Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Release

Is Objectivism a dogma?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

For all your years as an Objectivist, you should know what a "package-deal" is, and that this is that.  Objectivism is a personal philosophy -- it's Ayn Rand's personal philosophy.  To call oneself an Objectivist is to have used one's own mind and one's free will to determine that Ayn Rand's philosophy is true.  Are you bound to her conclusions?  No.  You are free to reach whatever conclusions you wish -- you just aren't free to call yourself an Objectivist if you differ with Rand on a philosophic principle.

I respectfully disagree. To be an Objectivist is to live the philosophy not to worship it or the individual who named it. This is my issue. A philosophy of the individual can not be regulated by any organized group or set of rules. Though I agree she defined Objectivism I disagree Rand is it's creator. One might describe the makeup of an atom or discover a new principle in physics but that does not mean they invented the atom or the principles they find.

I think it a very hard concept for some to admit that people may have lived a rational philosophy prior to Rands lifetime. I generally dislike pointing to her fiction for examples as the epistemology generally works better, but it does help to see what she was thinking. Rands Objectivist characters are arch-typical and so are good examples of her though process concerning the philosophy. Roark and Galt were born Objectivist, that is to say they sprung fully formed and nowhere is it even hinted that either character went off to study philosophy to have the rational views they lived by. Therefore it must have been in Rands mind that there were individuals who indeed naturally lived objectively with rational self interest as their philosophy without the aid of a formal organized movement or philosophy professors to open their minds to it. Again these characters are meant to be archetypes and not the norm so I grant that perfect knowledge and execution such as they exhibited would be impossible.

As to the "Package Deal" I may be misunderstanding your meaning. Rand would never sanction package deal thinking. Objectivism is indeed a personal philosophy, but it is not just Ayn Rand's personal philosophy. She herself knew that over associating her rather than the tenets of Objectivism was a bad road to follow. I doubt any true practitioner of Objectivist philosophy would ever regard Rand as some Godhead to worship nor her works as some holy word to be followed blindly. The idea of being rational precludes that.

Again Objectivism is a philosophy not a religion. The titles Randite or Randian tend to grate and are used by critics and the irrational. So I can and will call myself an Objectivist because it is the best description to externalize my way of life, should it ever be associated with a political party or become more cultlike in it's asperations I would disasociate myself from the term as the definition will have been changed regardless that the actual philosophy is intact. I would rather be what I am than to seem to be something based on titles.

Cheers

JD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, Welcome to the forum.

You ask the following:

Do we have the free will to rationalize for ourselves or are we bound in biblical style to the words of the author?
I suppose the question is rhetorical. Nobody is bound by anything other than reality. So, any idea is only valid if it is true, regardless of author.

Take an example from physics: are we bound by what Newton said? Well, only to the extent that it is true. We owe him a great debt -- if I had lived in his times, I do not think I would have been the one to make the intellectual progress he did.If later scientists find that some of Newton's ideas need to be refined, are only applicable to certain contexts, or ar actually incorrect -- that's fine and good. [Aside: If they were to call their new findings are "Newtonian", that would surely be questionable.]

If the theme of your post is that: "Objectivism is only true to the extent that it matches reality", then that is pretty uncontroversial.

If your theme is: "Some people and organizations call themselves Objectivist without really understanding the philosophy, but rather by treating it as 'edict'", then you're right, some people and some organizations do. Fortunately, many do not.

Am I understanding the main thrust of your post to be the latter theme, or would you like to summarize it differently yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though I agree she defined Objectivism I disagree Rand is it's creator.  One might describe the makeup of an atom or discover a new principle in physics but that does not mean they invented the atom or the principles they find. 

This is an invalid analogy.

Objectivism is a product of free will--of a human mind. It is a philosophy--an integrated system of ideas living within the skulls of human beings. It is a mental abstraction--not a raw concrete material (or metaphysical fact) to be found in the reality outside our brains.

Such a thing requires a volitional mind for its creation. In a certain sense, all Objectivists create Objectivism in their own individual minds--just like the followers of the Wright Brothers create their own airplanes, and the followers of Jesus Christ create their own hatred for their own natural selves.

But Ayn Rand was the first one to come up with her philosophy, and she was the first to teach it to others, and she was the first to write it down in books. That is why she gets to name it.

