#objectivism — Public Fediverse posts

I think my goal is to specifically see what I can do to integrate both a collectivist and individualist sensibility in my philosophical view. I think to really have a complete philosophy, both of these things have to be considered: individuals cannot properly understand the consequences of actions taken at the personal level without understanding how those actions fit into and will be responded to by larger societal frameworks. At the same time, we cannot achieve collective benefit without considering how collective actions affect individuals.

I do not yet fully know what philosophical and political frameworks would best help me construct this philosophy, excepting that I think communist theory will undoubtedly be a big part of it, and it will most certainly be very different than Objectivism, excepting the respect for personal bodily autonomy.

Rand was not a feminist, in fact she decried feminism, but she was pro-bodily automomy and supported the right to abortion and in general the right of women to work the same types of jobs as men. I think the thing that Ayn Rand and other right libertarians crucially misunderstand is that a larger social dynamic like misogyny will prevent women from having individual bodily autonomy. They don't understand it because they imagine the world as it is as a meritocracy where only the best rise to the top, and so they imagine the preponderence of men in high social positions is due to the inherent superiority of those men rather than misogynistic favoring of men regardless of ability. They don't understand that women will simply not be allowed bodily automomy in a deeply misogynistic society, that individual bodily autonomy in general will never be allowed most individuals in a capitalist society.

I think my goal is to specifically see what I can do to integrate both a collectivist and individualist sensibility in my philosophical view. I think to really have a complete philosophy, both of these things have to be considered: individuals cannot properly understand the consequences of actions taken at the personal level without understanding how those actions fit into and will be responded to by larger societal frameworks. At the same time, we cannot achieve collective benefit without considering how collective actions affect individuals.

I do not yet fully know what philosophical and political frameworks would best help me construct this philosophy, excepting that I think communist theory will undoubtedly be a big part of it, and it will most certainly be very different than Objectivism, excepting the respect for personal bodily autonomy.

Rand was not a feminist, in fact she decried feminism, but she was pro-bodily automomy and supported the right to abortion and in general the right of women to work the same types of jobs as men. I think the thing that Ayn Rand and other right libertarians crucially misunderstand is that a larger social dynamic like misogyny will prevent women from having individual bodily autonomy. They don't understand it because they imagine the world as it is as a meritocracy where only the best rise to the top, and so they imagine the preponderence of men in high social positions is due to the inherent superiority of those men rather than misogynistic favoring of men regardless of ability. They don't understand that women will simply not be allowed bodily automomy in a deeply misogynistic society, that individual bodily autonomy in general will never be allowed most individuals in a capitalist society.

I think my goal is to specifically see what I can do to integrate both a collectivist and individualist sensibility in my philosophical view. I think to really have a complete philosophy, both of these things have to be considered: individuals cannot properly understand the consequences of actions taken at the personal level without understanding how those actions fit into and will be responded to by larger societal frameworks. At the same time, we cannot achieve collective benefit without considering how collective actions affect individuals.

I do not yet fully know what philosophical and political frameworks would best help me construct this philosophy, excepting that I think communist theory will undoubtedly be a big part of it, and it will most certainly be very different than Objectivism, excepting the respect for personal bodily autonomy.

Rand was not a feminist, in fact she decried feminism, but she was pro-bodily automomy and supported the right to abortion and in general the right of women to work the same types of jobs as men. I think the thing that Ayn Rand and other right libertarians crucially misunderstand is that a larger social dynamic like misogyny will prevent women from having individual bodily autonomy. They don't understand it because they imagine the world as it is as a meritocracy where only the best rise to the top, and so they imagine the preponderence of men in high social positions is due to the inherent superiority of those men rather than misogynistic favoring of men regardless of ability. They don't understand that women will simply not be allowed bodily automomy in a deeply misogynistic society, that individual bodily autonomy in general will never be allowed most individuals in a capitalist society.

I think my goal is to specifically see what I can do to integrate both a collectivist and individualist sensibility in my philosophical view. I think to really have a complete philosophy, both of these things have to be considered: individuals cannot properly understand the consequences of actions taken at the personal level without understanding how those actions fit into and will be responded to by larger societal frameworks. At the same time, we cannot achieve collective benefit without considering how collective actions affect individuals.

I do not yet fully know what philosophical and political frameworks would best help me construct this philosophy, excepting that I think communist theory will undoubtedly be a big part of it, and it will most certainly be very different than Objectivism, excepting the respect for personal bodily autonomy.

Rand was not a feminist, in fact she decried feminism, but she was pro-bodily automomy and supported the right to abortion and in general the right of women to work the same types of jobs as men. I think the thing that Ayn Rand and other right libertarians crucially misunderstand is that a larger social dynamic like misogyny will prevent women from having individual bodily autonomy. They don't understand it because they imagine the world as it is as a meritocracy where only the best rise to the top, and so they imagine the preponderence of men in high social positions is due to the inherent superiority of those men rather than misogynistic favoring of men regardless of ability. They don't understand that women will simply not be allowed bodily automomy in a deeply misogynistic society, that individual bodily autonomy in general will never be allowed most individuals in a capitalist society.

I think my goal is to specifically see what I can do to integrate both a collectivist and individualist sensibility in my philosophical view. I think to really have a complete philosophy, both of these things have to be considered: individuals cannot properly understand the consequences of actions taken at the personal level without understanding how those actions fit into and will be responded to by larger societal frameworks. At the same time, we cannot achieve collective benefit without considering how collective actions affect individuals.

I do not yet fully know what philosophical and political frameworks would best help me construct this philosophy, excepting that I think communist theory will undoubtedly be a big part of it, and it will most certainly be very different than Objectivism, excepting the respect for personal bodily autonomy.

