If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with
The theory of objectivism claims that there are certain things that most people in society can agree upon. A model is pretty. A lawyer is smart. Our society is based upon objectivism. It’s how we make rules and why we obey them.
One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds.
I accept people for who they are and love them. That doesn't mean I have to agree or that I have to turn my back on the tenets of my faith and reject the tenets of my faith when it comes to homosexuality.
If you're a photographer, they give you a camera. If you're a writer, they give you a typewriter. If you're an umpire, they give you an unseen object and they call it a strike zone, and nobody seems to agree with you no matter what you call.
For a lot of readers these days, a book is something you have to agree or disagree with. But you can't agree with a novel. For my generation, it was assumed that a book is a dramatic thing, that the eye of the book is not telling you what to think.
The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree - and thus keeps the road open to man's most valuable attribute: the creative mind.
I think because I've been working in front of audiences for so many years, I'm able to take in the input, good or bad, and just say, 'This is the part I agree with that you're saying, and these are the parts I don't agree with.'
I agree some people are biased, and I agree that they exist in a world of pure, sheer, raw hatred for anything they don't agree with, but I do believe they're also ignorant. I think they're dumb as skunks. I don't think they've been educated. They haven't the ability to hear and listen to common sense and understand what it is.
Now if you call 'Ain't No Half-Steppin' ' or 'Raw' an old-school song, I agree with you. But if you call Big Daddy Kane an old-school artist, I disagree with you.
Whether in conversation we generally agree or disagree with others is largely a matter of habit: the one tendency makes as much sense as the other.
I don't agree that everyone should agree with everyone's lifestyle. I think that some people aren't going to agree, but I think that when you're mean and when you ridicule people it's a sign of your own insecurities.
Friends, if it matters to you, I think it is less important that we agree and more important that we learn to disagree with respect. Let's not expect to agree and get frustrated when it doesn't happen. Let's strive to hear each other out while bringing out the best in ourselves and others. I know it's difficult because I feel it everyday. But I also know it'll be good for us as individuals, for the organization, and the country. I invite you to strive with me and help shift our culture.
To go to law is for two persons to kindle a fire, at their own cost, to warm others and singe themselves to cinders; and because they cannot agree as to what is truth and equity, they will both agree to unplume themselves that others may be decorated with their feathers.
Economists agree about economics - and that's a science - and they disagree about economic policy because that's a value judgment... I've had profound disagreements on policy with the famous Milton Friedman. But, on economics, we agree.
I think that's part of the creative process to disagree about certain ideas. But we also agree just as much as we disagree, I would say.
It is a good thing to demand liberty for ourselves and for those who agree with us, but it is a better thing and a rarer thing to give liberty to others who do not agree with us.