Archive | Objectivism RSS feed for this section

Ten Things About the New "Atlas Shrugged" movie – in lieu of an actual review

16 Sep

1.  It may or may not be better than part 2.  It’s definitely better than part 1.  Libertarians are basically panning it everywhere, not for its (in)fidelity to Rand’s book, but for the talents of the directors and producers.





2.  The production values are somewhere around the level of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation or a B grade made for TV movie.  (Maybe that’s why so many trek actors, like Armin Shimmerman, have been sprinkled throughout this trilogy — they know how to act beside nothing but papier mache and glitter.)



(Shimmerman – are Ferengi interstellar Randians?)





3.  Rob Morrow (as Hank Reardon) and a number of well known TV character actors have bit parts or mid-level parts for which they are either bad casting or oddly brief cameos.


And who knew Hank Rearden was a hot Jewish boy?






(Morrow – I’d eat him with some horseradish!)


4.  Actor Kristoffer Polaha does a very respectable job as John Galt, as well as being both a moderately delicious hunk (though truth be told, aside from some pretty mountains, there isn’t a lot else for the gaze to settle on).  As long time Objectivisty libertarian Republican activist Ann Stone just emailed me “I was not crazy about this one at all…seemed stilted…the only positive was the hunk playing John Galt.”  So far all the gals and gay guys I have spoken to agree.

5.  The torture scene, where the worst of the fascist kakistocracy strip and electrocute Galt to try to force him to become the nation’s economic czar, features only a shirtless, not nude, Galt, unlike the book.  The special effects are also not good even for an old episode of TNG in this scene.  And though Polaha, married and the father of three, is 6’3″ and in better shape than me or most of the people reading this, by Hollywood standards he needs to lift some weights to have shirtless scene quality pecs.  Rearden is also not there to help rescue Galt, as he is in the novel.


6.  Funnily, Polaha does actually resemble a number of good looking libertarian boys, our better looking nerds, although he’s taller.  I think he and Gary Johnson’s son could be cousins.


7. Amazingly a number of people attending the group event screening I attended in Arlington, Virginia were libertarians who have never read Atlas Shrugged.  More amazingly they claimed to understand this movie without having read the book or in some cases having seen the first two installments.  I don’t think it is well written enough to stand alone, but if these other viewers can be trusted, I am wrong.


8.  Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Grover Norquist, among others, all appear, in some cases playing themselves and in some cases as extras.  It’s cute, but when someone does a real version of this someday, starring Anne Hathaway and Joe Mangeniello they should take these “product” placement gimmicks out.  (How come they didn’t get Kennedy to play Cheryl Taggart? I bet she would have been good at it for real.)


9.  It’s actually very touching and almost misty eyed making, mainly the scenes where Dagny and Galt navigate the fact that they want to be together but are on different sides of a war.


10.  The one thing the writers and directors did do well is condense The Speech and figure out how to film it.  Among all the overly long and loving panoramas of redwoods and mountains and the cheesy sets, this they did surprisingly well.

On teaching children to share

3 Jun
Very Bloggy Beth has a great post up on sharing.

Libertarian calendar for April

30 Apr
For Libertarian Party events go here

      <li class="event-stack event-where complete" data-address="2600 Geneva Ave, Daly City, CA” data-id=”660890″ data-name=”Cow Palace Exhibition Hall” id=”event-where” style=”border-top-color: rgb(238, 238, 238); border-top-style: dotted; border-top-width: 1px; color: #272727; margin: 0px; padding: 18px 0px 0px;”>

    *********************************************************************************
    April 25
    8 pm Pacific

    Adam Kokesh on Outright Libertarian radio

    *********************************************************************************
    Washington DC
    April 30

    Who is Happy About Capitalism?

    ***Register here: http://bit.ly/1pz68P6

    Capitalism is the social system for individuals who want to achieve happiness in society. So why is it constantly attacked? Join Tom Bowden for a discussion of Ayn Rand’s unique insights into the system she called an “unknown ideal.”

    Lunch will be served.

    RSVP is required for attendance.