Rand was not a feminist, in fact she decried feminism, but she was pro-bodily automomy and supported the right to abortion and in general the right of women to work the same types of jobs as men. I think the thing that Ayn Rand and other right libertarians crucially misunderstand is that a larger social dynamic like misogyny will prevent women from having individual bodily autonomy. They don't understand it because they imagine the world as it is as a meritocracy where only the best rise to the top, and so they imagine the preponderence of men in high social positions is due to the inherent superiority of those men rather than misogynistic favoring of men regardless of ability. They don't understand that women will simply not be allowed bodily automomy in a deeply misogynistic society, that individual bodily autonomy in general will never be allowed most individuals in a capitalist society.

“All of Humanity’s Problems Stem From Marc Andreessen’s Inability to Sit Quietly in a Room Alone”:

This is #Objectivism at work. Ayn Rand would be proud… if she weren’t long dead. I’m guessing Andreessen’s never played Bioshock… or paid any attention to reality. #crapitalism #finance https://kottke.org/26/04/andreessen-inability-sit-quietly

I figured something out this month that I’ve missed for 34 years.

I’ve been measuring whether I’m “enough” as a person—whether the chooser is adequate—rather than evaluating my choices. That’s a category error. There is no yardstick for myself qua myself. Only for things I do.

The Trap

From #AynRand’s Atlas Shrugged, Galt’s speech:

Man has no choice about his need of #SelfEsteem, his only choice is the standard by which to gauge it. And he makes his fatal error when he switches this gauge protecting his life into the service of his own destruction, when he chooses a standard contradicting existence and sets his self-esteem against reality.

I’ve been measuring myself instead of my choices. Asking “Am I rational enough?” instead of “Am I exercising rationality in this choice?” Treating the volitional entity—the chooser—as if it were subject to pass/fail evaluation.

But you can’t be “wrong in person.” You can only make wrong choices. The chooser is the precondition for those concepts to mean anything.

The Invariant

The concept comes from topology: an invariant remains unchanged when a structure is transformed. @gregeganSF’s Diaspora explores this for consciousness—what persists across memory edits, substrate changes, simulated deaths.

The invariant isn’t the contents of consciousness. It’s the structure of being the thing that experiences. The observer. The integrator. The chooser.

Applied to #identity: I am an existent with volitional consciousness. That’s my identity, metaphysically. Not “I have consciousness” (dualism), but “I am” this integrated entity.

The invariant is the volitional structure itself. Everything else—memories, achievements, mistakes, consequences—is what that structure produces.

What I Wrote Before I Understood It

From my story “La Petite Mort”:

She wanted to keep being Thalindra. Wanted to keep having thoughts, even painful ones. Wanted to keep waking up every morning, tired and aching and alone, because waking up meant she was still there to do the waking. Wanted existence as what she was—this particular configuration that was specifically hers.

The preference was immediate. Simple. Undeniable. Hers.

And it was enough.

I gave my character what I couldn’t give myself: acceptance of the invariant without audit.

Now I have it too.

The Correction

I am the standard by which my choices are measured, not the thing being measured.

You evaluate actions. Not the volitional entity that generates them.

If you accept your choices as yours—made with what you knew, under your constraints—you can accept yourself. Not because you’ve proven worthiness. Because you are the chooser, and that’s A is A applied to you.

Clear. Weightless. Real.

#philosophy #Objectivism

I figured something out this month that I’ve missed for 34 years.

I’ve been measuring whether I’m “enough” as a person—whether the chooser is adequate—rather than evaluating my choices. That’s a category error. There is no yardstick for myself qua myself. Only for things I do.

The Trap

From #AynRand’s Atlas Shrugged, Galt’s speech:

Man has no choice about his need of #SelfEsteem, his only choice is the standard by which to gauge it. And he makes his fatal error when he switches this gauge protecting his life into the service of his own destruction, when he chooses a standard contradicting existence and sets his self-esteem against reality.

I’ve been measuring myself instead of my choices. Asking “Am I rational enough?” instead of “Am I exercising rationality in this choice?” Treating the volitional entity—the chooser—as if it were subject to pass/fail evaluation.

But you can’t be “wrong in person.” You can only make wrong choices. The chooser is the precondition for those concepts to mean anything.

The Invariant

The concept comes from topology: an invariant remains unchanged when a structure is transformed. @gregeganSF’s Diaspora explores this for consciousness—what persists across memory edits, substrate changes, simulated deaths.

The invariant isn’t the contents of consciousness. It’s the structure of being the thing that experiences. The observer. The integrator. The chooser.

Applied to #identity: I am an existent with volitional consciousness. That’s my identity, metaphysically. Not “I have consciousness” (dualism), but “I am” this integrated entity.

The invariant is the volitional structure itself. Everything else—memories, achievements, mistakes, consequences—is what that structure produces.

What I Wrote Before I Understood It

From my story “La Petite Mort”:

She wanted to keep being Thalindra. Wanted to keep having thoughts, even painful ones. Wanted to keep waking up every morning, tired and aching and alone, because waking up meant she was still there to do the waking. Wanted existence as what she was—this particular configuration that was specifically hers.

The preference was immediate. Simple. Undeniable. Hers.

And it was enough.

I gave my character what I couldn’t give myself: acceptance of the invariant without audit.

Now I have it too.

The Correction

I am the standard by which my choices are measured, not the thing being measured.

You evaluate actions. Not the volitional entity that generates them.

If you accept your choices as yours—made with what you knew, under your constraints—you can accept yourself. Not because you’ve proven worthiness. Because you are the chooser, and that’s A is A applied to you.

Clear. Weightless. Real.

#philosophy #Objectivism

I figured something out this month that I’ve missed for 34 years.

I’ve been measuring whether I’m “enough” as a person—whether the chooser is adequate—rather than evaluating my choices. That’s a category error. There is no yardstick for myself qua myself. Only for things I do.

The Trap

From #AynRand’s Atlas Shrugged, Galt’s speech:

Man has no choice about his need of #SelfEsteem, his only choice is the standard by which to gauge it. And he makes his fatal error when he switches this gauge protecting his life into the service of his own destruction, when he chooses a standard contradicting existence and sets his self-esteem against reality.