To deny Ayn Rand the status of Objectivism's creator is to deny the right to the product of one's own mind. It is an attempt to openly steal another person's mental creation.

Edited by IntolerantMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No human, even Ayn Rand can experience everything in one lifetime or learn all there is to know.

She never had children nor did she write about them. Do Objectivists not reproduce? No, we just apply the proper view of reality, Objectivism, the best we can to raising children. If she had had children, then maybe she would have been able to give some helpful advice I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I respectfully disagree.  To be an Objectivist is to live the philosophy not to worship it or the individual who named it.  This is my issue.  A philosophy of the individual can not be regulated by any organized group or set of rules.  Though I agree she defined Objectivism I disagree Rand is it's creator.  One might describe the makeup of an atom or discover a new principle in physics but that does not mean they invented the atom or the principles they find.

I think you're confusing the philosophy of Objectivism with the ideas it contains. To be sure, Ayn Rand did create Objectivism--it was her personal philosophy by her own definition. Was she the first person to think of the principles behind Objectivism? No, and no one would claim she did. Her epistemology is largely rooted in Aristotle and her ethics is similar to that of the existentialists.

I'm sure there were also probably people of the past who lived by the principles of Objectivism but did not know they were doing so as the philosophy hadn't been invented yet.

I think it a very hard concept for some to admit that people may have lived a rational philosophy prior to Rands lifetime.
I don't think anyone anywhere is levying the claim that Ayn Rand was the first rational person on Earth. Thomas Paine is one of my personal heroes and he lived two centuries before Ayn Rand was born.

Roark and Galt were born Objectivist, that is to say they sprung fully formed and nowhere is it even hinted that either character went off to study philosophy to have the rational views they lived by.

Roark and Galt were not Objectivists. Objectivism did not exist in their universe.

Therefore it must have been in Rands mind that there were individuals who indeed naturally lived objectively with rational self interest as their philosophy without the aid of a formal organized movement or philosophy professors to open their minds to it.
Agreed.

As to the "Package Deal" I may be misunderstanding your meaning. Rand would never sanction package deal thinking.  Objectivism is indeed a personal philosophy, but it is not just Ayn Rand's personal philosophy.  She herself knew that over associating her rather than the tenets of Objectivism was a bad road to follow.

Agreed. However, those of us who call ourselves Objectivists do so because, after studying Ayn Rand's works, we believe them to be essentially correct philisophically.

Again Objectivism is a philosophy not a religion.
Agreed. However, it appears that here you are confusing your personal philosophy with Objectivism. Everyone has a personal philosophy, implicit or explicit. Not everyone is an Objectivist.

For claritys sake, imagine the time period when Ayn Rand first called her philosophy Objectivism. As she had not yet given her philosophy a name, some were referring to it as "Randism." She hated the name and gave it the name Objectivism to avoid the former term being used as much as possible.

Now, we call Aristotle's personal philosophy "Aristotlism," Kant's "Kantism," etc. However, those who call themselves Aristotlists or Kantists are those who generally agree with the philosophy of Aristotle or the philosophy of Kant. Do people hold the same premises who have never heard of Aristotle or Kant? Undoubtedly. However, those people would be dishonest to call themselves a Kantian since they are not familiar with Kant's philosophy to comment on it.

So with Objectivism. If you get confused, imagine it being interchanged with the term Ayn Rand hated, "Randism."

The titles Randite or Randian tend to grate and are used by critics and the irrational.

Agreed. Those terms are typically used as derogatory referring to those who supposedly do everything Ayn Rand said to the letter. These are the people who like Rachmainoff and hate Beethoven because Ayn Rand said so. Personally, I also like Rachmanoff and Beethoven both. I also like rock music and am a homosexual. However, none of these points are part of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. As such, I'm honest when I call myself an Objectivist.

So I can and will call myself an Objectivist because it is the best description to externalize my way of life, should it ever be associated with a political party or become more cultlike in it's asperations I would disasociate myself from the term as the definition will have been changed regardless that the actual philosophy is intact.  I would rather be what I am than to seem to be something based on titles.
It's all a matter of perception but I can understand where you're coming from on those remarks. However, I'm not ashamed to say that I'm selfish despite the negative connotations that word gives.

I guess it's up to an individual what they want to call themselves.

Cheers 

JD

Cheers! Welcome to the board!