    Register: http://bit.ly/1pz68P6

    *********************************************************************************
    Washington DC
    April 30

    “This Town” by Mark Lebovitch
    6th and I Synagogue

    7 pm

    Admission:
    Ticket: $14
    1 ticket + 1 book: $18
    2 tickets + 1 book: $24
    How to Purchase:
    Online or by phone (877.987.6487 with a $1.50 fee per ticket). Additional fees apply.
    Seating:
    General Admission
    Doors Open:
    6:00 pm

    Mark Leibovich

    In Conversation with Franklin Foer and David Brooks

    Apr 30, 2014 • 7:00 pm
    Hailed as a “hysterically funny portrait of the capital’s vanities and ambitions” (The New Yorker), This Town: Two Parties and a Funeral—Plus, Plenty of Valet Parking!—in America’s Gilded Capital captured America’s attention asthe political book of 2013.
    Washington, D.C., might be loathed from every corner of the nation, yet these are fun and busy days at this nexus of big politics, big money, big media, and big vanity. There are no Democrats and Republicans anymore in the nation’s capital, just millionaires. In This Town,Leibovich—chief national correspondent forThe New York Times Magazine—presents a blistering examination of our ruling class’s incestuous “media industrial complex.”
    …  More +
    More Info: Twitter

    Ayn Rand Miscellany

    21 Apr
    1) Ayn Rand, sort of, and John Galt, kinda sorta, make appearances in this Dadaist film about memory, forgetfulness, awkward social situations, and very common names.  Here’s the trailer; you may have to go to your local indie film festival to see the Rand bits – or you can pay to see it online.  It’s not an Objectivist movie, but it also doesn’t have an evil sense of life.  Besides Rand, James Joyce, H.P. Lovecraft and other authors are parodied.

    2) A completely ignorant internet exam (click here) seeks to tell you your Objectivist quotient.  Unfortunately almost half the questions are very badly designed by an author who knows little about the topic, e.g. he thinks there is an Objectivist position for or against meditation.

    Libertarianism vs. Radical Capitalism: Is this contradiction fictional?

    27 Nov
    Libertarianism vs. Radical Capitalism – The Objective Standard

    The enterprising Craig Biddle actually discusses various libertarian authors, including Objectivism friendly ones, at slightly more length than his predecessors have.

    I think he misses at least one minor and one major point.

    The minor one is that Ayn Rand called her politics “libertarian,” and recommended that word to Joan Kennedy Taylor when she gave Joan advice on her young Manhattan Republican club magazine Persuasion, in the 1960s, until Miss Rand had a tiff with her friend John Hospers leading her to abjure libertarians (having already had cross personal words with Murray and Joey Rothbard).

    The major one being that many libertarians who use the phrase “natural rights” do think of themselves as discovering and articulating those rights by means of Ayn Rand’s or similar neo-Aristotelian philosophies. And when they say people can be libertarians even if they are Zorastrians, Rastafarians, Muslims, or Jews, they aren’t saying any of those religions supply sound foundations for ideas of justice or rights. Just that people do in fact hold libertarian policy positions motivated by their (often new) interpretations of those religions.

    Ayn Rand attracts cowardly rapists

    12 Oct
    Not as fans, but as critics.  Endless little nerd boys who will never have a real thought or write anything of significance will always, like Pavlov’s dogs, come a running to desecrate Ayn Rand’s bones.  And leftover websites with flagging traffic luv to publish pay per view cyber gang rapes of her corpse.

    The authors, from David Sirota at Salon to this little unknown at gothamist, are always nerdy males.  And they always are much more hostile, abusive, and derisive when speaking about Ayn Rand than they are writing about any male author.  It’s all rather obvious.

    Why Isn’t The Government Protecting Us From This Ayn Rand Play?

    10813Anthem2.jpg 
    Matthew Lieff Christian as EQUALITY 7-2521, Courtesy of Carol Rosegg
    Opening this week at the Baryshnikov Arts Center’s Jerome Robbins Theater is the Austin Shakespeare Theatre Company’s performance of Ayn Rand’s novella, Anthem, which maybe you read in high school. The play was adapted and composed by Jeff Britting, the curator of the Ayn Rand Archives at the Ayn Rand Institute in Ayn Rand Irvine, California.
    This press release summary will get you up to speed:

    Anthem is the story of a young man, EQUALITY 7-2521, who is born into a future world that has banished all individuality. Not satisfied with a world lighted by candles, EQUALITY fosters his love of discovery in an abandoned subway, a relic of the past. In solitude, EQUALITY rediscovers electricity and a new source of light. Above ground he meets and falls in love with LIBERTY 5-3000, committing a further ‘sin of preference.'”