I’ve been measuring myself instead of my choices. Asking “Am I rational enough?” instead of “Am I exercising rationality in this choice?” Treating the volitional entity—the chooser—as if it were subject to pass/fail evaluation.

But you can’t be “wrong in person.” You can only make wrong choices. The chooser is the precondition for those concepts to mean anything.

The Invariant

The concept comes from topology: an invariant remains unchanged when a structure is transformed. @gregeganSF’s Diaspora explores this for consciousness—what persists across memory edits, substrate changes, simulated deaths.

The invariant isn’t the contents of consciousness. It’s the structure of being the thing that experiences. The observer. The integrator. The chooser.

Applied to #identity: I am an existent with volitional consciousness. That’s my identity, metaphysically. Not “I have consciousness” (dualism), but “I am” this integrated entity.

The invariant is the volitional structure itself. Everything else—memories, achievements, mistakes, consequences—is what that structure produces.

What I Wrote Before I Understood It

From my story “La Petite Mort”:

She wanted to keep being Thalindra. Wanted to keep having thoughts, even painful ones. Wanted to keep waking up every morning, tired and aching and alone, because waking up meant she was still there to do the waking. Wanted existence as what she was—this particular configuration that was specifically hers.

The preference was immediate. Simple. Undeniable. Hers.

And it was enough.

I gave my character what I couldn’t give myself: acceptance of the invariant without audit.

Now I have it too.

The Correction

I am the standard by which my choices are measured, not the thing being measured.

You evaluate actions. Not the volitional entity that generates them.

If you accept your choices as yours—made with what you knew, under your constraints—you can accept yourself. Not because you’ve proven worthiness. Because you are the chooser, and that’s A is A applied to you.

Clear. Weightless. Real.

#philosophy #Objectivism

I figured something out this month that I’ve missed for 34 years.

I’ve been measuring whether I’m “enough” as a person—whether the chooser is adequate—rather than evaluating my choices. That’s a category error. There is no yardstick for myself qua myself. Only for things I do.

The Trap

From #AynRand’s Atlas Shrugged, Galt’s speech:

Man has no choice about his need of #SelfEsteem, his only choice is the standard by which to gauge it. And he makes his fatal error when he switches this gauge protecting his life into the service of his own destruction, when he chooses a standard contradicting existence and sets his self-esteem against reality.

I’ve been measuring myself instead of my choices. Asking “Am I rational enough?” instead of “Am I exercising rationality in this choice?” Treating the volitional entity—the chooser—as if it were subject to pass/fail evaluation.

But you can’t be “wrong in person.” You can only make wrong choices. The chooser is the precondition for those concepts to mean anything.

The Invariant

The concept comes from topology: an invariant remains unchanged when a structure is transformed. @gregeganSF’s Diaspora explores this for consciousness—what persists across memory edits, substrate changes, simulated deaths.

The invariant isn’t the contents of consciousness. It’s the structure of being the thing that experiences. The observer. The integrator. The chooser.

Applied to #identity: I am an existent with volitional consciousness. That’s my identity, metaphysically. Not “I have consciousness” (dualism), but “I am” this integrated entity.

The invariant is the volitional structure itself. Everything else—memories, achievements, mistakes, consequences—is what that structure produces.

What I Wrote Before I Understood It

From my story “La Petite Mort”:

She wanted to keep being Thalindra. Wanted to keep having thoughts, even painful ones. Wanted to keep waking up every morning, tired and aching and alone, because waking up meant she was still there to do the waking. Wanted existence as what she was—this particular configuration that was specifically hers.

The preference was immediate. Simple. Undeniable. Hers.

And it was enough.

I gave my character what I couldn’t give myself: acceptance of the invariant without audit.

Now I have it too.

The Correction

I am the standard by which my choices are measured, not the thing being measured.

You evaluate actions. Not the volitional entity that generates them.

If you accept your choices as yours—made with what you knew, under your constraints—you can accept yourself. Not because you’ve proven worthiness. Because you are the chooser, and that’s A is A applied to you.

Clear. Weightless. Real.

#philosophy #Objectivism

I figured something out this month that I’ve missed for 34 years.

I’ve been measuring whether I’m “enough” as a person—whether the chooser is adequate—rather than evaluating my choices. That’s a category error. There is no yardstick for myself qua myself. Only for things I do.

The Trap

From #AynRand’s Atlas Shrugged, Galt’s speech:

Man has no choice about his need of #SelfEsteem, his only choice is the standard by which to gauge it. And he makes his fatal error when he switches this gauge protecting his life into the service of his own destruction, when he chooses a standard contradicting existence and sets his self-esteem against reality.

I’ve been measuring myself instead of my choices. Asking “Am I rational enough?” instead of “Am I exercising rationality in this choice?” Treating the volitional entity—the chooser—as if it were subject to pass/fail evaluation.

But you can’t be “wrong in person.” You can only make wrong choices. The chooser is the precondition for those concepts to mean anything.

The Invariant

The concept comes from topology: an invariant remains unchanged when a structure is transformed. @gregeganSF’s Diaspora explores this for consciousness—what persists across memory edits, substrate changes, simulated deaths.

The invariant isn’t the contents of consciousness. It’s the structure of being the thing that experiences. The observer. The integrator. The chooser.

Applied to #identity: I am an existent with volitional consciousness. That’s my identity, metaphysically. Not “I have consciousness” (dualism), but “I am” this integrated entity.

The invariant is the volitional structure itself. Everything else—memories, achievements, mistakes, consequences—is what that structure produces.

What I Wrote Before I Understood It

From my story “La Petite Mort”:

She wanted to keep being Thalindra. Wanted to keep having thoughts, even painful ones. Wanted to keep waking up every morning, tired and aching and alone, because waking up meant she was still there to do the waking. Wanted existence as what she was—this particular configuration that was specifically hers.

The preference was immediate. Simple. Undeniable. Hers.