Edited by redfarmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, "existentialism" is a broad term. Which existentialists do you regard as positing a similar ethics to that of Objectivism, and in what respects?

her ethics is similar to that of the existentialists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, "existentialism" is a broad term.  Which existentialists do you regard as positing a similar ethics to that of Objectivism, and in what respects?

One I've studied some that she bears a resemblance to is Nietszche. And, before I start a flame war, notice I used the word similar, not exact. There are some important differences. Rand believed it was immoral to sacrifice another human being to achieve your values. Nietszche did not. This is one of the many reasons I'm an Objectivist and not a Nietszchen. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redfarmer, which (if any) works by Nietszche would you recommend reading? Are there any written by other authors which do a nice job of summarizing his philosophy?

Thanks,

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redfarmer, which (if any) works by Nietszche would you recommend reading?  Are there any written by other authors which do a nice job of summarizing his philosophy?

Thanks,

Phil

Thus Spoke Zaruthusa is one of his most famous and complete works. There is also a lecture available through the Ayn Rand Bookstore by Andrew Bernstein which summarizes Nietschze's views and explains how they are similar to and different from Ayn Rand's views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Ayn Rand] never had children nor did she write about them. Do Objectivists not reproduce? No, we just apply the proper view of reality, Objectivism, the best we can to raising children.

This is a perfect example of what I wrote about in my previous post: the attempt to steal Ayn Rand's philosophy in broad daylight. Now Erik would have you believe that Objectivism is "the proper view of reality." It is the case, of course, that Objectivist principles are true to reality, but that is not the philosophy's definition.

The name I have chosen for my philosophy is Objectivism.

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

To say that Objectivism is "the proper view of reality" is to strip it of objective meaning--to prepare the way for turning and twisting Objectivism into whatever one believes is the proper way to view reality.

This very thread is a result of the influence of the preachers of the "open-system" view of Objectivism--a view held by the wannabe thieves of Ayn Rand's philosophy. As a matter of principle, I hope that the moderators will immediately close this thread and say "no" to the enemies of Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If open and free exchange is our capital then we can never devalue the currency by restricting when, how or what can be traded.

More ammunition to support my case. This is the last line of the first post in this thread. The post creator's motivation is pretty clear to me. He wants an "open and free exchange" of ideas, even if what he is preaching is anti-Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the suggestions Red. :thumbsup:

This very thread is a result of the influence of the preachers of the "open-system" view of Objectivism--a view held by the wannabe thieves of Ayn Rand's philosophy. As a matter of principle, I hope that the moderators will immediately close this thread and say "no" to the enemies of Objectivism.

You've made some interesting points and I've enjoyed reading what others have said thus far in this thread. Do we really need to have it closed down immediately "as a matter of principle"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't closed it, but I have moved it to a forum where it is more appropriate. Honest questions are welcome, however persistantly asserting as truth views that are against Miss Rand's stated wishes and the policies of the major living Objectivist Intellectuals (Dr. Peikoff especially) is grounds for a warning.

Objectivism is not a religion. If you don't agree with the principles, you're not an Objectivist, simple as that: "Objectivist" is a descriptive term, not some kind of title bestowing the honor of knighthood upon those that merit it; we are not depriving you of honor by refusing to acknowledge you as an Objectivist if, in fact, you aren't one. It would be like me going around complaining that people won't call me "black" . . . even though I'm so white I could pass for one of the undead. Same deal.

It is important HOW you arrived at the conclusion that you agree with Objectivism because of the nature of the philosophy itself. However, the fact that you attempt to adhere to reason does not necessarily make you an Objectivist, nor does it make everything that you think an Objectivist principle.

I alternate between calling myself an Objectivist and a Student of Objectivism as the situation merits; when I'm talking to people who are unfamiliar with/uninterested in Objectivism, I call myself an Objectivist as a descriptive term. When I'm dealing with more intellectual Objectivists, I tend to refer to myself as a student, because even though I've been studying for ten years I can't claim that I speak for the philosophy. That, and I don't want them to quiz me :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you phrased your question wrong, jimdevine. Perhaps you meant:

Is Objectivism a personal philosophy or THE objective philosophy? Does Objectivism allow dissent from Rand's philosophical arguments, are we rationally bound to recognize the true, regardless of how we feel about it?

