To be an O'ist, do you have to be an Atheist?

[JMeganSnow]

JMegan, seeing as how Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy, in the most literal sense, you cannot expand on something she did not expand on. And you will see Objectivist intellectuals acknowledging this, i.e. Dr.Peikoff, where they say that though their new works are consistent with Objectivism, they aren't Objectivism themselves.

That's fair, I was just curious.

[redfarmer]

Oh and by the way, OPAR is not part of Objectivism, as Dr. Peikoff himself says in the Introduction.

Oh I wasn't aware of that. It's been a while since I read the introduction and I thought that since the lectures the book was based on were approved by and participated in by Ayn Rand, they were a part of Objectivism. I stand corrected.

[TomL]

That is wrong, and frankly malicious on so many levels.

I agree, but read again what I wrote. I said, quite distinctly, "most people in the culture", not "me".

You seem to believe that Objectivism is godliness and holy truth, and therefore we must extend it to new truths. So, although you accuse everyone else of being dogmatic in treating Ayn Rand's philosophy, it is actually reverse, that only you are the one treating her so.

You are confusing me with the bulk of people in society, possibly because you have misread what I wrote.

I do not have a problem with the fact that Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philsophy, but to leave it at that in the presence of non-Objectivists gives the impression (and in fact, a fairly convincing one) to a large majority of the current world-culture that we are cultists worshiping our god, Ayn Rand. And that is not the image we ought to be projecting.

I agree that it is short-sighted and illogical of them to do so. I agree that the truth of Objectivism is wholy separate and apart from the fact that Objectivism is what Ayn Rand declared it to be, and can never be anything more.

But if we are to effect a change on the culture, we have to be smarter than they are, understand what their issues with Objectivism are, and explain why they are wrong.

All I am saying is that it is a bad idea to define Objectivism as "Ayn Rand's philosophy" and leave it at that in the presense of non-Objectivists, especially if they are looking for ammunition to use to convince others not to pay attention to it.

When someone asks what Objectivism is, I always answer at first with the 5 brances of philosophy, and the Objectivist view on on each. Only later, after they have integrated a considerable amount and I'm reasonably sure they won't stamp "dogma" across the whole thing and move on, do I tell them that Objectivism is Ayn Rand's and noone else gets to add/modify/delete -- especially if they start asking about TOC.

I wish to also state that I know that Peikoff's validation of induction is not part of Objectivism. What is part of Objectivism is the fact that induction is valid, according to at least one source that I have already quoted. And it is to this phenomenon I refer when I say that Objectivism is complete. No philosopher is ever going to come up with a new philosophic premise that is true, consistent with Objectivism and totally "new" e.g. without any connection to Objectivism as Ayn Rand has already defined it. There is plenty of room for validation on various topics, but I contend there is nothing truly "new" to add.

For any new works outside of philosophy -- well, obviously they are not part of Objectivism because Objectivism is a philosophy, and philosophy does not extend beyond the 5 branches. It is a guide, and does not consist itself of the truths which are discovered by using it.

Edited February 27, 2005 by TomL

[Free Capitalist]

I do not have a problem with the fact that Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philsophy, but to leave it at that in the presence of non-Objectivists gives the impression (and in fact, a fairly convincing one) to a large majority of the current world-culture that we are cultists worshiping our god, Ayn Rand. And that is not the image we ought to be projecting.

The image you try to project then is false, and a lie to those non-Objectivists. One can always portray different sides of the same thing, at different times. So you can talk about the philosophy itself, not its closed status. But if they ask you whether it's closed or not, you must answer yes. Otherwise you are comitting a fraud upon everyone else, including yourself, if you believe your actions to be appropriate. Pragmatism has never worked.

But on a personal note, I never had a problem you're describing. The good people will not be stuck on the philosophy's closed status, and the rest I don't care about.

Edited February 28, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[TomL]

But if they ask you whether it's closed or not, you must answer yes.

Of course I would tell them if its closed or not, if that's what they ask. I am no liar. But starting out with that bit of information is going to do more harm than good. If it had been presented to me that way, I would not only have put VOS down and stopped reading it, I probably would have burned it.

And see: I turned out OK in the end.

But on a personal note, I never had a problem you're describing. The good people will not be stuck on the philosophy's closed status, and the rest I don't care about.

Facts alone are not enough to separate good people from bad. There are psychological components of individuals that you are ignoring.

A single item of trouble, especially something where the conclusion will be drawn based entirely upon what they reflect from the culture, does not make them bad people and does not mean we should give up so easily on them. They are making a conclusion based on a psychological reaction -- an emotional reaction -- and if they understand at some point they were wrong to do so, then that one thing won't matter anymore.

Just because philosophy does not subsume psychology, doesn't mean you can throw psychology out the window and ignore it when dealing in philosophy. You are still dealing with people, and people have psychologies. I do not agree with Branden in the regard that philsophy should subsume psychology; but I do think that Objectivism forms the basis for and upholds a particular psychology that is vastly different from the one prevelant in our culture. We must be mindful of both, and the fact that the rift is wide. People trying to cross the rift will need help, not only at the beginning but ongoing, especially since the science of psychology is still wallowing in Skinner's behaviorism.

[Free Capitalist]

Tom, I agree with you in spirit (I think). But you're ignoring one important thing: pragmatism does not work. You cannot lie in order to "lure" people in. The conclusions they draw are their problem, not yours.

[TomL]

Tom, I agree with you in spirit (I think). But you're ignoring one important thing: pragmatism does not work. You cannot lie in order to "lure" people in. The conclusions they draw are their problem, not yours.