And it was enough.

I gave my character what I couldn’t give myself: acceptance of the invariant without audit.

Now I have it too.

The Correction

I am the standard by which my choices are measured, not the thing being measured.

You evaluate actions. Not the volitional entity that generates them.

If you accept your choices as yours—made with what you knew, under your constraints—you can accept yourself. Not because you’ve proven worthiness. Because you are the chooser, and that’s A is A applied to you.

Clear. Weightless. Real.

#philosophy #Objectivism

Ayn Rand Really, Really Hated C.S. Lewis
https://firstthings.com/ayn-rand-really-really-hated-c-s-lewis/
#Inklings #CSLewis #objectivism

Ayn Rand Really, Really Hated C.S. Lewis
https://firstthings.com/ayn-rand-really-really-hated-c-s-lewis/
#Inklings #CSLewis #objectivism

Ayn Rand Really, Really Hated C.S. Lewis
https://firstthings.com/ayn-rand-really-really-hated-c-s-lewis/
#Inklings #CSLewis #objectivism

#AynRand’s original introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness is now online--and it directly contradicts most of the claims people make about her #ethics.

If your picture of Rand comes from social media threads, YouTube rants, or second-hand “hot takes,” this is the text that breaks the spell.

Let’s clear out the biggest straw men right away:

• ❌ “Rand said selfishness means hurting people.”


  No. She argues that rational self‑interest forbids coercion, exploitation, and parasitism. Predators aren’t “selfish”—they’re short‑range, self‑destructive, and irrational.

• ❌ “It’s just an excuse to do whatever you want.”


  She draws a hard boundary between whim and #reason. Her ethics demands long‑range thinking, integrity, and principled action — the opposite of impulse.

• ❌ “#Objectivism celebrates cruelty.”


  The introduction explicitly rejects cruelty as irrational. Benevolence is not only compatible with #egoism—it’s a natural expression of a rational, confident person.

• ❌ “Rand denies moral principles.”


  She denies sacrifice as a moral ideal. She does not deny #morality. She argues for a code rooted in reality, reason, and the requirements of human life.

If you want to understand the argument instead of the mythology, read the primary source--it’s short, sharp, and surprisingly accessible.

Read more for context on the full book, editions, and themes.

#philosophy #individualism #reading #nonfiction #ideas #bookstodon

#AynRand’s original introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness is now online--and it directly contradicts most of the claims people make about her #ethics.

If your picture of Rand comes from social media threads, YouTube rants, or second-hand “hot takes,” this is the text that breaks the spell.

Let’s clear out the biggest straw men right away:

• ❌ “Rand said selfishness means hurting people.”


  No. She argues that rational self‑interest forbids coercion, exploitation, and parasitism. Predators aren’t “selfish”—they’re short‑range, self‑destructive, and irrational.

• ❌ “It’s just an excuse to do whatever you want.”


  She draws a hard boundary between whim and #reason. Her ethics demands long‑range thinking, integrity, and principled action — the opposite of impulse.

• ❌ “#Objectivism celebrates cruelty.”


  The introduction explicitly rejects cruelty as irrational. Benevolence is not only compatible with #egoism—it’s a natural expression of a rational, confident person.

• ❌ “Rand denies moral principles.”


  She denies sacrifice as a moral ideal. She does not deny #morality. She argues for a code rooted in reality, reason, and the requirements of human life.

If you want to understand the argument instead of the mythology, read the primary source--it’s short, sharp, and surprisingly accessible.

Read more for context on the full book, editions, and themes.

#philosophy #individualism #reading #nonfiction #ideas #bookstodon

#AynRand’s original introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness is now online--and it directly contradicts most of the claims people make about her #ethics.

If your picture of Rand comes from social media threads, YouTube rants, or second-hand “hot takes,” this is the text that breaks the spell.

Let’s clear out the biggest straw men right away:

• ❌ “Rand said selfishness means hurting people.”


  No. She argues that rational self‑interest forbids coercion, exploitation, and parasitism. Predators aren’t “selfish”—they’re short‑range, self‑destructive, and irrational.

• ❌ “It’s just an excuse to do whatever you want.”


  She draws a hard boundary between whim and #reason. Her ethics demands long‑range thinking, integrity, and principled action — the opposite of impulse.

• ❌ “#Objectivism celebrates cruelty.”


  The introduction explicitly rejects cruelty as irrational. Benevolence is not only compatible with #egoism—it’s a natural expression of a rational, confident person.

• ❌ “Rand denies moral principles.”


  She denies sacrifice as a moral ideal. She does not deny #morality. She argues for a code rooted in reality, reason, and the requirements of human life.

If you want to understand the argument instead of the mythology, read the primary source--it’s short, sharp, and surprisingly accessible.

Read more for context on the full book, editions, and themes.

#philosophy #individualism #reading #nonfiction #ideas #bookstodon

#AynRand’s original introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness is now online--and it directly contradicts most of the claims people make about her #ethics.

If your picture of Rand comes from social media threads, YouTube rants, or second-hand “hot takes,” this is the text that breaks the spell.

Let’s clear out the biggest straw men right away:

• ❌ “Rand said selfishness means hurting people.”


  No. She argues that rational self‑interest forbids coercion, exploitation, and parasitism. Predators aren’t “selfish”—they’re short‑range, self‑destructive, and irrational.

• ❌ “It’s just an excuse to do whatever you want.”


  She draws a hard boundary between whim and #reason. Her ethics demands long‑range thinking, integrity, and principled action — the opposite of impulse.

• ❌ “#Objectivism celebrates cruelty.”


  The introduction explicitly rejects cruelty as irrational. Benevolence is not only compatible with #egoism—it’s a natural expression of a rational, confident person.

• ❌ “Rand denies moral principles.”


  She denies sacrifice as a moral ideal. She does not deny #morality. She argues for a code rooted in reality, reason, and the requirements of human life.