    The story is written from EQUALITY 7-2521’s perspective and shown in the play through a series of vignettes. Only plural pronouns like “we” are used and the Unspeakable Word is punishable by death. (Can you guess what it is?) He is assigned to work as a street sweeper. He hangs with his street sweeping pal and talented artist friend, INTERNATIONAL 4-8818. Striving for something more, EQUALITY 7-2521 tries to present his light bulb to the World Council of Scholars convening in his town. They are not pleased and reject his act as treasonous. He eventually escapes, runs into LIBERTY 5-3000, who also ran away, finds shelter and books, learns the the Unspeakable Word (“I”), and (in the book) renames himself Prometheus.
    Some background on Rand: Rand was born in 1905 and emigrated into the States in 1926. She was raised in St. Petersburg, coming of age during the the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and despised Communism. Her father’s pharmacy was put under government control, causing her family to leave the city. They bounced around the country and she studied at a couple universities before coming to America where she began working as a screenwriter.
    10813anthem5.jpg 
    EQUALITY 7-2521 and LIBERTY 5-3000, played by Sophia Lauwers, Courtesy of Carol Rosegg
    Rand’s bourgeois status was her birthright and her burden. Born into the aristocracy about to be thrown out, Rand took issue with that which would threaten it. She went on to write, among other things, The Fountainheadand Atlas Shrugged, and continued to develop her “philosophy” called Objectivism. Rand believed that collectivism killed entrepreneurial creativity through disingenuous ethical/moral justifications, and that the pursuit of individual happiness/wealth/whatever was the supreme moral purpose of life. Rand proclaimed that the only system that protects the rights of the individual is “full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire” capitalism.Emphasis added for effect. After all, Rand was born into a wealthy, successful upper-middle class family. If she could make it, why can’t you?
    And so that is the context for the play. It’s all framed by the considerable force of Rand’s beliefs, pedantically bludgeoning the audience with a fictional world meant to appear stunningly prescient —Oh my god she was right…I can see it all around me! Absolutely nothing is lost is translation; everything is by design loaded with meaning. He names himself Prometheus at the end because he invented light. Do you understand?
    School was too easy for EQUALITY 7-2521. He wasn’t challenged and wasn’t allowed to be challenged. “It’s not good to be different from your brothers,” a Council elder tells him, “But it is evil to be superior.” Broad strokes. The society is oppressive and total, ruled in secret, with standardized and efficient biological reproduction. Women are brought to the House of Mating, raped, impregnated, and then separated from their children. LIBERTY 5-3000 was brought to the House and managed to escape. Upon reuniting with EQUALITY 7-2521, she reassures him they didn’t defile her. EQUALITY 7-2521 is relieved. It’s a weird moment that leaves you uncomfortably wondering what would have happened had she been raped. Would she be ruined, a tainted good, for EQUALITY 7-2521?
    There is talk of the Unmentionable Times, filled with evils like “wagons that moved without horses,” and light without fire. This repressive society is anti-technological, afraid of development. When EQUALITY 7-2521 presents his light to the Council, he hopes that it will lighten the toils of man. His justification for technological innovation is that it will make work easier. There’s a joke about how it took 20 years to implement and standardize the production and operation of candles in society. I guess it’s an indictment of bureaucracy.
    Ultimately [SPOILER ALERT?] [LOL], LIBERTY 5-3000 AND EQUALITY 7-2521 escape the city and find a home. “We can kill more birds, more than we need,” EQUALITY says. Unrestrained, interminable consumption. Everyone can take more than they need, always, endlessly, without regard. What’s a few more dead birds?
    The staging was nice, if only because it distracted you from the diatribe. A large video screen played clips and served as a shifting set as actors traversed the open area dotted with spotlights. The actors did what they could with the dialogue adapted from the story, but couldn’t shake the clunkiness. If EQUALITY 7-2521 and LIBERTY 5-3000 seem a little stilted to you, just imagine how they sound read aloud. Earnestly.
    Anthem is the subject of one of the most popular high-school essay contests for a reason. Nonexistent nuance, simple themes, conventional tropes and devices, a straight-forward epistolary plot. I would agree that you should judge it as a straight-up work of fiction.
    But it’s nearly impossible to approach the work itself, or a theatrical adaptation, as an object of critique in itself because Rand chose to unsubtly perpetuate her beliefs through bad fiction. Not a particularly astounding writer, the result is just ham-fisted propaganda for capitalism. There are more than just passing similarities between her and L. Ron Hubbard. It makes sense that conservative zealots like Paul Ryan were inspired to be a politician by her work.
    Britting believes that “the principle ethical-political issue in Anthem—and of our time—is individualism versus collectivism. Is the individual the primary element of society, or is the group the basis of society? The play poses the questions: Do individuals have the right to think and choose their own goals in life and pursue their own happiness? Or do the wishes of society determine the goals of individual lives, and is service to others the primary moral obligation among men?”
    The above question has the double distinction of being a false equivalency and a purely vacuous ideological question. Yes, individuals have the right to think, for Christ’s sake, and choose their own goals.
    In that spirit, here’s a good thought exercise: If you had to choose between the world of Anthem and a just-as-dystopic opposite (let’s say, instead of government there’s a system of rule based on pure capitalist economics), what would you pick? And why?
    Britting said that he wants the play to be provocative because he believes (like Paul Ryan does) that “the world is going to end up at some point in the future like the world of Anthem, and that’s a very real practical problem.”
    Well, the Soviet Union fell and big scary Cold War Communism mostly disappeared. Capitalism “won,” but where has it led us? To the largest socio-economic gap in recent history; to widespread unemployment; to a weak economy recovering from a financial collapse orchestrated in part by speculative derivative risk trading and predatory loan practices; to a couple decades of extreme deregulation, a massive taxpayer-funded bailout for those same institutions; and to a global economic system of exploitation, beset regularly by instability, dotted with conflicts on nearly every continent.
    Our arms ache and the skies are empty: We are really good at killing birds.
    If Rand’s opinions didn’t pretend to operate as legitimate philosophy, her work is immediately rendered more fun and insignificant. She was no writer, but she was even less of a philosopher. If Objectivism couldn’t gain traction beyond small circles of self-serving elites and earnest frat boys during the Reagan-era, why should we pay any attention to it now?
    Anthem is running until December 1st at the Baryshnikov Arts Center at 450 West 37th Street. Tickets actually will cost you $69.00-$89.00. I repeat, they are charging $70 dollars for this production. More information can be found here.
    Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

