I fully believe Objectivism is completely compatible with MGTOW. In fact, it’s hard to tell them apart.

Here is the link to the Ayn Rand Institute: https://www.aynrand.org/

Now for some good old ad hominem attacks; no debate would be complete without them:

Rand was an atheist and so are most Objectivists. That doesn’t matter to me. In my opinion, the devout can incorporate divine worship into their lives and still do the Objectivism thing with no conflicts.

Rand was married for 50 years. That’s a bit more problematic. In my opinion, staying single doesn’t conflict with Objectivism, and neither does marriage.

Rand cheated on her husband. She wasn’t NAWALT after all. He went along with it, the simp. Is her philosophy without value because of this? I’m coming down on the side of greatly valuable.

I started a thread on this a week or two ago.  I think objectivism is a philosophical porthole into the mind of the modern woman.  It is less about truth and more about psychology.  Studying objectivism helps one to better understand the dark side of women.

In regards to compatibility, objectivism is compatible with along of modern movemetns.  To be compatible does not always make it right, it just makes it politically viable.

Objectivism is a philosophy that elevates the ego rather than seeks to go past it.  It limits us to the human ego, inadvertantly limiting the human ego.

A lot of its premises also have to be taken on faith or blind trust, which kind of nullifies its “reason only” stance.

Historically speaking, one of the reasons her philosophy became so popular is that she and her followers literally went from university to university advertising it.  It would be no different than how a televangelist becomes popular: Mass produced dialect laced with sophistry.

I find it disturbing to hear how people embrace it. There are other problems: in a world with children, elderly, and disabled/disenfranchised, it makes no sense. It’s also arrogant to fight thinking everybody else is really just a simp. She doesn’t know why they chose their attitudes. Now I will agree though that there are a lot of sheep who believe lies just to have it easy. Those people have their evil but will also get their rewards.

Also, to me, acting like that is weakness. You can only have an immoral person if you have an environment of hard working people who don’t act selfishly. Say you have a small band of survivors. They’ll divide labor and get working. The stronger might enjoy helping the weaker in their way, with the belief that they’d do the same, and will enjoy a wonderful life with their family in old age. However, what if one decide to act like Ms. Ryn? All hell breaks loose and the stronger leave to let the weaker fend and die.

So, Ryndian ethics requires ignorance and arrogance. It’s foolish.

Also, Ryn was lucky she was a woman, because had she tried that s~~~, she’d been fried at the stake should she have been a man.

Needless to say, there is a Wikipedia page on Objectivism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29
I recommend you go straight to the references and follow the paper trail to her original writings.

While we’re at it, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism which in my view is a similar philosophy and is uniquely American in its origin. I think of Objectivism as American in origin too, but I’m odd that way.

In the end, my interest in philosophy is to answer what are for me crucial questions:
* Who, or what, am I?
* How can I live a good life?

(Let us gloss over the definitions of these terms; just go with the common man’s understanding of them. Word games are a crashing bore.)

If we accept reality and that reason is an absolute then mystical belief is incompatible with Objectivism; If you don’t hold that reason is an absolute then you can’t call yourself an Objectivist.

Selfishness seems to be the sticking point of this philosophy. Aspiring to your highest potential and following your own goals/dreams cannot be called immoral but if you use the word selfishness then people have a knee jerk reaction. Enlightened self interests would have been more accurate.

As to Altruism being evil. I would have objected to this in the past but after seeing SJW in action it may be wise to re-evaluate altruism.

As the saying goes “the path to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Always treat others as an end in themselves, never as a means to an end.  This means don’t use people.  A truly rational man is neither an abuser, nor is he abused.  Objectivism is the 3rd path.  Conventional society has a Machiavellian/Nietzschean view of morality.  Either trample over everyone who stands in your way, climbing a pile of corpses on your way to the top; or be one of those corpses.  Objectivism rejects this, and places emphasis upon developing authentic virtues.  Success is the result of being the living embodiment of the seven virtues listed above.  It is the essence of what it means to be an Alpha MGHOW.  It is the philosophy of thriving — eudemonia.

Seriously, objectivism is the most empowering philosophy on earth.  It is the original red pill.  It dove-tails seamlessly with the principles/virtues of an Alpha MGTOW.  If you are intellectually predisposed toward reading, thinking, studying, and working hard to integrate mind and body into complete man; you owe it to yourself to do more than just wiki it and watch a few youtube videos.  It is a comprehensive philosophy, with literally thousands of pages of material.  I know it is a mountain; I am glad to be a mountain-climber.

