= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Risto_Saarelma comments on Rational philosophies - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (67)
By "unconditional endorsement", I mean that you had a shining recommendation with no acknowledgement that a lot of people think there's something pretty wrong with Rand and no qualifiers as to how there might be value to be found in Rand's stuff even if one did acknowledge the problems.
So it basically comes off as you reading the room poorly and assuming that people mostly either haven't heard of Rand or think Rand is awesome, while people are probably actually coming in with the notion that Rand's stuff is some sort of philosophical crackpottery espoused by assholes.
Just for the record, I've been in the Objectivist community for only a few years, but the number of assholes online is comparable to any other online community, and I've never met anybody in real-life Objectivist meet-ups or reading groups who was an asshole.
Anyway, like I've said, I just came here to endorse the philosophy and recommend reading for those who would like to know more. I didn't come to this thread to advocate or defend the philosophy, and especially not the community. If you want to start a separate discussion on the merits of the philosophy itself, I'd be happy to join in on that.