    We, the Living

    29 Sep
    Today I am reading Ayn Rand’s “We the Living”. This is the last of her books that I hadn’t read. As always, the writing is hard hitting, original, and stimulating. It’s probably her least well known novel.

    Ayn Rand grew up in Russia under communism. She saw the consequences of what happens when people try to use the government to fix problems. It always makes things worse. A limited objective might be achieved but it will always causes more unanticipated problems. There is no such thing as “smarter” or “better” government. Coercive government is the one unadulterated evil. Always wrong. Liberty, the one unadulterated good. Always right.

    Ayn Rand came to the US when she was young. The differences were stark. Americans had wealth and prosperity undreamt of in Russia. Americans displayed kindness, optimism, and ease in manner that baffled her hardened Russian sensibilities. It must have been like going to a different planet. Who could have imagined that people could live in such a way! What joy! What thrill to have experienced such a change in surroundings at such a young age! To look at the world with young eyes, from the despair and hopelessness of Russia, to the beauty of the relative freedom of America. What an inspiration it all must have been!

    Ayn Rand became frightened by what she saw in her adopted land, and with her adopted people. She loved the Americans in a way that no native born American could. She loved how we acted, how we lived together, and our common decency, but we frightened her. She feared our philosophy. Compared to the material advancement of our people, our philosophy remained barbaric. A twist of fate had made America what it was, this new world, established by pious people pursuing an imperfect, but time tested set of ideals. Our Christian traditions. Now largely gone. Replaced with nothing. God was dead, as Nietzsche explained. America was gliding, out of gas. She saw that.

    Ayn Rand realized that a people, like a person, cannot live without a philosophy, a purpose, a motivation that directs their lives. What’s your philosophy? What motivates you? For what excellence in achievement do you strive? And for why?

    Ayn Rand’s life was a testament to a life lived pursuing an ideal. Ever wonder why so many people love her? Perhaps you’ve mocked those people. Perhaps you are quite certain you understand their ideas. Perhaps you have a comment in your mind when you see her mentioned. Some throwaway, stock phrase that explains away “that whole phenomenon” and lets you get on with your life, after a chuckle.