If you want to understand the argument instead of the mythology, read the primary source--it’s short, sharp, and surprisingly accessible.

Read more for context on the full book, editions, and themes.

#philosophy #individualism #reading #nonfiction #ideas #bookstodon

A #review of the #book “Ayn Rand: Writing A Gospel Of Success” by Alexandra Popoff that is more of a commentary on #AynRand than a #BookReview:

“Atlas Schlepped”, Jewish Review Of Books (https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/literature/17180/atlas-schlepped/).

#AtlasShrugged #Books #Reviews #Objectivism #Philosophy

I updated various descriptions around https://TheBeautifulPrison.com to better reflect the “philosophical noir” tone I’m going for.

Philosophical, because everything is carried by the intellectual rigor of #AynRand’s #philosophy of #Objectivism.

#Noir, because it respects both the darkness and the light.

Neither promise easy resolution or virtue rewarded automatically. Both insist that clarity matters, even when reality seems difficult to navigate.

A self under pressure reveals what it’s made of.

Just launched TheBeautifulPrison.com — fiction & essays on #consciousness, #identity, and integrity under pressure. Stories: trapped #LLM, #vampires, forest beings. Essays on #AI & critical engagement. AI-assisted, #Objectivism -rooted. The tension is the point.

Christian Theist vs Objectivist Atheist

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://objectivestandard.org/christian-theist-vs-objectivist-atheist/

oggi, 25 ottobre, a roma, presso lo studio campo boario: “80 fiori”, di louis zukofsky

OGGI, sabato 25 ottobre 2025, alle ore 18:00,
presso lo Studio Campo Boario 
(Roma, viale del Campo Boario 4a)

80 FIORI
LOUIS ZUKOFSKY​ E L’OGGETTIVISMO AMERICANO

Per il ciclo “Retrospettive” – del CentroScritture – presentazione del libro
80 fiori, di Louis Zukofsky (Benway Series, 2024)

​https://www.centroscritture.it/event-details/80-fiori-louis-zukofsky-e-loggettivismo-americano

con Giulio Marzaioli, Paul Vangelisti, e la traduttrice, Rita Florit
coordinamento di Valerio Massaroni​

https://benwayseries.wordpress.com/2024/07/25/louis-zukofsky-80-fiori-80-flowers-benway-series-16/

​Il lettore parte […] per un’avventura in miniatura e meravigliosamente divertente, che corrisponde alla moltitudine in fiore evocata dal poeta. Gran parte dell’impresa dell’affrontare questo testo sta nel dover seguire le improvvisazioni di Zukofsky sulla tradizione floreale e sul linguaggio. Nonostante le osservazioni, anche da parte di commentatori favorevoli, sull’impossibile densità o sull’impenetrabilità di 80 Flowers, penso sia meglio cercare di assecondare la passione del poeta per le fonti classiche e shakespeariane e per il gioco numerico, e lasciarsi guidare dal suo orecchio inesauribilmente attento alla sinergia del linguaggio. Florit cita spesso il fondamentale studio di Michele Joy Leggott, Reading Zukofsky’s 80 Flowers (1989), che interpreta le fitte interazioni linguistiche del poeta come un viaggio contemplativo, o come uno splendido erbario. Come Zukofsky ha scritto nel suo taccuino, le poesie o i fiori «avrebbero avuto origine dai miei libri precedenti, dei quali sarebbero una sintesi». […]

— dalla postfazione di Paul Vangelisti

​

#80Flowers #AlbertoDAmico #BenwaySeries #GiulioMarzaioli #lettura #LouisZukofsky #MicheleJoyLeggott #objectivism #oggettivismo #oggettivismoAmericano #PaulVangelisti #poesia #poesie_ #presentazione #reading #ReadingZukofskyS80Flowers #RitaFlorit #scritturaDiRicerca #scrittureDiRicerca #StudioCampoBoario #ValerioMassaroni

oggi, 25 ottobre, a roma, presso lo studio campo boario: “80 fiori”, di louis zukofsky

OGGI, sabato 25 ottobre 2025, alle ore 18:00,
presso lo Studio Campo Boario 
(Roma, viale del Campo Boario 4a)

80 FIORI
LOUIS ZUKOFSKY​ E L’OGGETTIVISMO AMERICANO

Per il ciclo “Retrospettive” – del CentroScritture – presentazione del libro
80 fiori, di Louis Zukofsky (Benway Series, 2024)

​https://www.centroscritture.it/event-details/80-fiori-louis-zukofsky-e-loggettivismo-americano

con Giulio Marzaioli, Paul Vangelisti, e la traduttrice, Rita Florit
coordinamento di Valerio Massaroni​

https://benwayseries.wordpress.com/2024/07/25/louis-zukofsky-80-fiori-80-flowers-benway-series-16/

​Il lettore parte […] per un’avventura in miniatura e meravigliosamente divertente, che corrisponde alla moltitudine in fiore evocata dal poeta. Gran parte dell’impresa dell’affrontare questo testo sta nel dover seguire le improvvisazioni di Zukofsky sulla tradizione floreale e sul linguaggio. Nonostante le osservazioni, anche da parte di commentatori favorevoli, sull’impossibile densità o sull’impenetrabilità di 80 Flowers, penso sia meglio cercare di assecondare la passione del poeta per le fonti classiche e shakespeariane e per il gioco numerico, e lasciarsi guidare dal suo orecchio inesauribilmente attento alla sinergia del linguaggio. Florit cita spesso il fondamentale studio di Michele Joy Leggott, Reading Zukofsky’s 80 Flowers (1989), che interpreta le fitte interazioni linguistiche del poeta come un viaggio contemplativo, o come uno splendido erbario. Come Zukofsky ha scritto nel suo taccuino, le poesie o i fiori «avrebbero avuto origine dai miei libri precedenti, dei quali sarebbero una sintesi». […]

