> "Objectivism is objectively the greatest system of Philosophy ever put together up until now."

Please.

Objectivism draws no clear distinction between self-interest and self-worship. Its followers are some of the most unbearable narcissists I have ever had the misfortune of talking to. Many of their arguments can be boiled down to "My pre-packaged belief system says its logical, therefore I must be logical!"

I agree. Many(but not all) of Objectivism's followers are unbearable narcissists. Too bad.

"Objectivism is objectively the greatest system of Philosophy ever put together up until now."

I wish this post spent less time concentrating on revealed truths, and instead supported assertions like this one with reason and argument.

Simple. Go read as many schools of philosophy as you can and then read Rand in comparison.

Please.

Rand is mostly popular in the US --where people don't have the background in the history of philosophy that they have in western Europe.

Compared to actual philosophy Rand is like a tv informercial compared to a documentary.

So you've never even read her then ? More ad-hominen and no substance. Yawn ...

How you came to the "never even read her then" conclusion?

I read her alright. That's why I can be so dismissive.

No one who "really knows what Philosophy is" takes Ayn Rand seriously. Actually, taking Ayn Rand seriously is a pretty good sign you don't really know what Philosophy is... or at least that understanding is 80 years out of date.

> "No one who "really knows what Philosophy is" takes Ayn Rand seriously. Actually, taking Ayn Rand seriously is a pretty good sign you don't really know what Philosophy is... "

Forget about the 80 years bit. Their main point is still totally valid... and you can go way back beyond 80 years and read Heraclitus or Dogen (playing favourites but sure there are more) and still get much better philosophy that is relevant 'our times' than you ever could hope for with Rand.

As an aside, I'd like to mention that Rand also does a huge amount of damage to the already damaged issue of women in philosophy, and that her popularization in recent years over, say, Susan Sontag or Julia Kristeva, just makes the whole situation even worse.

Susan Sontag would have lots to agree with Rand about Communism and Julia Kristeva sounds interesting. From wikipedia : "She believes that it is harmful to posit collective identity above individual identity." Sounds like she would agree with Rand there too.

Yes, they also shared a belief that tea goes well with milk. Telling, no?

As if an agreement in some "overview of political systems from 1000 miles above" stance, means anything...

Not a very good idea to compare philosophers (or philosophers and pulp writers like Rand) from Wikipedia...

So you see no difference between sharing a preference for popular drinks and agreeing on philosophical matters that often have to do with life and death ?

Let me guess : A Kantian or some other relativist perhaps ?

> Do you really know what Philosophy is?

Yes, I do -- it's an area of human thought where you can say absolutely anything, and coming to a testable conclusion is regarded as extremely bad form.

Scientists focus on what and how, and sometimes arrive at a conclusion. Philosophers focus on why, and never arrive at a conclusion. Both are doing exactly what they were trained to do.

If you think my outlook on philosophers and philosophy is bleak, you should read Richard Feynman's:

http://physicshead.blogspot.com/2008/03/feynman-philosophy-i...

You're right. That is exactly what most philosophy is considered today. Sad but true.

While I highly admire Feynman in innumerable ways I don't agree with an opinion of his just because it came from him. This is essentially the same as an argument from authority on your part.

> This is essentially the same as an argument from authority on your part.

True. It's ironic to hear an argument based in sound scientific logic emanating from an advocate of philosophy -- but refreshing.