    An enlightened person, a decent person, is not so quick to dismiss. When someone is screaming, shouting, making noise, repeating the same ideas, refashioned over, and over again, as Ayn Rand did, and those of us who agree with her do, maybe it’s because they’ve discovered something you haven’t! Maybe they are doing so, not because they are petulant, not because they want attention, not because they hate, but because they CARE. If true, if they know something you don’t, and they care enough to act in such a way, maybe there is something to what they are saying. Maybe it is worth your while to try to understand it.

    What do you care about? Ayn Rand committed her life to something. Her life was a testament to something. What about your life? What’s the rest of your life going to be about? Scoffing at the work of others is all wonderful and fine, but at some point, you are going to have to place your own bet. You are going to have to come down for or against SOMETHING. What’s it going to be? And why?

    You can order it here.

    Allan Gotthelf remembered

    7 Sep

    What Allan Gotthelf has chosen to have inscribed on his grave marker:

    “What better life—some precious loves aside—than to have spent my time with the minds of Aristotle and Ayn Rand . . . and to have brought their wisdom to the world.”


    gotthelf



    Allan Stanley Gotthelf (December 30, 1942 – August 30, 2013) was an Americanphilosopher and a recognized authority on the philosophies of both Aristotle and Ayn Rand.[1]


    Gotthelf was born in BrooklynNew York on December 30, 1942.[2] He received a masters degree in mathematics from Pennsylvania State University, and a masters and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Columbia University in 1975, where he studied under professors such as Aristotelian scholar John Herman Randall, Jr.[3] An essay based on his doctoral dissertation (both titled Aristotle’s Conception of Final Causality) won first prize in the Dissertation Essay Competition of The Review of Metaphysics and was published in that journal in December 1976. He began his teaching career at Wesleyan University in Connecticut.
    He was an emeritus professor of philosophy at The College of New Jersey, a life member of Clare HallCambridge University, and visiting professor of the history and philosophy of science at the University of Pittsburgh, where he held the university’s Fellowship for the Study of Objectivism since 2003.[3] He was one of the founders of the Ayn Rand Society (founded in 1987), affiliated with the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division, and held the position of secretary of the Society and chairman of its Steering Committee from 1990 until his death.[4]
    Gotthelf published many articles and reviews in ancient philosophy and science, especially on the philosophical significance of Aristotle‘sscientific methodology and biology.[3]
    In the 1980s, he co-organized numerous international conferences on Aristotle’s biological and philosophical thought, including the 1988National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Institute on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Biology, and Ethics (with Michael Frede and John Cooper). He edited the Festschrift in honor of David M. Balme, Aristotle on Nature and Living Things[5] and co-edited (with James G. LennoxPhilosophical Issues in Aristotle’s Biology (Cambridge University Press, 1987). Gotthelf prepared for publication D. M. Balme’s posthumous editions of Aristotle’s History of Animals (HA): (a) the Loeb edition of Books VII–X (Harvard University Press, 1991) and (b) the Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries edition of the whole of HA (Cambridge University Press, vol. 1: 2002, vol. 2: forthcoming).
    Gotthelf received many honors for his work on Aristotle, including in 2004 an international conference on “Aristotle on Being, Nature, and Life”, held “in celebration of his contributions to the study of classical philosophy and science”; a volume of the proceedings, Being, Nature, and Life in Aristotle: Essays in Honor of Allan Gotthelf, edited by James G. Lennox and Robert Bolton, was published byCambridge University Press in 2010. A volume of Gotthelf’s collected Aristotle papers (including four papers previously unpublished),Teleology, First Principles, and Scientific Method in Aristotle’s Biology, is forthcoming from Oxford University Press in their prestigious Oxford Aristotle Studies series, in early 2012.
    At the University of Pittsburgh, he taught graduate courses on Aristotle and organized various workshops and conferences on the nature of concepts and objectivity and the bearing of these issues on important topics in epistemologyphilosophy of science, and metaethics, including those on Aristotle and Ayn Rand‘s epistemology.[3](See also, in the next section below, his role as editor of the Ayn Rand Society Philosophical Studies series.)
    Most recently, he joined the department of philosophy at Rutgers University as the Anthem Foundation Distinguished Fellow in the fall of 2012, where he taught until his death on August 30, 2013.