— dalla postfazione di Paul Vangelisti

​

#80Flowers #AlbertoDAmico #BenwaySeries #GiulioMarzaioli #lettura #LouisZukofsky #MicheleJoyLeggott #objectivism #oggettivismo #oggettivismoAmericano #PaulVangelisti #poesia #poesie_ #presentazione #reading #ReadingZukofskyS80Flowers #RitaFlorit #scritturaDiRicerca #scrittureDiRicerca #StudioCampoBoario #ValerioMassaroni

25 ottobre, roma, studio campo boario: “80 fiori”, di louis zukofsky

Sabato 25 ottobre 2025, alle ore 18:00,
presso lo Studio Campo Boario 
(Roma, viale del Campo Boario 4a)

80 FIORI
LOUIS ZUKOFSKY​ E L’OGGETTIVISMO AMERICANO

Per il ciclo “Retrospettive” – del CentroScritture – presentazione del libro
80 fiori, di Louis Zukofsky (Benway Series, 2024)

​https://www.centroscritture.it/event-details/80-fiori-louis-zukofsky-e-loggettivismo-americano

con Giulio Marzaioli, Paul Vangelisti, e la traduttrice, Rita Florit
coordinamento di Valerio Massaroni​

https://benwayseries.wordpress.com/2024/07/25/louis-zukofsky-80-fiori-80-flowers-benway-series-16/

​Il lettore parte […] per un’avventura in miniatura e meravigliosamente divertente, che corrisponde alla moltitudine in fiore evocata dal poeta. Gran parte dell’impresa dell’affrontare questo testo sta nel dover seguire le improvvisazioni di Zukofsky sulla tradizione floreale e sul linguaggio. Nonostante le osservazioni, anche da parte di commentatori favorevoli, sull’impossibile densità o sull’impenetrabilità di 80 Flowers, penso sia meglio cercare di assecondare la passione del poeta per le fonti classiche e shakespeariane e per il gioco numerico, e lasciarsi guidare dal suo orecchio inesauribilmente attento alla sinergia del linguaggio. Florit cita spesso il fondamentale studio di Michele Joy Leggott, Reading Zukofsky’s 80 Flowers (1989), che interpreta le fitte interazioni linguistiche del poeta come un viaggio contemplativo, o come uno splendido erbario. Come Zukofsky ha scritto nel suo taccuino, le poesie o i fiori «avrebbero avuto origine dai miei libri precedenti, dei quali sarebbero una sintesi». […]

— dalla postfazione di Paul Vangelisti

​

#80Flowers #AlbertoDAmico #BenwaySeries #GiulioMarzaioli #lettura #LouisZukofsky #MicheleJoyLeggott #objectivism #oggettivismo #oggettivismoAmericano #PaulVangelisti #poesia #poesie #presentazione #reading #ReadingZukofskyS80Flowers #RitaFlorit #scritturaDiRicerca #scrittureDiRicerca #StudioCampoBoario #ValerioMassaroni

25 ottobre, roma, studio campo boario: “80 fiori”, di louis zukofsky

Sabato 25 ottobre 2025, alle ore 18:00,
presso lo Studio Campo Boario 
(Roma, viale del Campo Boario 4a)

80 FIORI
LOUIS ZUKOFSKY​ E L’OGGETTIVISMO AMERICANO

Per il ciclo “Retrospettive” – del CentroScritture – presentazione del libro
80 fiori, di Louis Zukofsky (Benway Series, 2024)

​https://www.centroscritture.it/event-details/80-fiori-louis-zukofsky-e-loggettivismo-americano

con Giulio Marzaioli, Paul Vangelisti, e la traduttrice, Rita Florit
coordinamento di Valerio Massaroni​

https://benwayseries.wordpress.com/2024/07/25/louis-zukofsky-80-fiori-80-flowers-benway-series-16/

​Il lettore parte […] per un’avventura in miniatura e meravigliosamente divertente, che corrisponde alla moltitudine in fiore evocata dal poeta. Gran parte dell’impresa dell’affrontare questo testo sta nel dover seguire le improvvisazioni di Zukofsky sulla tradizione floreale e sul linguaggio. Nonostante le osservazioni, anche da parte di commentatori favorevoli, sull’impossibile densità o sull’impenetrabilità di 80 Flowers, penso sia meglio cercare di assecondare la passione del poeta per le fonti classiche e shakespeariane e per il gioco numerico, e lasciarsi guidare dal suo orecchio inesauribilmente attento alla sinergia del linguaggio. Florit cita spesso il fondamentale studio di Michele Joy Leggott, Reading Zukofsky’s 80 Flowers (1989), che interpreta le fitte interazioni linguistiche del poeta come un viaggio contemplativo, o come uno splendido erbario. Come Zukofsky ha scritto nel suo taccuino, le poesie o i fiori «avrebbero avuto origine dai miei libri precedenti, dei quali sarebbero una sintesi». […]

— dalla postfazione di Paul Vangelisti

​

#80Flowers #AlbertoDAmico #BenwaySeries #GiulioMarzaioli #lettura #LouisZukofsky #MicheleJoyLeggott #objectivism #oggettivismo #oggettivismoAmericano #PaulVangelisti #poesia #poesie #presentazione #reading #ReadingZukofskyS80Flowers #RitaFlorit #scritturaDiRicerca #scrittureDiRicerca #StudioCampoBoario #ValerioMassaroni

Discussing Metaethics with Craig Biddle

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://objectivestandard.org/discussing-metaethics-with-craig-biddle/

For full context behind the quote and its argument, here’s #AynRand’s complete 1977 Ford Hall Forum lecture “Global Balkanization,” including Q&A:

Audio-only: https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-and-society/education-and-multiculturalism/global-balkanization/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODJNmi_acWI&feature=youtu.be

#politics #philosophy #Objectivism

So‑called “selfish” #capitalism — grounded in voluntary exchange — has united people across borders more than any “One‑World” scheme.

What *remains* of capitalism today is under attack — from politicians, intellectuals, the media. If we want to uphold #liberty in the marketplace, we need to defend it on moral grounds.

