? Mine seem always to.)
(On too many articles at Wikipedia I've tried to correct, the errors are put back almost before I can log off. And NOT because of "good intentions." Though I do "assume good intentions" most of the time.)
Michael PEN ULTIMATE RARE BOOKS
The largest collection of rare, signed and manuscript Ayn Rand on the planet. Check me out on Abebooks https://www.abebooks.com/pen-ultimate...
Michael
You can certainly use "libertarian" (small "l") in its original meaning; but it is misleading today to use it in the context of Rand's philosophy.
Also note that Rand did not "forbid people calling themselves" Objectivists; in fact, she referred to many people as Objectivists and said that one is essentially Objectivist if he holds and understands all of her fundamental principles/beliefs (mis-defined below). She simply did not like anyone misrepresenting her and her philosophy, and preferred one to call himself a student of Obj. if he had not yet fully grasped those principles.
As for Libertarians’ (capital “L”) failure to integrate the remainder of her philosophy, the Libertarian Party exists to espouse and promote a political viewpoint. It does not claim to represent a viewpoint on other aspects of philosophy, nor should it be expected to – that’s not its purpose. (And if an Objectivist cannot be a member of the Libertarian Party, the same certainly holds true regarding any other political party.)
Thank you for being guided by facts and reason.
You may not know of the origin of Libertarianism: the movement began with Objectivists who could not agree with her principles except for some political fundamentals.
Of course an Objectivist can be a member of a political party - that's necessary to vote. He just can't hold Libertarian principles (such as they are).
No it didn’t. According to a contemporary libertarian publication (SIL News), the creators of the Libertarian Party were a mix of former Republicans, advocates of Objectivism, Misesians, and fans of Robert Heinlein. A minority were anarchists. What united them was support for economic and personal liberty, and the desire to participate in the political process through a party that would promote these values. I joined the LP shortly after its formation in early 1972, knew many of its founders personally, and can vouch for the wide mix of ideological backgrounds of its early members.
The purpose of a political party is to promote a political agenda, not an entire philosophy. And no, it is not necessary to be a member of a political party in order to vote.
I was there, heard them speak before and during the process of forming a party. And at the beginning, it was not a minority who were anarchists; that's where they started deviating from Obj.ism.
Living alone on a ranch with only physical reality to deal with, you tend not to need a philosophy of objectivism
Objectivist principles are really rules to allow people to live in harmony together.
From Galt's speech:
"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.
"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments."
From her notes before Atlas Shrugged:
"[Regarding social relations:] Before you come to 'any principle as a guide in his relations to other men,' cover the point of how the morality of reason applies to man alone even to a man on a desert island. The first commandment is to exercise his reason. Morality is not social (and don't forget the evils that come from thinking that it is). Only after you have established this, can you come to morality in relation to other men. " -- from Notes on the written part of
The "Moral Basis of Individualism" Introduction, June 1945
"... man's moral code has to apply primarily to his own private conduct in relation to himself and his life—and that only on the basis of the right code toward himself will he or can he observe any sort of moral code toward others. Conventionally, it is thought that a man on a desert island needs no moral code. That is where he would need it the most. The proper code, of course, is: rational control of himself and his actions, a rational view of reality (identifying facts for what they are, to the best of his knowledge and capacity, being true to truth), the rational choice of his purpose and the action to achieve it." -- October 1949
That said, it would be POSSIBLE for a person to be irrational and ignore reality. So you are right.
In her "Brief Summary" in 1971 she began be quoting her position as stated in 1962:
"Objectivism is a philosophical movement; since politics is a branch of philosophy, Objectivism advocates certain political principles - specifically, those of laissez-faire capitalism - as the consequence and the ultimate practical application of its fundamental philosophical principles. It does not regard politics as a separate or primary goal, that is: as a goal that can be achieved without a wider ideological context.
"Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics - on a theory of man's nature and of man's relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as 'conservatism.' Objectivists are not 'conservatives.' We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish."