Of course, the two options aren't necessarily exclusive.

jimdevine, your question, as phrased, is answered by DPW. As phrased, your question can't give any meaningful answer, because perhaps both options in your original question can have whatever attribute you seem to find undesirable.

However, perhaps this question is irrelevant. The ideas of Objectivism are objective, as all contrary arguments have been refuted by Objectivist theory.

Though I agree she defined Objectivism I disagree Rand is it's creator.

You make some assumptions, but I agree. As Objectivism is based on objective reality, it has the same relationship as science. Scientists don't create something new, they discover the existent. They come to understand the nature of reality.

Check your premises. Ultimately, it is up to each of us to reconcile the contradictions of d'Anconia qua playboy and d'Anconia qua man of the mind.

As a matter of principle, I hope that the moderators will immediately close this thread and say "no" to the enemies of Objectivism.

The irony.

Edited by hunterrose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roark and Galt were not Objectivists. Objectivism did not exist in their universe.

Objectivism did exist in Galt's universe.

What was the chapter "This is John Galt speaking" (in AS) all about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite agree with JMeganSnow and RedFarmer here. I can understand how Jim would be put off by those Objectivists who go to the extreme (IMO) of hating Beethoven only because Ayn Rand hated him. I agree with him that it is wrong to worship the person- I admire Ayn Rand immensely but it is her philosophy that I follow not Ayn Rand herself. I was having a discussion with my husband about this just last night. He was claiming that everyone who is "indoctrinated with Objectivism" (his words not mine) follow Ayn Rand blindly doing whatever she says is right or wrong. I let him know right away this was not the case at all. When I learned about Objectivism through Ayn Rand not everything that I was learning was 100% new to me. In fact I would say that I was already following a lot of the Objectivist principles.

The reason I chose to study Objetivism further was because until then I had no idea that anyone else in the world had the same thoughts. I really thought I was some strange anomaly or something. Ayn Rand did me and many other people a huge favor by writing down the principles she followed and turning it into a well-defined philosophy. She might not have been the first one to espouse them but she carried them into the 20th century when a lot other philosophies (socialism for example) were more popular and threatened to do away with it. She brought Capitalism, reason/logic, romanticism, etc. back to the forefront and it was not easy (as I learned in her biography). That is why I think we owe her the fact of calling ourselves Objectivists and studying her philosophy in-depth so as to never misrepresent it.

P.S. like Megan I vary from calling myself Objectivist and Student of Objectivism as I have only known it for about one year and cannot accurately state I know everything there is to know about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Objectivism did exist in Galt's universe.

What was the chapter "This is John Galt speaking" (in AS) all about?

shakthig, this is like saying you can have Christianity without Christ, or Marxism without Marx. The reason Objectivism isn't called "Randism" is because Ayn Rand foresaw the need to give her philosophy a discrete name, and instead of calling it after herself, a detail she probably considered accidental and irrelevant, she chose to name it after its central defining factor; the principle of objectivity.

The only real -ism referenced in Atlas Shrugged was altruism, and since there were only two groups involved in the story, the heroes hardly needed an -ism to identify them.

Fiction is not real life; ascribing all the characteristics of one to the other is, at best, a grievous error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I quite agree with JMeganSnow and RedFarmer here. I can understand how Jim would be put off by those Objectivists who go to the extreme (IMO) of hating Beethoven only because Ayn Rand hated him.

As I recall, Leonard Peikoff likes some Beethoven and so stated to Ayn Rand. Liking or disliking a particular composer (assuming it's real music) is not exactly like disagreeing on a core philosophic principle.

Personally there's a lot of Beethoven that I like as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Instead of calling it after herself... she chose to name it after its central defining factor; the principle of objectivity.

I guess the only question is what do we do should Rand and reality go separate ways? If we should, through an increased context of knowledge about reality, find Ayn's philosophy to be errant in some significant respect (read: not Beethoven, prefering d'Anconia, etc,) does Objectivism (and thus, Objectivists) sway with Rand, or sway with objectivity? Or is it unnecessary to formulate principles of actions about theoreticals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shakthig, this is like saying you can have Christianity without Christ, or Marxism without Marx.  The reason Objectivism isn't called "Randism" is because Ayn Rand foresaw the need to give her philosophy a discrete name, and instead of calling it after herself, a detail she probably considered accidental and irrelevant, she chose to name it after its central defining factor; the principle of objectivity.

