Just some few mistakes in the basics of Objectivism. There are more reasonable people out there to listen to than Rand.

1. What's Wrong With Objectivism Well, an awful lot, but let's just look at a few things here.

2. First of all: The Axioms Objectivists claim that their axioms are automatically accepted by anyone trying to attack them. Well, this is not the case and I'll show you why. This video requires some actual knowledge of Objectivist theory. I don't want to explain all the basics here.

3. 1.1 Existence Exists This is a rationalistic loop. You start with existence and then claim that it exists. The problem is that you started with existence in the first place. It's a tautological and therefore meaningless statement. It's like Swifty monsels monsel swiftily. There's no content to it. The real question is: Is there existence apart from my experience in the first place?

4. 1.1 Existence Exists Existence can also be denied. What can't be denied is experience. Now you may say that experience is always experience of something, but I think that's a sneaky way of pushing Objectivist Metaphysics down your throat from the very start.

5. 1.1 Existence Exists The first thing there is for you to start with is your experience of smell, touch, color, form, etc. If this comes from actual stuff out there or if it occurs without such stuff (like in a dream or in your imagination or "The Matrix" for example) is precisely the question of metaphysics. Claiming that this is all settled by a tautology which is -in fact- a severe case of the logical fallacy of begging the question does a disservice to the philosophical questions of metaphysics.

6. 1.2 Free Will If existence exists and everything acts according to its nature, then there is no room for free will. Objectivists escape this trap, as far as I can see, by a rationalistic definition game, namely by inventing (haven't heard that term before) „Aristotelian causation“, which is based upon the idea that „entities“ „act“ in accordance with their „nature“. The odd thing is that in the end Aristotelian causation is the same thing as deterministic causation with the single exception of man having free will and being able to act nondeterministically.

7. 1.2 Free Will No idea is given about how this is possible if man consists of physical matter which acts deterministically by their very own theory, especially when you explicitly deny the existence of anything supernatural like mind-over-matter as the Objectivists do. This is a clear contradiction between the axiom of existence and the axiom of free will. Either of these can be true, but never both.

8. Secondly, Ethics Rand claimed „An Objectivist is above all else a moralist.“ This is no doubt a true statement clearly verified by my own personal experience. So let's take a look at her moral theory.

9. 2. Ethics First of all, Rand misunderstands Darwin. She thinks animals exist to survive. This is not the case. Animals exist to reproduce. It's reproduction, not survival, that is the biological goal of all life. After all, all life dies in the end. And only those species made it, which reproduced successfully during their lifespan. This is the theory of evolution in a nutshell and it clearly contradicts the notion of life being the ultimate value of all living beings. Ayn Rand also claims that she bridged the is-ought-gap. She didn't. Choosing life as your ultimate value, she admits, requires your conscious choice.

10. 2. Ethics Tara Smith, while doing an excellent job at describing the Objectivist Meta-Ethics in her book „Viable Values“ (better than Rand herself in my opinion) also fails in solving this one satisfyingly. She admits that before you choose life as your ultimate value, you exist in an amoral state. Then you have to consciously choose life as your primary value. It doesn't stand to reason that you have to choose life as your primary value to exist. Just look at the male praying mantis. It survives genetically by dying individually.

11. 2. Ethics Another thing to note is the work of Albert Ellis, inventor of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. He has clinical studies to prove that the belief in the existence of self-esteem and self-worth, which have to be earned, rating other people, aswell as either-or all-or-nothing-thinking, which are all explicitly encouraged by Objectivism, lead to mental disorders like depression and constant anger among a multitude of others and can be treated effectively by making people drop these mental habits.

12. Each of these arguments is enough ... to dismiss Objectivism as wrong and get on with your life. There's more, but I have a busy life and this should prove to be sufficient. For further recovery, I recommend reading some books on hypnosis, general semantics and REBT to get rid of the unfounded rigid morality. Thanks for your attention.