[Maud]

My Objectivist Credo

I live my life for myself,
Not for the sake of others.
My virtue is not pity,
My goal is surely joy.

I breathe not for the poor,
No matter how wanting.
I think not for idle,
No matter how tired.

I struggle for me,
My own being my goal.
I work for myself.
No matter how disparaging.

I never hold my hands out,
Without reaching up.
I never reach down,
Unless he is reaching up.

I shall not deny reality.
I shall accept and believe.
What I can change I shall.
And for that which I can't-
I'll try indefinitely.

A world with only love,
Is a loveless world.
Selflessness does not exist,
If one receives its products.

Art can only be the goal,
Of what man should achieve.
I do more then hope,
I work and believe.

These are the words,
By which I breathe.
These are the thoughts,
By which I exist.

I truly am - ME.

[Syrah]

My virtue is not pity,
My goal is surely joy.

although it fits the poem, surely changes the flow.

I never hold my hands out,
Without reaching up.
I never reach down,
Unless he is reaching up.

The two uses of up feels repetitive and redundant, even though the message is related yet different. Perhaps something more along the lines of... "Unless I am being met" (Bad example, I know.. but an example none the less)


Although it isn't bad.. this is not one of my favorite of yours. It is definitely different from what you usually write and therefore I give props.

[ejenk21]

I have been wanting to talk about some things with a Randite. If you would like to take this up in some other forum, just tell me which one.

I assume you are a libertarian. Suppose your country is invaded, so that it is involved in a just war. Assume that insufficient numbers of young men volunteer to defend their country. They are, like you, living for their own sakes.

I don't think I need further assumptions.

Would you say "Very well, my nation will be conquered. It clearly wasn't worth defending."?

Would you stretch your principles and draft these men, or accept conquest and possibly tyranny?

These questions are sincere. I have struggled with them myself.

[Corneac]

Not bad DS...I rather enjoyed this. I liked the overall feeling of optimism that it seemed to bring to life. About living life for yourself, a universal truth that more should take heed of.

Technically, there were a few things that put me off. I have to agree with Syrah on several points. For example:

A world with only love,
Is a loveless world.
Selflessness does not exist,
If one receives its products.

You used love in the first two lines, it's minor, but it just seems a bit much. I noticed you did this several times within the poem, probably intentional, probably trying to reiterate a certain point to the reader? Repetition is hard too pull off, a balancing act that is very difficult to achieve. It was overtly used in this piece and to no avail. It just makes the poem look clumsy and monotonous. I would suggest maybe switching around the some of the words to make it work a bit better?

I find it really hard to make non-rhyming poetry, something I try really hard to do it. But more often than not I fail miserably. I think would did it rather well here but the fifth stanza ruined for me. The line length changed, and the rhythm which was working became corroded.

A nice piece muad, a colourful use of diction and a beautiful notion. I would suggest cleaning it up a bit; it could expand into something great. I did rather enjoy reading it though...nice one mate.

[Maud]

Simple, I had a similar discussion with my brother ejenk. I am not a pure objectivist and I belive in a property and sales tax. by buying something and owning property that constitutes the consent. Without having to pay for welfare, social security, etc. The govt would be able to pay soldiers into college real decent wages, and plus any employer loves seeing someone that was in the military because they know they can lead and follow when neccesary. The same reasons that people join the army now (I think atleast). Also patriotism is not neccesarily selfless. By protecting a good country you are protecting your future. As an objectivist I would be happy and willing to fight for an objectivist country, not out of selflessness just because that is where I would be most happy.

I always love discussing objectivism and any questions are always welcome as long as no one gets to emotional about it. Some people get really mad over it.

[Rose]

The flow, as was stated before,was off. The structure of the stanzas in combination with word/syllable choice just doesn't work. I've read some of your poems and know you can do better.

[Avathar]

I found this write pretty entertaining. In a way, thus, I didn't take it to be very serious, so I suppose you might have missed your aim. Overall very narcissistic throughout. Praps you've never thought that maybe helping others is a genuine human self-interest - due to the joy found thereof?

[RENA HANDS]

The endings were a bit knotty, but the ideas expressed are still understood.

I breathe not for the poor,
No matter how wanting.
I think not for idle,
No matter how tired.

Beyond the repetitive wordings I will state that this piece was very entertaining and informative of a bureaucratic system.

[Syrah]

I breathe not for the poor,
No matter how wanting.
I think not for idle,
No matter how tired

yes. looking at that stanza... perhaps slight additions.....

I breathe not for the poor,
No matter how wanting.
I think not for the idle,
No matter how tiring

Anyway. Just a quickie response to RH's critique

[Venomous Vixen]

The one stanza with 5 lines threw me a little as all of the others were so uniform, but it seemed to fit given the additional line at the end of everything. Nicely worded with some good thoughts and metephors. Also a very good outlook on a way we should live, for ourself above all others, for that is who needs to be truly happy first and then it just becomes contageous. Very nicely portrayed! Oh and glad to see you have returned!

[alloallo3]

Not bad. In fact it was pleasantly iconoclastic (as opposed to edgy, the highly overrated aesthetic of the moment). Like so many others I just get tired of feel good nonsense. Thanks.