The only real -ism referenced in Atlas Shrugged was altruism, and since there were only two groups involved in the story, the heroes hardly needed an -ism to identify them.

Fiction is not real life; ascribing all the characteristics of one to the other is, at best, a grievous error.

Most of the things you said are irrelevant.

Objectivism is the philosophy discovered by Ayn Rand.

John Galt (in the novel Atlas Shrugged) explicitly advocated and lived by a philosophical framework which corresponds identically with the philosophy which was discovered by Ayn Rand in real life.

On what basis are you objecting to the fact that I said that Objectivism did exist in Galt's universe?

Is it because the word "Objectivism" was not used in AS?

I should add that in this instance it doesn't make any difference what Ayn Rand chose to call the philosophy she discovered. If she had chosen to call it "Randism" I would have said that Randism existed in John Galt's universe.

I know that fiction is not real life. But there is nothing wrong in describing some aspect of a story I have read using terms that are used in real life, so long as that description is valid.

Edited by shakthig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that a few things have been forgotten...

First, Objectivism is 'A' philosophy, not philosophy. Or, in other words, it is a contribution to the field of philosophy (A most significant one that is!). Philosophy, by its nature, has to be open-ended (As long as human-beings are to walk the earth). Yet 'a philosophy' (a contribution to the filed), by its nature as the achievement of a single mind, has to be close-ended. Otherwise, with someone changing 'this', and another altering 'that', it would no loner be a whole. 'Objectivism' is the intellectual achievement of Ms. Ayn Rand, it is (or should be) a close-ended whole.

'Objectivism' is the most accurate philosophy to date and should be the beginning of any further knowledge or discoveries. Yet, it is by no means complete. Ayn Rand herself pointed out a few areas that should be elaborated and studied further, like the field of ‘Aesthetics’ for example (The objectivist approach to music is highly subjective). It actually contains a few minor mistakes which, fortunately, do not essentially flaw the philosophy (only their implications are of significance). I chanced to read an article on the subject which states the point thoroughly. (It is not the usual, brazen attacks on 'Objectivism' or rationality as such, but actually written with the proper respect to Ms. Ayn Rand, her philosophy and reality)

I will try to find the link and post it here.

As I said, Objectivism is the most accurate philosophy available today (to the extant of my knowledge). Therefore, I do assume the title 'Objectivist', meaning that I agree (with) and follow the principles of this philosophy. Yet, I believe that Ayn Rand had opened a road to be followed- That it is the beginning of a journey, not the end (as some would like to think). Moreover, any new discoveries (including the discovery of minor flaws in 'Objectivism') are made possible only thanks to Ayn Rand and the use of her philosophy!

As to individual philosophy, the fact that each man has a philosophy is obvious (which, of course, must be individual). Yet 'individual' does not serve as an antonym to 'Objective' in this context. With 'Objectivism' Ayn Rand proved that, by a conscious process, an individual can (and must) hold an objective philosophy. This, if consistent, will also enable him to correct any mistake he might have made on his way.

I do agree that, unfortunately, there is a 'cult-like' air around Ayn Rand’s works. I'm not familiar with many people who read Ayn Rand, yet those who did- failed to get to the bottom of it... Usually, either by blind admiration, or blind hatred (the reasons for both are obvious enough). Rarely have I met objectivity. Worse cases I've chanced to read were deliberate attempts to use statements and conclusions from

'Objectivism' to form its anti-thesis (Things like 'Neo-Tech'- I think that was the name...) Other cases were just ridicules, such as an article I've chanced to read; which offers to be seen in public with an Ayn Rand book as a way to impress the other sex... (I do not read the paper or use the internet that often- so I can only imagine how much more there is...) As to the two institutes mentioned in previous posts, I honestly don't know enough to state an opinion- but usually institutes prove to be a negative...

As for Objectivist involvement in such a field as politics, I believe it to be the only chance this country (or the world) still has--Yet I cannot see how it can happen...

Like Leonard Peikoff said in his book, today’s chaos only philosophers could cause- or correct…

Well, I do believe that rational philosophy is the only hope, and a political party with a base in Objectivism can be the only way to halt Socialism and ultimately- a dictatorship.

