Objectivist Philosophy: Static, dynamic, alive or dead?

[StrictlyLogical]

Is Ayn Rand the last, only, or merely the first great Objectivist philosopher?

 

 

Related sub-questions:

 

Will the next great Objectivist philosopher who contributes, completes, fixes or otherwise improves Objectivism be able to call the subject of his/her work Objectivism?  Any guesses on whether this individual would claim "ownership" to the philosophy or merely further "discovery" of reality as such and happy being recognized as a scientist who made a great discovery?

 

 

Is Objectivism as a philosophy alive and dynamic or static and dead?  What name do we give to the dynamic and alive philosophical framework which can be worked upon by generations to come.... O-type philosophies?  i.e. Assuming a myriad of variations and "children philosophies" borne of Objectivist philosophy over the next few hundred years what would the CLASS of objectivist type philosophies be called?

 

 

If there were a fundamental Objectivist type philosophy which was truly objective (English word) and consonant with REALITY, in say 500 years hence, and adopted by 99% of the population, would people need to even call it Objectivism?  What would a proper name for it be?  Just "Philosophy"?

 

There are no statements above and I have no statements to make.  EVERYTHING above this line is a question (or heading), requiring only answers, and I am curious about your answers.

[dream_weaver]

Did you have an opportunity to review the thread entitled: Objectivism: "Closed" system?

[softwareNerd]

Is Ayn Rand the last, only, or merely the first great Objectivist philosopher?

The best guess that in every major field of knowledge there's more to learn and more greats to come. So, it is a pretty good guess that someone will improve on Rand. It won't make any difference to the knowledge itself, regardless of what we name that person's philosophy.

Since Objectivism is so new, there are all sorts of fans who vie for the name, wanting to say that what they come up with is also Objectivism. Can't see how it matters one way or the other: more important is whether it is true or false.

(Well, I guess is matters in the sense of advertising, etc., i.e. in the impression people might get about the nature of "Objectivism"., but it won't make a difference to the content of the knowledge itself.)

Edited August 14, 2013 by softwareNerd

[Harrison Danneskjold]

It all depends on what exactly "Objectivism" is.

 

We know it's the philosophy that Ayn Rand discovered, but does someone have to read Rand's books in order to be an Objectivist?  For example: if someone has an explicit understanding of the Primacy of Existence, Supremacy of Reason, Rational Selfishness and Individual Rights, but has never read Rand before, are they an Objectivist?

The converse (which exists on this forum): what about someone who has read Rand's stuff and adored it- and uses it to advocate statism?

 

I would categorize philosophies the same way one categorizes anything else; by its essentials.  This would leave Objectivism wide open to any contribution which is consistent with the fundamentals. . . 

[thenelli01]

 

The converse (which exists on this forum): what about someone who has read Rand's stuff and adored it- and uses it to advocate statism?

 

 

No, someone who advocates for statism is not an Objectivist...

 

 

 

I would categorize philosophies the same way one categorizes anything else; by its essentials.  This would leave Objectivism wide open to any contribution which is consistent with the fundamentals. . . 

 

Objectivism isn't equal to its essentials; it is everything included in the philosophy.

 

Objectivism is what it is --- it is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Some of her theories could be expanded a bit and potentially improved overtime - but I wouldn't consider it apart of "Objectivism". Those improvements or expansions would be a new philosophy. Consider that Objectivism is an improvement and expansion on Aristotle. We don't consider Objectivism apart of the Aristotelian philosophy because it is not Aristotle's philosophy, it is a new philosophy.

Edited August 15, 2013 by thenelli01

[Nicky]

Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand chose for her philosophy: the philosophical ideas she formulated. The only thing using that same name to start naming other, related things would accomplish is confusion. In the case of most people I've seen do that, the confusion is somewhat deliberate: they try to use the name itself as an argument for their claims, which is a logical fallacy.

Why risk creating such confusion, when you can simply use another name, like neo-Objectivism or something.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Nicky

[Nicky]

I would categorize philosophies the same way one categorizes anything else; by its essentials.  This would leave Objectivism wide open to any contribution which is consistent with the fundamentals. . . 

Objectivism is not a category, it's a name.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

thenelli01 and Nicky:

 

A rose, by any other name, would still be a rose.  So it really doesn't matter.

 

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that anything which deviates from what Rand wrote constitutes a new philosophy.  Alright.

 

So there's already this post-Objectivism thing, which apparently (I think) advocates Buddhism as consistent with Objectivism.  Now, I agree with the post-Objectivists about anarchy and (I think?) intellectual property, but not about whatever Buddhist nonsense they've written about.

So I would be a separate category, along with Don Athos.  Perhaps hyper-Objectivism. 

And then there are those Objectivists who stubbornly insist that homosexuality is immoral. . . Which is what Rand thought.  (Welcome to neo-Objectivism, Nicky).

---

 

So I just think that if we actually consider every little deviation to be a brand-new philosophy then we'll soon discover dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different philosophies which are almost exactly the same.

And then you'll need a word to distinguish that umbrella-group of philosophies from all others on Earth, and whether or not you use "Objectivism" to do so, that's what you'll be referring to.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Resistance is futile.

[StrictlyLogical]

Resistance is futile. 

 

Sometimes I wonder... if my future son will have a worse time with collectivism and mysticism... or if the recent past will be seen as the worst point the free world reached before recovering into a new age of individualism and rationality.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Sometimes I wonder... if my future son will have a worse time with collectivism and mysticism... or if the recent past will be seen as the worst point the free world reached before recovering into a new age of individualism and rationality.

Welcome to the club.

 

I've thought about that a lot, before. . . A lot. . . And I don't think either axis, reason-selfishness-capitalism or mysticism-altruism-collectivism, will ever be entirely gone.

 

Mysticism has dominated since the beginning of recorded history, but reason hasn't ever totally vanished since it started in Greece.  And it makes sense, too.

Since we're talking about the philosophies of billions and billions of individuals, and each individual has to choose their own philosophy, statistically speaking it's almost impossible that everyone could ever come to one conclusion or the other.

 

So this conflict between the two axis, which has been going on for a long time, is likely to continue for a very long time.

---

That said, reason is held implicitly by almost everyone in the first world, but explicitly by only a tiny fraction of a minority.  We can only expand from here.

 

The future belongs to us.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Spiral Architect]

I would have to agree .  The problem is the axis is in conflict with itself, one example being the so-called "Left vs. Right" split that pundits cry are dividing the country.  They have a monopoly on the argument right now so when one falters the other one swings in.  Thus we get Obama vs. Bush when it is really Obama/Bush vs. Man.  Outside of real education that actually takes hold in the minds of the public (a Second Enlightenment?) it will likely take a complete collapse of both ideas to force people into seeing life beyond the axis powers in control. 

[dream_weaver]

Thus we get Obama vs. Bush when it is really Obama/Bush vs. Man.

Interesting connection. It highlights the first pair serving as a package deal built around a false alternative.