[Phonoho]

This is about as dry and uninteresting as a warranty registration card, the kind that you don't send in. Later, I'll rework these lackluster words into a colorful rebuttal but with a less stigmatizing title.

[Venus]

Allright I didn't read this one to attempt correcting the grammar and all that jazz. I feel like as an editor I sometimes get wrapped up in that and never just react to a poem. I really enjoyed the read and more than any sort of rhyme scheme or flow or anything like that, I just loved the fact that you were able to put your ideas and views across so well that people who don't care much for your views, can atleast gain an idea of why and what you believe. I would really enjjoying discussing the impossibility/possiblity of altruism and Rand's ideas that everything has a selfish root. Great Job Maud.

[Maud]

Well I dont think any reasonable person belives in a society of pure altruisim, and for the unreasonable I could care less. I just could never understand why anyone would work for something that is unattaniable in its purest form. As human beings we need a goal. Like it or not man is always working for something, why not work for ourselves? Objectivisim is about one thing, working for ones happiness. Any man who is against achieving happiness isnt a man.

As I read more Ayn Rand, and live more life, I dont see the point of debating any more. I will continue to post objectivist ideology, those who are open to reason, will listen. Those who are not wont. I dont want other opinions, I dont need them. I didn't decide on objectivisim overnight, it took time, but in the end I seen it makes me happy. I love being my own person, and to understand that all my debts are voulntery. I was never asked to live my life for others. I never signed a contract or made a pledge. There is no rule in the constitution that says I have to life for the sake of others, so being an American doesnt make me one either. Society is not civilzation. The product of a man's mind is civilization. Having a mind, not giving it away, makes me a part of civilization.

I do not belive in God. I owe him and his creations nothing.
I do not want to recieve handouts from the goverment, and owe them nothing.
I have never forced any man to help me out, they should do the same.

Charity is fine, is long as its not the purpose of your existance. A man should live by his own achievments, feeding a parasite is not an achievement, your thought has created nothing. Mother Teresa, the Pope, and the homless people on Halsted St in Downtown Chicago have one thing in common- they have never created anything. Their mind has led to no achievment. You writers here have, you have works as the creation of your own mind. Dont ascribe your achievments to god, to your teachers, etc. you have done it. It was you who have put your words on paper, acknowledge them for giving you those words, but understand that the work as a whole is yours. The same rules apply to society. You and your creations are one in the same. You are not the property of God, neither are your works.

The man who pays taxes (myself), the man who ascribes his success to another man (acknowledging influences is a different matter), the man who lives for the sake of anything other than his own happiness, is a slave. Slavery did not end with the civil war, it has never ended. What is the difference between a cotton picker and an accountant? Nothing. The products of their labor are not their own. They are stolen by the goverment for the sake of others. But today you dont even get a face on your theifs. Instead of chains, they give you guilt. Guilt are the chains of the 21st century, they are holding you down in society. It is Guilt that says you must help another man when he is poor, it is Guilt that says you must pay taxes for a goverment you disagree with, it is Guilt that kills troops in Iraq. We are born into Guilt, we die with it. Why should we live with a guilt we can never repay? How can we have guilt for a deed done before we were born? Why am I responsible with the guilt of another man's fate when I dont even know the other man?

I refer constantly to you, but I also mean myself. I was asked in another thread, why dont I just seperate from society. I have. But I refuse to seperate from civilization. No man built a skyscraper for the "greater good," the light bulb wasn't invented for "the less fourtanate," and Colmbus didnt establish permant relations with the New World and Europe for "God." These men did it for themselves and those they loved. They did it for what they belived in. Great men do things for great reasons, selfishness.

I will try to use only one quote by Ayn Rand, "Let no man posture as an advocate of peace if he proposes or supports any social system that initiates the use of force against individual men, in any form."

I dont see any objecvtivist discussion as off-topic here, that is what this poem is about.

Oh and to the critics of this poem, I wrote this on a whim one day and fully understand that it is no masterpiece. But it is certainly better then Bush Oh Bush, yet their are less dissenting voices to that work, hm... I wonder why?

[Wmason]

It seems to me that your poem should be entitled "My Relativist Credo", seeing as how we are dealing with a philosophy that stems from "I" - a subjective being with desires, opinions, dispositions, in other words: a bias. Objectivism, on the other hand, is the position that right and wrong are objective notions independent of human thought.

[Maud]

if you knew what objectivism is you would feel like quite the fool right now. Objectivisim is not hedonisim. There is a complete moral system, with objective right and wrongs. (Objectivism though refers to the epistomology of the philosphy not the morality.) But seriously before you say something stupid like that, please for my sake and for your own, think.

[modfiction942]

I'm a firm believer in the virtues of objectivity, which is why your title piqued my interest, but this strict objectivism you speak of is too much. I won't argue philosophy - it'll get ugly - but i am madly tempted. The poem reads like one of the drier spots of "Song of Myself." What's the use of a poem without an image? You could be preaching the most righteous idea in the world, but nobody will read it if it's presented in such an abstract and condescending way. Sure, fellow objectivists will love it, but what's the point of that? If you want to preach, write a sermon. If you want to move people, write a poem.