Yet, as I said, I cannot see how it can happen…

(Although it shifts the discussion to a different angle, I will be happy to learn more on this subject—anyone with information can also PM me to avoid shifting this topic…)

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roark and Galt were born Objectivist, that is to say they sprung fully formed and nowhere is it even hinted that either character went off to study philosophy to have the rational views they lived by.

Roark and Galt were not Objectivists. Objectivism did not exist in their universe.

Objectivism did exist in Galt's universe.

What was the chapter "This is John Galt speaking" (in AS) all about?

Objectivism does exist in the Universe of "Atlas Shrugged" (although not named as such). But it is the invention of philosopher Hugh Akston (one of John Galt's teachers) rather than of Ayn Rand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though I agree she defined Objectivism I disagree Rand is it's creator. One might describe the makeup of an atom or discover a new principle in physics but that does not mean they invented the atom or the principles they find.

Honest questions are welcome, however persistantly asserting as truth views that are against Miss Rand's stated wishes and the policies of the major living Objectivist Intellectuals (Dr. Peikoff especially) is grounds for a warning.

[Jim Devine] make some assumptions, but I agree. As Objectivism is based on objective reality, it has the same relationship as science. Scientists don't create something new, they discover the existent. They come to understand the nature of reality.

I sincerely hope that Hunter Rose will receive the same warning that Jim Devine received. (Personally, I would ban them both without hesitation.)

It seems that Rose is in the habit of repeating anti-Objectivist dogma in spite of the many clear and rational arguments on this thread that have proven him wrong.

It would be a shame if this board became so polluted with these "open-system" trolls that the fresh smell of reason could hardly be detected any longer.

While some of us debate the meaning of the new Harry Potter book, there are those on this board, like Jim Devine and Hunter Rose, who are attempting to manipulate and destroy the very definition of Objectivism.

Wake up, people! You are not dealing with honest "open-system" advocates here. You're tolerating the enemy--the enemy who wants to redefine, and thus destroy, the meaning of Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sincerely hope that Hunter Rose will receive the... warning...

While some of us debate the meaning of the new Harry Potter book, there are those on this board... who are attempting to manipulate and destroy the very definition of Objectivism.

Oh, stop fear-mongering ;)

I hate to distract you from efforts to analyse Potter with my questions and statements about the nature of Objectivism. I didn't realize Rowling's books were so important.

I apologize for affending anyone, especially if someone would tell what was wrong in my comments (as IntolerantMan is too busy piecing together the significance of the Half-Blood Prince.)

Isn't Objectivism based on objective reality?

Doesn't it have the same relationship as science, in that both are derived from objective existents?

Did Rand fabricate principles, or derive principles from objective reality?

As IntolerantMan has used my quote, I can only imagine one of these statements was either false, or not to be asked. Personally, I think nitpicking over whether such things are "created" or "discovered" is irrelevant, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Let me know which ones were prohibited or incorrect, and I'll make sure it doesn't happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't Objectivism based on objective reality?

Doesn't it have the same relationship as science, in that both are derived from objective existents?

Did Rand fabricate principles, or derive principles from objective reality?

Both . . . assuming by "fabricate" you mean "construct" instead of the more perjurous meaning of "imagine" (to fabricate can mean to lie).

Metaphysics is discovered: there is nothing to know about reality except what is in reality. Epistemology (which was Ayn Rand's greatest area of philosophical contribution apart from Esthetics) is created. Please remember that man's creativity is the ability to form new combinations of pre-existing elements, thus bringing into being that which had not existed before (such as a steam engine, or an ethical principle). Since the remainder of philosophy is derived from Epistemology, it, too is creative in nature.

(I am thinking that, since conforming to reality is a volitional process, the method of making certain one's mental processes do so has to largely be invented; you are welcome to disagree but I really don't care either way.)

No one argues that Kant or Hegel's systems should be "open": they said what they said, and it's up to you whether you decide it is true or not. If you find Objectivism to be false, why on earth would you still want to call yourself an Objectivist while practicing something else?! A philosophical system is an integrated whole: if part of it is false then the whole structure crumbles.

Is there something to be gained by being a titular "Objectivist?" What is it? Undeserved recognition as an intellectual?

IntolerantMan . . . I have noticed that all of your posts to date have been vicious attacks on relatively new members that are likely still feeling their way through the intricacies of Objectivism. If you find this thread offensive, cease reading it. I highly recommend that you read the Forum rules and post an introduction in the appropriate forum before continuing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...