If all that commitment is not your thing, I understand.  The MGTOW red pill will get you through life.  The objectivist red pill will literally, in every way, transform you from Morpheus into Neo.

I used the Neo analogy to describe my beliefs with my friends.  I remember their smirks.  So, I assumed the role of Morpheus, offering the objectivist red pill to my best mates.  Two of them took it, one did/will not.  That’s ok.  He is still my bro, and I will be there, MGTOW red pills in hand, when she leaves him.

PS — I have a bachelors in philosophy.  This does not mean I want you to take my word for it; such a thing is antithetical to my beliefs.  I only point it out to indicate that I have developed a finely tuned bulls~~~ meter.  I spent years constructing and deconstructing arguments, identifying fallacies, studying logic, and reducing abstract rational concepts into their concrete empirical implications.  I believe philosophy is the most powerful force on earth.  Bad philosophy leads to totalitarian hell.  Good philosophy leads to freedom, personal responsibility, and power.  It’s really THAT powerful.

Roydal: First, as one who has a ‘Who is John Galt?’ bumper sticker on my car, I’m definitely sympathetic to Rand.

Rand may have been ‘married’ for 50 years, but it was anything BUT a conventional marriage.  Rand had no children.  She had an affair with Nathaniel Branden, who was 25 years younger than her.  Her husband Frank O’ Connor was told of the affair & she arranged her schedule to spend some nights with Frank and the others with Nathaniel Brandon.  Brandon’s wife was also aware of the affair.  Both Brandens were acolytes of Rand & that’s how they met; interestingly, it was only when Branden had an affair with a woman he DIDN’T tell Rand about, that she ended their relationship.  Nathaniel Branden was #2 in the Objectivist movement of the 1960’s.  Ending it also meant complete disassociation from Branden and the end of the Nathanial Branden Institute which promoted objectivism.  All of these individuals are so intertwined; the Brandens met due to their interest in Rand, and much of the early ‘Class of 43’ Fountainhead inner circle of Rand followers were members of a Jewish Canadian family and their relatives.

Rand became an atheist at the age of 13 for two reasons, according to Barbara Branden (yes, Nathaniel’s wife and later author of the Passion of Ayn Rand, an un-official biography of Rand): 1.) There can be nothing greater than man and 2.) No proof exists. Reason #1 is an unproveable expression of the philosophy’s central tenet, egoism — and hardly a common reason for disbelief.

John Doe: Since Rand’s heroines were women of action, and had no interest in men’s wealth or resources, I don’t see objectivism meshing with modern feminism.  Objectivism is so much against self-sacrifice of men or anyone.  Rand’s heroines were also not self-obsessed with their beauty or physical appearance.  Dagny Taggart ran a railroad and was an executive.  Dominique Francon, the heroine of the Fountainhead, ultimately chose Roark over Toohey or Keating and had an independent mind.  And she respected Man’s achievements above all else.  Now, there is overlap in some feminist ideas: For instance, Objectivism rejects traditional restrictions on women and regards productive work as a virtue.  But Rand herself, explicitly rejected feminism and called herself a ‘male chauvinist’ due to her respect for great men of history, and rejected the collectivist feminist narrative against dead white men.  So she didn’t buy into the patriarchy malarkey.

Promotion doesn’t explain the success of Ayn Rand’s novels — their expression of freedom, self-sufficiency, hard work, and ideals resonated with the public — THAT is what made them popular.  The Nathanial Branden Institute may have promoted her works, but more or less merely provided additional information to those already interested in her novels.  A lot of objectivism is certainly based on premises — more like values — if you believe living for yourself is the highest value, then you can derive a lot of philosophy from that.  In contrast, if you believe you are your brother’s keeper, you can derive a lot of philosophy from that.  I would argue being your brother’s keeper, may not help others — look at the terrible consequences of the welfare state.  Academics and critics panned her books; Objectivism was a popular movement.  The lack of success at colleges and in academia led to Rand’s being depressed after the publication of Atlas Shrugged.