    Involvement with Ayn Rand and the Objectivist movement[edit source | editbeta]

    Gotthelf was introduced to Ayn Rand‘s thought in 1961 when, at the age of 18, he first read Atlas Shrugged. He attended many lecture courses and question periods at the Nathaniel Branden Institute, where he worked as an usher (and in other capacities), and where in 1962 he first met Ayn Rand. For over fifteen years, he had many opportunities for sustained philosophical discussion with Rand; for instance, he was an active participant in Rand’s famous 1969–71 Workshops onIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology,[6] and subsequent smaller workshops at Rand’s apartment. He was Rand’s choice for indexer of her collections, The Virtue of Selfishness[7] andCapitalism: the Unknown Ideal.[8] As an undergraduate at Brooklyn College in 1963, Gotthelf founded one of the early college-based “Ayn Rand Clubs,” under whose auspices Rand herself lectured to an audience of over 1000. It was suggestions from both Gotthelf and Leonard Peikoffwhich motivated Rand to write her extended monograph on concepts, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.[9]
    Starting in 1964, he spoke on Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, countless times at colleges, universities, and private groups throughout the U.S.CanadaBermudaEurope, and Japan.[3] He is the author of On Ayn Rand, still the best-selling book in the Wadsworth Philosophers series, and he co-authored (with Gregory Salmieri) the entry on Rand in the Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers.[3][10] He was co-editor (also with Salmieri) of the forthcoming Wiley–Blackwell volume, Ayn Rand: A Companion to Her Works and Thought, expected out in mid-2013, and published two essays in Robert Mayhew’s Essays on Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged: “Galt’s Speech in Five Sentences (and Forty Questions)” and “A Note on Dagny’s ‘Final Choice’.”
    As mentioned above, Gotthelf was one of the founding members of The Ayn Rand Society, and held its highest office. At the time of his death, he was the editor (with James G. Lennox as associate editor) of the series, Ayn Rand Society Philosophical Studies, published by the University of Pittsburgh Press. The first volume, Metaethics, Egoism, and Virtue: Studies in Ayn Rand’s Normative Theory, was published in early 2011. The second volume, Concepts and Their Role in Knowledge: Reflections on Objectivist Epistemology, is scheduled for publication in mid-2013. The first volume includes his essay “The Choice to Value (1990)”; the second volume leads off with his essay “Ayn Rand’s Theory of Concepts: Rethinking Abstraction and Essence.”

    The Allan Gotthelf Prize[edit source | editbeta]

    The Allan Gotthelf Prize, established by the Classical Studies Faculty at The College of New Jersey upon Gotthelf’s retirement, is awarded annually to an outstanding graduating senior for his or her work in the Classical Studies program. The winner is announced at the departmental graduation ceremony and is recognized on a permanent plaque.

    Back to School Special

    7 Sep

    Politics and Philosophy of Ayn Rand

    Brown University, Department of Political Science, POLS1823P  •  Fall 2013  •  Tuesdays 4:00pm–6:20pm
    This seminar will examine the political and philosophical thought of Ayn Rand (1905–1982). We will begin with her political ideology and continue to the philosophical foundations she claims justify that ideology. The latter quarter of the seminar will explore applications of her philosophy to foreign affairs, religion, current events, and areas of student interest. Our sources will include Rand’s non-fiction essays, her novel Atlas Shrugged, the main exposition of her work Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, and criticisms by Robert Nozick and others. Enrollment limited to 20 juniors and seniors. 

    You too can be more Objective!

    30 Jul
    OAC logo

    Applications for the 2013-2014 academic year for the Objectivist Academic Center (OAC) are being accepted. 
    The OAC is a distance-learning program designed to provide expert guidance in the study of Ayn Rand’s philosophy to those who are serious about advocating reason, pro-individual rights, and pro-capitalism views.
    The OAC was designed with the conviction that Ayn Rand’s ideas would have a major positive impact on today’s culture if more people were to understand them deeply and work to spread them. If you are inspired by the power of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and interested in exploring the possibility of a career in academia or public policy, then consider applying to the OAC today.
    The application deadline is September 9, 2013.
    This is a highly competitive program and early application submission is encouraged. As an additional bonus, completed applications will receive a $10 credit to the Ayn Rand e-Store. For details on how to apply, please visit the OAC website or contact the OAC administrator with any questions.

    OAC Apply Button