Her "Brief Summary" continued:
"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.
"This - the supremacy of reason - was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism. (For a definition of reason, see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.) Reason in epistemology leads to egoism in ethics, which leads to capitalism in politics. The hierarchical structure cannot be reversed, nor can any of its levels hold without the fundamental one—as those who have tried are beginning to discover."
"... Politics is the last link in the chain—the last, not the first, result of a country's intellectual trends.
"In this connection and for the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement..."
She rejected both the libertarian movement (including anarchists claiming to be following her philosophy), and the conservative movement, many times on fundamental grounds, both in their content and in their emphasis on a-philosophical politics. Her political philosophy was not based on leaping in with a "premise that each individual has sole ownership and control of his own life", and her emphasis on reason did not mean political "reasons" for freedom. "Objectivism" is not "based on the non-aggression principle of honoring our neighbors’ choice (not initiating physical force, fraud or theft) and making things right with our victims if we don’t." The "premise" and the essence was her metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, not politics at all.
It is true that a-philosophical conservatives (together with some a-philosophical 'libertarians') dominate this forum with endless repetition in largely superficial political fads or would-be fads as if they had not read Ayn Rand. But the answer is not to characterize Ayn Rand as the "libertarian" false alternative to conservatives.
Ayn Rand made it very clear why "libertarian" does not characterize her position. The claim that "only [a] very misinformed cultist can continue to deny that 'libertarian' is the correct term" is flatly false -- and ironic coming from someone who claims to "be much more careful about how we represent her".
But her basic ideas are radically different than most of what has been promoted for thousands of years. They challenge what most people have come to believe out of habit because they have heard it so many times from an early age and absorb it uncritically, not knowing where it came from or its full implications.
Part of what they accept is a hopelessness of understanding at all, and they are not accustomed to thinking in abstract concepts beyond an emotional level. Any kind of true thinking with mental focus requires effort, but at least some do that in their professional lives. People either want to question and understand or they don't. Even on this forum we see people enthusiastically attracted to Atlas Shrugged in some way, but associate it with whatever else they have absorbed. They don't think about what Ayn Rand was saying beyond their emotional reactions and don't try to understand the philosophy that made Atlas Shrugged possible.
As she herself said, her ideas were flying in the face of thousands of years of Judeo-Christian beliefs.
I ask, often, how do you explain water to a fish?
Much harder, how do you explain the stars to a fish?
Rand was trying the latter, to show humans greatness, things and ideas beyond the mundane.
Probably most people cannot because they will not accept a hard reality, as opposed to mysticism and superstition.
It's a terrible cliche, but apparently also a truism: It's important to go along in order to get along.
Being willing to stand out, to be different, to, for example, study and understand the ideas of Ayn Rand in many ways make us different and, thus, perceived as a threat.
Or at least as something making others uncomfortable.
That collectivism you refer to so saturates our society and culture, I used to have to explain to people that Ayn Rand was not an anarchist, why the term was incorrect.
In the Bible is a verse saying something like, Anyone who would do harm to children might as well tie a millstone around his neck and throw himself into the sea.
I apply that to the people running the government school systems.
2. There should remain many reasons to follow Obj. on a ranch.
3. "Rules"/principles are also for individual success.
My point is that on a ranch, there is little chance to survive if one opposes reality. You just have no choice. Objectivist principles are not really needed
Despite blocking efforts by National Review and the slimy New York Times, millions of people, of all ages, became acquainted with the ideas and philosophy of freedom by reading Ayn Rand.
No rational and honest person has ever denied or disputed that fact.
BUT, as your cultist worship seems to prevent your acknowledging, Rand was not a "madman who heard voices in the air." She knew that ideas of freedom have been around for many centuries, and to a very large extent -- as she commented on herself frequently -- the founders of these United States believed in and acknowledged that human beings ought to be free.
Have you ever heard of Leonard Read, or Albert Jay Nock, or Frank Chodorov? How about Lysander Spooner? Or Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson?
