It is inherently flawed and is a frankly rediculous extrapolation of Platonism aplied to abstract conceptual phenomena.

*Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy.
Terry Pratchett

No. Okay, I was going to leave it at that, but it probably deserves a bit more. Any genuine philosophy has to take into account the is/ought problem; that is, the way it is v the way it "ought" to be. Objectivism doesn't. At all. It just rolls what it think are oughts and goes from there. It is based on the idea that a philosophy has no contradictions, which is nonsense, and completely adverse to how humans actually work. AND it is actually full of contradictions.

NFC

Ayn Rand died broke and alone, living off of social security. I think that says enough for objectivism, jmo

Absolutely not. Just like more "standard" religion, it's based on a flawed basis.
... and, shock, horror! From a hypocritical individual with questionable motives & morals & psychological imbalance. A latter-day experiment in the creation of a new religion. Alas.

I think objectivism is about morals?

It's very college-sophomore libertarian, I think.

How would I know?
I am but a simple man.....

Rand coined the "fallacy of the stolen concept" -- endorsing a concept while denying the antecedent ideas that it is genetically dependent upon. The canonical example is the statement, "All property is theft". But property rests on the antecedent concept that there's such a thing as rightfully owned property. If there is not such a thing as rightful ownership, then there's no such thing as personal property, and you can't make statements about it, as you'd be stealing a concept that you actually reject.

However you have to be careful in using it, because it's easy to take your opponent out of context. "Property is theft", as originally uttered by Prudhon, was not meant as a literal blanket statement; he regarded ownership of land and factories as an illegitimate theft from the commons, so the actual statement was meant to suggest that the legitimate owner is society collectively. So he in fact had a concept of rightful ownership. Perhaps at most he was guilty of using the word "all", he should have probably said "all such", forcing the reader of the statement to seek out the context, or something along those lines.

This seems to be typical of Objectivism, to come up with facile "gotchas" based on a mischaracterization of opponents. Or at least its what I have encountered in discussion with objectivists, and what I have gathered from reading Rand's fiction. To an objectivist, all who do not endorse objectivism are oppressors of those who would be free spirits and individualists. As if that was even a binary choice.

I have seen it used to justify people acting like total jerks. One person I knew would answer every debate with paragraphs of diatribe on the subject and quite frankly, it read like BS. Maybe that was just his take on it. For me it's like over confidence in the free market's ability to solve every problem. It starts sounding dogmatic and cult-like. But again, I only ever knew that one guy...

I've taught philosophy at the college level for decades now. Now and then someone asks about Rand and whether or not she is considered a philosopher. I'm on the fence, but if you forced me to choose, I'd say "no." The argument for her being a philosopher is that she did at least attempt a "complete" philosophy (in that she did cover the three major areas of epistemology, metaphysics and ethics over her career); for any modern philosopher, covering all these areas is something you must do to be taken seriously. The argument against her being considered a "real" philosopher is that her coverage of 2 of the 3 areas was abysmal and post-hoc (it was developed in response to criticism that she had not covered these areas, hastily contrived, and contained several areas that are arguably plagiarized). Finally (and perhaps most importantly), she demanded complete obedience from all of her followers, rather than a healthy intellectual debate/elenchus; even decades after her death, the vestiges are still with us. Her defenders tend to treat the entire sum of her work as revelation and any criticism as apostasy. Typically in philosophy we find people defending some aspects of (for example) Plato, while criticizing/improving upon others. With Rand, any criticism is a fool's errand, as her followers (sometimes facetiously referred to as "Randroids" ) will commit any mental gymnastics to defend any and all of her philosophical notions. I avoid "debating" with Randians, as I find it to be a parallel experience to debating with religious fundamentalists.

I'd say yes, Objectivism is a legitimate philosophy. Quite frankly I don't care that it isn't widely loved or respected by most philosophers.

Most people I talk to about Objectivism have a hang-up about Selfishness being a virtue. To that, I say first that selfishness simply means focused on the self. People often misinterpret this to mean that you are condescending or taking advantage of others.

Is self esteem important? Self love? Self respect? Self image? Self worth? Self acceptance? Self actualization? Absolutely they are, so how the hell is selfishness a bad thing?

Objectivism promotes rational selfishness: pursuing goals and values through actions that are congruent with your best interest. Doing drugs is not rationally selfish as it is unhealthy. Price gouging customers is arguably not rationally selfish as it may drive them to a competitor. The free market involves voluntary exchange between parties for mutual benefit. If your personal or professional relationships aren't providing mutual benefit, you may need to reconsider your position or actions.

Selfishness is a GOOD thing, but you need to distinguish between rational selfishness and irrational selfishness.

I should also say I say I am an Objectivist, but am not a Randist. I do not agree with everything Rand said. I do, however, view Objectivism to be a valid, legitimate philosophy.

Ayn Rand thought so.

I think it has useful components .. i would say that.. Those components have been pre identified though so just a different angle on an old set of explanations for me maybe! maybe i should read more onit.

Jusy a matter of opinion. i feel I should be the one in control of my destiny and will do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. I feel that is pragmatic and not narcisstic.