Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for Value of Reason — Объективизм: философия Айн Рэнд

Channel

Value of Reason — Объективизм: философия Айн Рэнд

@valueofreason

On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry

116subscribers

-1 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001515160193
TypeChannel
Username@valueofreason
CreatedBetween 1 August 2021 and 31 March 2023— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded9 August 2026
Last confirmed live24 August 2026
Measurements held3
Confirmed unchanged2 times, most recently 24 August 2026
On Telegramt.me/valueofreason

Growth

116117116.56 August 2026 — 117 subscribers9 August 2026 — 117 subscribers16 August 2026 — 116 subscribers6 August 202616 August 2026
3 measurements spanning 9 days, net -1. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 116–117 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
16 Aug 2026, 02:24116-1
9 Aug 2026, 05:00117no change
6 Aug 2026, 18:49117first reading

Engagement

20 posts held, back to 21 November 2025the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days
52.6%
avg views ÷ 116 subscribers
Avg views / post
61.0
1 post measured
Reaction rate
9.84%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
2
of 20 held

ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.

ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.

What these figures were computed from
WindowRolling 30 days · latest post in window 3 August 2026
Posts held20 (21 November 20253 August 2026)
Views total61
Reactions total6
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken9 Aug 2026, 05:00 UTC

Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.

Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.

Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.

Reaction mix

135 reactions across 18 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 52.6% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
7152.6%
🔥3022.2%
❤‍🔥2619.3%
💘85.93%

No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.

Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.

Coverage. Reactions were read on 18 of the 20 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 135reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 21 November 2025 to 3 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.

Telegram Stars

Stars received
41
across the posts below
Posts paid on
3
of 18 we hold a reading for · 17%
Most on one post
14
single highest reading

A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @valueofreason. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.

Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.

This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.

Counted over the 20 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 21 November 2025 to 3 August 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.

Recent posts

2 Aug 2026, 14:00 UTC61 views6 reactionsread 9 August 2026

Человек живет не одними лишь интеллектуальными принципами. На его жизненный путь влияет не только то, во что он сознательно верит (например, какие убеждения он отметил бы, отвечая на вопросы в анкете), но и то, как он воплощает эти убеждения в своей жизни. Эгоист может прекрасно понимать назначение морали, природу ценностей, добродетелей и всего остального, однако это еще не означает, что он будет последовательно дей

6

9 May 2026, 10:10 UTC222 views15 reactions14 Starsread 9 August 2026

Помимо прочих своих недостатков, общепринятая мораль никак не затрагивает формирование характера у детей. Эта мораль не учит ребенка, не показывает ему, каким он должен стать, когда вырастет, и почему, а лишь навязывает ему свод правил — в основном запретов и обязанностей, — которые не имеют силы принципов, произвольны, иногда противоречат друг другу и чаще непонятны, чем понятны. Ребенок, в чьем представлении этика

8❤‍🔥5🔥2

27 Apr 2026, 12:34 UTC160 views9 reactions14 Starsread 9 August 2026

«Высокая вероятность чудовищного зла не должна парализовывать тех, кто видит его приближение. Она должна вести не к прекращению действия, а к его началу. Это парадокс, но всё же истина: чем хуже грядущее, тем сильнее оно должно побуждать его противников — тем больше должно укреплять их страсть защищать себя и свои ценности от надвигающегося натиска, даже когда вероятность поражения велика, пока остаётся хотя бы шанс

5🔥3💘1

17 Apr 2026, 16:40 UTC339 views7 reactions13 Starsread 9 August 2026

(5/5) Еще один пример — рационалистическое отрицание контекста. Познать догматические — то есть не соотнесенные с контекстом — абсолюты можно лишь в том случае, если они познаются безо всякого участия человеческого сознания. Поскольку сознание не вносит вклада в знание, последнее мыслится как некая реальность, просто воздействующая на вас извне, порождая убежденность, подобно удару молнии среди ясного неба. Поэтому

7

17 Apr 2026, 16:40 UTC259 views6 reactionsread 9 August 2026

(4/5) И, наконец, мой последний пункт о рационализме: какова его фундаментальная философская основа — та метафизика и эпистемология, на которых он покоится? В одном слове — интринсицизм. (Термин «интринсицизм» в философии Айн Рэнд обозначает установку, согласно которой истина принадлежит вещам как таковым, независимо от сознания и вне познавательного процесса. Истина понимается как нечто уже полностью данное в самой

🔥6

17 Apr 2026, 16:40 UTC202 views5 reactionsread 9 August 2026

(3/5) Помимо этого, сам метод крайне непрактичен: он не работает. Потому что в нем заложено принятие исходных посылок оппонента, принятие его основного подхода. А сделав это, вы в долгосрочной перспективе проигрываете. Единственный способ спорить с человеком — оспаривать его в самом основании, как мы увидим, когда дойдем до объективистского подхода к полемике. Но это прямо противоположно рационализму. Рационалист бр

🔥5

17 Apr 2026, 16:40 UTC63 views7 reactionsread 9 August 2026

(2/5) В чем же недостаток этого метода? Само по себе указание человеку на противоречие не является ошибкой. В конце концов, рационализм не обладает монополией на неприятие противоречий, так что вполне допустимо мимоходом сказать: «Ты сейчас противоречишь сам себе: ты сказал А, а теперь говоришь не-А». Но если это становится вашим основным методом аргументации, это крайне опасно, поскольку вы перестаете обращаться к

🔥5💘2

17 Apr 2026, 16:39 UTC240 views8 reactionsread 9 August 2026

Леонард Пейкофф, «Понимая Объективизм», девятая лекция «Рационализм и эмпиризм» (1/5) Синдром рационалиста включает два различных аспекта, касающихся полемики. Во-первых, рационалист испытывает очень сильную потребность в нее вступать. Он чувствует неуверенность, ведь, сколько бы дедукций он ни провел из сколь угодно большого количества якобы непогрешимых постулатов, и как бы ни утверждал, что его аргументация пос

4❤‍🔥4

2 Feb 2026, 21:13 UTC168 views12 reactionsread 9 August 2026
Photo

2 февраля — день рождения Айн Рэнд Фотография: Ayn Rand Institute Value of Reason VK, Medium

❤‍🔥54💘3

14 Jan 2026, 16:44 UTC267 views8 reactionsread 9 August 2026
Photo

На сайте Ad Marginem появилась возможность оформить предзаказ на «Старость» Симоны де Бовуар в моем переводе!

6❤‍🔥2

9 Dec 2025, 11:04 UTC296 views6 reactionsread 9 August 2026

(2/2) Патерсон переворачивает марксистскую схему. Технологический уровень, утверждает она, — это и есть «надстройка», а фундаментом развития служат политические идеи и институты, которые либо позволяют человеческой энергии свободно циркулировать, либо перекрывают ее. Без определенного политико-правового контурирования никакая техника не появляется и не развивается. На историческом материале — от Древнего Рима до Ам

4🔥2

Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @valueofreason. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.

Stars beside a post are paid reactions — Telegram Stars, bought with money and spent on that post. They are a different unit from reactions and are never added to them, here or anywhere else on this page.

Citation-graph rank

Citation-graph rank — 521,920 of 1,624,904entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.

Forward network

Republished by

Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.

Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.

Cite this entry

A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 16 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“Value of Reason — Объективизм: философия Айн Рэнд” (@valueofreason), 116 subscribers as measured 16 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/valueofreason.

Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.