(July 12, 2016 at 6:33 am)bennyboy Wrote: I think that's too simple. She took the philosophical position that empathy is a weakness of character, that decisions should be made purely rationally and without regard to human emotion. Specifically, she felt that capable people should maximize their capability in following their own great ambitions, without regard to those who might depend on her or be less capable.
All well and good, but I think you're aware she was calling objectivism a closed philosophy. Meaning, it's not open for debate. Of course I can subscribe to reason being my guide. I try to do that every day in my decision making. Following ones ambitions, fine by me. However personal freedom ends where others get hurt and I cannot subscribe to disregarding others, just because they seem to be less capable. By who's standards anyway? It would be a sociopaths world when everyone would subscribe to Rand's whole package. And that's what a closed philosophy means. Take it or leave it, but don't change it.