Pascal: Really?  Why do the weaker have to die?  Can’t they just live on less?  Should we force charity through taxes?  Or should we, as individuals, be able to give to the causes WE want IF we want, to charities that will encourage and INSIST upon responsibility?  Look at what the Great Society has wrought in terms of the destruction of the underclass, along with America’s insane drug laws.  Private charities are not necessarily bad because many of them hold beneficiaries accountable, but government assistance typically comes with no strings or laughable strings attached — very, very, very bad — even corrosive to our values or work ethic, in my humble opinion.  I believe altruism CAN be good — if it doesn’t foster dependency — the difference between giving someone a fish and a fishing pole.  Even so, some people must have fish — they are incapable of caring for themselves due to age or infirmity.  For instance, I don’t believe in unemployment or social security; I should have to save for my own retirement or loss of job.  And if we MUST have unemployment, why not then give those who partake in it, less retirement benefits, and those that don’t, a greater retirement benefit (conceptually; I realize socialist security is a ponzi scheme and my ‘account’ of ‘money invested’ comprises a big IOU – so I’m talking in principle here).  I can cite other compelling examples, such as health care — it was cheaper for individuals when hospitals had to compete with one another and many people paid out-of-pocket.  I’m talking 75+ years ago here.  And low-interest student loans and subsidies, have only made higher education more expensive.

I would actually argue it is IMMORAL to help people who can help themselves; it fosters a culture of dependency.  How is giving people with more talent who work harder, more reward, unjust?  How is that causing someone to ‘die’?

Qbeck1: Yes, rational self-interest or enlightened self-interest is a lot less inflammatory to the general public than ‘selfishness’.

It’s hard to see objectivism as compatible with theism since objectivism is so against altruism and most religions, are pro-altruism.  That, and religions deny reality or are based on faith.  And, they place man subservient to a God or Gods.

Rand saw her philosophy as ‘perfect’ and her group of acolytes, which included Allen Greenspan in the 1960’s, jokingly called it the ‘collective’.  Group think for individualists?  You betcha.  When people disagreed they were ‘excommunicated’.  And Rand believed you had to accept her philosophy in toto (totalism).  I actually agree with egoism but it’s hard to argue that there was no reason to call the 60’s inner circle ‘The cult of Ayn Rand.”.

Rand was a woman.  Rand “created”/promoted objectivism.  Objectivism claims to “help” men.   1-Either Rand was a NAWALT, which conflicts with MGTOW ideology in regards to how women are or 2- She was a awalt and can only give a woman’s point of view in relations to men’s issues.

Regardless of either these are important questions, because as MGTOW a common observation being made is:

-Women deceive men.

-Women only care about themselves.

It confuses me because MGTOW claim that women should not be in charge (man in charge of his own life) yet a lot seem to “follow” Rand.

A good metaphor for this would be the wife who lets her man think he is free but is really directing his actions (in the household.)

I also held a similar opinion with Esthar villar which is on another thread.

In regards to MGTOW and objectivism it breaks down to this simple observation/question: Rand was a woman. Rand “created”/promoted objectivism. Objectivism claims to “help” men. 1-Either Rand was a NAWALT, which conflicts with MGTOW ideology in regards to how women are or 2- She was a awalt and can only give a woman’s point of view in relations to men’s issues. Regardless of either these are important questions, because as MGTOW a common observation being made is: -Women deceive men. -Women only care about themselves. It confuses me because MGTOW claim that women should not be in charge (man in charge of his own life) yet a lot seem to “follow” Rand. A good metaphor for this would be the wife who lets her man think he is free but is really directing his actions (in the household.) I also held a similar opinion with Esthar villar which is on another thread.

Rand was an AWALT.  She famously cuckoled her husband.  Her walk did not backup her talk.  So what?  If a blind man tells me the sky is blue, does that mean the sky is not blue?  It is possible to identify, espouse, and practice rationality without achieving moral perfection.  However, that does not mean that one’s goal should not be such.  Sure she deceived men, sure she only cared about herself and the people from whom she gained value.  Can you say that you do not deceive men, or that you care about all others – even those who would destroy you?  I don’t think you can.  I can’t.  It is easy to fall prey to the ad hominem fallacy: ‘she was a woman, therefore her philosophy is moot.’

Listen, I get it.  She was a whore.  She ran a cult.  She was a meth-head.  But that does not mean that what she said is bulls~~~.  If she had been born a man, would you still disagree with her words?  If so, then let’s talk about that.  If not, then realize that sometimes, and rarely, a woman can say something that is absolutely correct.  Call your mom and ask her if 2+2=4.  See.

Before you ban me from the forum for white-knighting for Rand, let me say that I don’t give a s~~~.  The woman is MY personal hero, and I have yet to meet her intellectual equal, male or female.

If this is my final post, I shall say farewell with a quote from Captain America:

“Doesn’t matter what the press says.  Doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say.  Doesn’t matter if the whole country says that something wrong is something right.  This nation was founded upon one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences.  When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world….  No. You move.”