Discover #AynRand’s moral case for capitalism: https://aynrand-19886644.hs-sites.com/capitalism

#politics #ethics #philosophy #Objectivism

#AynRand is quoted, misquoted, praised, and vilified — often by people who haven’t read her.

_The Ayn Rand Reader_ offers excerpts from her #fiction and #nonfiction: her ideas, her voice, her terms.

If you’re serious about understanding her — whether to agree or disagree — start here: https://aynrand.org/novels/the-ayn-rand-reader/

#philosophy #books #bookstodon #literature #AynRand #Objectivism

For the full essay where #AynRand develops the principle behind that attached quote: https://courses.aynrand.org/works/mans-rights/

#Objectivism #philosophy #politics #IndividualRights

The only difference between #fascism, #communism, and #socialism is the degree to which the state pretends there is private property. Everything else is just arguing over the color of the jackboots.

https://courses.aynrand.org/lexicon/fascism-and-communism-socialism/

#politics #philosophy #statism #AynRand #Objectivism

@julf @cstross Allison was an #AynRand fan, sure — he would give out copies of “Atlas Shrugged” to employees, even. But just because he jumped to #Cato doesn’t make Cato “linked” to ARI.

ARI's mission is to advocate Rand’s full philosophy of #Objectivism as a whole system, not just politics. Rand herself blasted #libertarianism for reducing her ideas.

Allison’s stint at Cato reflects the same mistake that libertarians make in using Rand to justify their politics. It has nothing to do with ARI.

When speech is treated as violence, violence becomes inevitable. And #PoliticalViolence becomes normalized.

In this #AynRand Institute #Podcast, Onkar Ghate & Nikos Sotirakopoulos examine the murder of #CharlieKirk, tracing the erosion of the speech/force line — from 9/11 to “speech = violence” — and why **zero tolerance for force** is the only rational standard.

https://newideal.aynrand.org/charlie-kirks-murder-who-normalized-political-violence-video/

#Objectivism #FreeSpeech #politics #USpolitics #philosophy #culture #IdeasMatter #reason

Most of Rand's philosophy comes down to rationalizing avarice, but that doesn't mean it can't be useful. #philosophy #objectivism #altruism

https://medium.com/@johnhenryus/the-one-good-thing-about-ayn-rand-514f5663d1cf?sk=0105a8ef7fecf2fe84ac61fbb5c4b59b

#Fascism doesn’t arrive with jackboots overnight—it seeps in through crisis, cult leaders & contempt for law.

In this #OCON2025 talk from July 2, Nikos Sotirakopoulos warns America’s not there yet, but the signs are flashing.

The antidote? Truth & reason—before it’s too late. ⚠️

▶️ The Road to Fascism (and Are We on It?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84rPnU3xE4&feature=youtu.be

#politics #USpolitics #philosophy #Objectivism #AynRandInstitute

@bakerjohnj You’re in luck! #AynRand has an entire *essay* about man’s rights: https://courses.aynrand.org/works/mans-rights/

But briefly: Rights aren’t an afterthought to “sharing power”—they’re its foundation. Without individual rights, calls to “share power” amount to enforced obligation, not genuine cooperation.

#philosophy #politics #Objectivism

What’s left of #capitalism today is under attack—from politicians, intellectuals, the media.

If we want to uphold #liberty in the marketplace, we need to defend it on *moral* grounds.

Discover #AynRand’s moral case for capitalism: https://buff.ly/3lTePNd

And read Rand’s full article here: https://buff.ly/43cRdlx

#philosophy #ethics #politics #economics #Objectivism

@europesays #GlennCarle’s #AynRand critique is the usual straw man built by the same #libertarians he attacks.

Her #philosophy of #Objectivism is an integrated hierarchy:
• Reality is independent of consciousness—facts are facts.
• Reason is man’s only means of knowledge—no faith or feelings.
• Rational self-interest guided by logic is the moral standard.
• Laissez-faire #capitalism secures individual rights by banning force.

Remove any link and it’s empty sloganeering. https://getmona.app/rich_text/673274577730

@europesays #GlennCarle’s #AynRand critique is the usual straw man built by the same #libertarians he attacks.

Her #philosophy of #Objectivism is an integrated hierarchy:
• Reality is independent of consciousness—facts are facts.
• Reason is man’s only means of knowledge—no faith or feelings.
• Rational self-interest guided by logic is the moral standard.
• Laissez-faire #capitalism secures individual rights by banning force.

Remove any link and it’s empty sloganeering. https://getmona.app/rich_text/673274577730

@europesays #GlennCarle’s #AynRand critique is the usual straw man built by the same #libertarians he attacks.

Her #philosophy of #Objectivism is an integrated hierarchy:
• Reality is independent of consciousness—facts are facts.
• Reason is man’s only means of knowledge—no faith or feelings.
• Rational self-interest guided by logic is the moral standard.
• Laissez-faire #capitalism secures individual rights by banning force.

Remove any link and it’s empty sloganeering. https://getmona.app/rich_text/673274577730

@europesays #GlennCarle’s #AynRand critique is the usual straw man built by the same #libertarians he attacks.

Her #philosophy of #Objectivism is an integrated hierarchy:
• Reality is independent of consciousness—facts are facts.
• Reason is man’s only means of knowledge—no faith or feelings.
• Rational self-interest guided by logic is the moral standard.
• Laissez-faire #capitalism secures individual rights by banning force.

Remove any link and it’s empty sloganeering. https://getmona.app/rich_text/673274577730

@europesays #GlennCarle’s #AynRand critique is the usual straw man built by the same #libertarians he attacks.

Her #philosophy of #Objectivism is an integrated hierarchy:
• Reality is independent of consciousness—facts are facts.
• Reason is man’s only means of knowledge—no faith or feelings.
• Rational self-interest guided by logic is the moral standard.
• Laissez-faire #capitalism secures individual rights by banning force.