Or, and this is actually funny, though I bet you won't get the joke, Andrew Galambos?
Galambos tried to claim Rand stole his ideas!
By the way, a few years ago, somebody did try to start an Objectivist Party. It died very quickly.
In the libertarian movement of today, Rand's influence is less. I don't know why. Perhaps it's because of cultists.
But some new libertarians do find their initial influences elsewhere.
Sure Rand's influence in the Lib. party is less: because they have developed an inconsistent set of beliefs over time that don't require Rand knowledge.
He never claimed it was. “Denote” and “define” are entirely different words with entirely different meanings. Dictionary.com defines “denote” as “to be a mark or sign of; indicate”. Thesaurus.com lists as synonyms “designate” and “mean”. None of these have anything to do with identifying a person’s “essential defining characteristic”. In today's political/economic environment, the word "libertarian" is used in everyday discourse to denote someone who is a consistent advocate of a free market. If you have a better word in common use to describe Ayn Rand's position on the political/economic spectrum, I would like to hear it.
re-read this "...despite her own neurotic opposition to the word, Ayn Rand was a libertarian." She was not an advocate of anything libertarian because an advocate of reason she understood that Liberty cannot be established without a proper moral system and a proper moral system can only be found by agents with free will by reason. Substituting libertarian for reason and egoism and capitalism only shows how you have abandoned them. . Rand showed that to define a term you have to do it by essentials. You will benefit from re-reading OPAR.
The philosophical Cat
Again, if you have a better word in common use than “libertarian” to describe Ayn Rand's position on the political/economic spectrum, I would like to hear it.
She rejected being "a Russian" or "a Jew" and instead was an American and an individualist.
Why do some people want her to be a libertarian? Is it to secure her blessing, to have some of her good qualities rub off on them? She seemed to regard sycophants as worse than her declared enemies.
Call her a libertarian if you want, but watch me lift one eyebrow as I wonder what you are trying to accomplish.
And she often stressed her Russian heritage, though in the context of what horrors she had already seen and wanted us to avoid.
Check your premises.
The friend who introduced me to Objectivism took a similar attitude towards my second-hander approach to Rand's ideas. I'd annoy him with straw-man questions, and he eventually said, "I'm not answering you any longer. If you want to know, read Rand's books."
And sort of like why I would not give away a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" though I might sell it for a quarter: The person getting it for free might well just set it down and never bother.
But the person paying, even a quarter, then has something invested in actually learning.
As far as "Conservative" and "Republican": the terms have no meaning any more in the sense they were in the times of Rand. One needs no more to do than go through members of the House or Senate and take a closer look at the GOP component: there isn't one of them who would check out according to Rand.
And some of the authors I now edit and publish have also so groused.
In fact, I'm very tolerant -- except of dishonesty.
Principle is important, and adherence to moral principle, that is, consistency, is truly vital.
And if we care about Ayn Rand's beliefs and her legacy, we need to be honest as well as thoughtful, and we need to recognize, with her, that words do have meaning.
I also think that using reason to combat the leftists emotional arguments doesn’t work. They haven’t gotten to where they are using reason. And we won’t change their position with reason
I think the civilization needs to collapse before people will listen to galt
Maybe Venezuela is ready for galt now that they don’t have food
Some context is required here. Nathaniel Branden wrote: “In the future, when Objectivism has become an intellectual and cultural movement on a wider scale, when a variety of authors have written books dealing with some aspect of the Objectivist philosophy – it could be appropriate for those in agreement to describe themselves as ‘Objectivists.’ But at present, when the name is so intimately and exclusively associated with Miss Rand and me, it is not. At present, a person who is in agreement with our philosophy should describe himself, not as an Objectivist, but as a student or supporter of Objectivism.” -The Objectivist Newsletter, April 1965.
It’s now 53 years later, and all of the above conditions appear to have been met. It’s time to retire the phrase “student of Objectivism” when describing one’s philosophical beliefs.