Remove any link and it’s empty sloganeering. https://getmona.app/rich_text/673274577730

#Selfishness, properly understood, requires not following whims or exploiting others but living by #reason, for your own chosen purpose, with the end goal of flourishing. Discover #AynRand’s #morality of life: https://buff.ly/ImqDDrz

https://www.threads.com/@aynrandorg/post/DOJSrFqiurY?xmt=AQF0ptWlOhnbVGJ4f6RdTpPhFavJaAJVS4n9osXmrpMSxw&slof=1

#philosophy #ethics #Objectivism

As a teenager in Soviet Russia, #AynRand began drafting an untitled precursor to #AtlasShrugged—what she called “the story of the strike.” These early notes reveal a raw, radical phase of her thinking, where moral clarity and creative defiance were still taking shape.

A rare glimpse into the architecture of #Objectivism before it had a name: https://newideal.aynrand.org/the-lost-precursor-to-atlas-shrugged/

#bookstodon #philosophy #indIvidualism #LiteraryHistory #CreativeProcess

👋 Hi everyone, I’m Mark, and this is my #introduction!

I’m a #SoftwareEngineer who codes mostly in #Perl, enjoys discussing #AynRand’s #philosophy of #Objectivism, and shares thoughts on #ballroom #dance, #cosplay, and playing #music on #BassGuitar.

I attend #DragonCon in #Atlanta, as well as #DeltaHCon and #Comicpalooza right here in #Houston.

You may know me from my previous #fediverse / #Mastodon accounts. Sorry about all the jumping around.

Howard Roark doesn't think of you — and that's the point. My deep dive on The Fountainhead (1949): a film that turns architecture into a battle for the soul of individualism.
#FilmCriticism #ClassicCinema #AynRand #TheFountainhead #Individualism #Objectivism #MovieEssays #PhilosophyInFilm #CinemaHistory
https://ninetypercentcrapmoviereviews.wordpress.com/2022/11/01/the-fountainhead/

Most of Rand's philosophy comes down to rationalizing avarice, but that doesn't mean it can't be useful. #philosophy #objectivism #altruism

https://medium.com/@johnhenryus/the-one-good-thing-about-ayn-rand-514f5663d1cf?sk=0105a8ef7fecf2fe84ac61fbb5c4b59b

A few thoughts that relate to the above poem (tanka).

The late Erik Naggum was a controversial figure as a user of programming language Common Lisp and markup language SGML because he was often unreasonably and mercilessly unkind to people he regarded as stupid or people (often newbies) who were unwilling to educate themselves from resources he felt would rescue them from ignorance. I won't make apologies for that. It was beyond rude.

Nonetheless, he was brilliant thinker and I am not one to ignore useful thought because of its source. That is itself a controversial position but it's one I strongly hold to. To do otherwise puts important thought at risk by manufacturing truths or even discovering legit truth about any author. If you were told Homer or Shakespeare or Thomas Jefferson or Maya Angelou or Mark Twain or MLK or AOC or Bernie Sanders was morally flawed, are you then obliged to disclaim or remove their writing. Society would be forever hostage to reputation peddlers. I maintain that the goodness of writing must be judged by the words of the writing, not the author. It's an uncomfortable but necessary truth, as I see it.

Indeed, to read even the thoughts of Hitler or Ayn Rand, neither of whom I thonk well of, can be important. To understand the world and its history, it matters to hear all kinds of people [1].

As I undertand it, Naggum was originally an objectivist. That's how he seemed to present himself to me, as an ex-objectivist. At one time a fan of Ayn Rand and her philosophies. But at some point he had a falling out and came to be a very lucid critic [2], with the sharpness and clarity of one disillusioned by deep and contemplative thought.

His writing is blunt and sometimes intolerant but makes strong points. I found slogging past the unncomfortably phrased parts useful. There's a lot of interesting stuff there.

But one thing he, a Norwegian, once said to me was that he felt the really unique and valuable thing about the American capitalist system was its degree of forgiveness. Elsewhere, he said, if you make a mistake and, you are done, sacked with debt you cannot return from, and given no second chance. The American system of bankruptcy means people can recover and learn from mistakes.

Plainly some do not learn, as one of our co-presidents shows clearly. And you can still do horrible harm that you should not be forgiven for, a problem the other co-president is poster boy for. But there is a place for forgiveness and just tolerance.

Yet instead, having gotten into the treehouse, the co-presidents are not seeking to bring others along, just to pull up the ladder so that no one else can get in, at least not without paying dearly.

Naggum also speaks (and this much is in the referenced essay [2]) of the need to accomodate change and diversity and unfortunate circumstances, which he seems to assert is part of the fabric of society that bring intolerant people to sufficient success that they can start to build a society that espouses no need for such.

These things which are in stark contrast with the writings of Yarvin (the apparent philosophical leader of Vance and the Project 2025 crowd), who seems scarily comfortable with death and suffering [3] [4].

[1] https://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2009/05/freedom-to-hear.html

[2] https://www.nhplace.com/kent/Writing/OS/Naggum-on-Atlas-Shrugged.html (yes, it has some broken links but the important part is the long embedded quote from email he sent me)

[3] https://www.thenerdreich.com/curtis-yarvin-fears-his-authoritarian-fantasy-is-flopping/

[4] https://netsettlement.blogspot.com/2024/10/vance-notice.html

#objectivism #objectivist #AynRand #forgiveness #USPolitics

@tg9541 They get it from the “Atlas Shrugged” novels written by #Russian emigrée #AynRand (where the ‘hero’ is a character named John Galt). Her hyper-rationalist #Objectivism philosophy (#empathy is a sin) was perversely melded into the ethos of so-called fundamentalist #Christians already worshipping #prosperity in the #UnitedStates.

I saw an excellent essay on this #American phenomenon entitled “Who is #Jesus Galt?” that has since been ‘disappeared’. 🤷🏻‍♂️

#Resist #DoNotComply