I am not being pragmatic and I am not lying to anyone. Including psychological factors as a consideration in dealing with a person is not "pragmatic". What is "pragmatic" is throwing psychology out the window because Objectivism doesn't say anything directly about psychology.

The conclusions non-Objectivists draw about Objectivism is my problem, if I want to be surrounded by more Objectivists. Granted that your method accomplishes that at times by chance, when you find someone who does not have the particular psychological hangup I am trying to work with. But you can increase your effectiveness by acknowledging it and trying to find a way to deal with it, rather than simply ignoring it and focusing on Objectivism alone.

Overnight I thought about this a great deal, as to why the psychology implied by Objectivism is so obvious to me and so lost on most other Objectivists. After thinking about it I realized that Ayn Rand never said anything directly about psychology, either in the non-fiction or in the fiction. When I myself began studying Objectivism, I was doing so for psychological reasons, so I read VOS and later OPAR with the explicit purpose of "making myself feel better", implicitly, to repair my tattered psychological state. I am happy to report that I was more successful than I originally had hoped for. There was something else unique about my study of Objectivism I have not seen equaled anywhere -- I was 29 when I started. That gave me the advantage (I thought at the time, the disadvantage) of a decade of adult life experience that taught me implicitly how important psychology was.

Since there seems to be a total lack of psychology work based on Objectivism, I think it might be interesting for me to explitize this knowledge of psychology I built for myself fully and write it down. I am not an expert in psychology in that I do not have any degrees or have taken any courses in the subject, but given that the current state of "psychology" is a behaviorist train-wreck, that is probably to my advantage. It may very well be that we really need to hit the reset button on psychology, go back to Objectivism, and start over anew. We can reintegrate any compartmentalized, true facts about psychology as we go.

[TomL]

For one piece of evidence of what I'm talking about, check out this thread.

[redfarmer]

I am not being pragmatic and I am not lying to anyone.  Including psychological factors as a consideration in dealing with a person is not "pragmatic".  What is "pragmatic" is throwing psychology out the window because Objectivism doesn't say anything directly about psychology.

Objectivism doesn't say anything about psychology because Objectivism is a philosophy, not psychology. Psychology is a specialized field. Philosophy tells psychology how to conduct its work but not the conclusions to draw. Have you read Ayn Rand's essay "The Psychology of Psychologizing" in The Voice of Reason? It sounds to me like you're psychologizing your acquaintances too much.

The conclusions non-Objectivists draw about Objectivism is my problem, if I want to be surrounded by more Objectivists.

Their evasions are, in fact, not your problem. If they ask a question and don't like the answer, that is their problem, not yours.

Since there seems to be a total lack of psychology work based on Objectivism, I think it might be interesting for me to explitize this knowledge of psychology I built for myself fully and write it down. 

I don't understand what you mean by "psychology work based on Objectivism." If you mean psychologists who are also Objectivists, then there are plenty of those around, most notably Dr. Ellen Kenner, Dr. Michael J. Hurd, Dr. Edwin Locke, and Dr. Jonathan Rossman. The type of psychology practiced most often among Objectivists is cognitive therapy.

I am not an expert in psychology in that I do not have any degrees or have taken any courses in the subject,

If you are not a psychologist, then quit trying to psychologize your friends. You are not trained to do so and can actually cause more harm than good. All you are qualified to analyze is what they actually said and what they actually did.

but given that the current state of "psychology" is a behaviorist train-wreck,  that is probably to my advantage.

Agreed, but there are alternatives to the current trend of psychotherapy, such as cognitive therapy.

It may very well be that we really need to hit the reset button on psychology, go back to Objectivism, and start over anew.

Once again, Objectivism, as a philosophy, cannot tell us anything about psychology other than how to obtain our knowledge. If you really want to advance the science of psychology, go back to school and get a degree in psychology. Then you'll be qualified to perform as much research as you want.

[AisA]

  After thinking about it I realized that Ayn Rand never said anything directly about psychology, either in the non-fiction or in the fiction. 

Please define what you mean by psychology. Merriam-Webster defines psychology as "the science of mind and behavior". Are you saying the Miss Rand never said anything about the mind and behavior?

[Free Capitalist]

Tom, okay, there are two separate issues here, the philosophical aspect and the psychological aspect.

I am not being pragmatic and I am not lying to anyone.

Philosophically speaking, yes you are lying to people, if you tell them Objectivism is not a closed system in order to lure them in.

Psychologically speaking, yes you are lying to people, if you try to adapt the facts of reality to their needs in order to make them feel more welcome. As I said before, there are many different attributes for Objectivism. You can stress other aspects of it and try to avoid the subject of the philosophy's status as a closed or open system; that is a valid and sometimes practical course of action. But if they ask you flat out whether one can add new ideas to the philosophy, you must answer no.

---

I recommend you look up the definition of pragmatism. From Google's define: pragmatism:

Theory that the truth of ideas, concepts and values depends on their utility or capacity to serve a useful purpose rather than on their conformity with objective standards

In other words, let's ignore what's right and wrong, and only concern ourselves with what works and what doesn't. This is pragmatism.

So when you accuse me of pragmatism by saying that I consider psychology irrelevant because it's not in Objectivism, your accusation makes no sense, given proper definitions (you may accuse me of other things, but how in the world am I being pragmatic?). On the other hand, when I observe that you want the practical results (surrounding yourself with more Objectivists) regardless of what's right (should one lie or not), I can properly call you pragmatic, given the defintion. In other words I'm not just waving empty words around, I mean a concrete and specific thing.

I am not being pragmatic. You are. And in case you missed me saying it three times before, pragmatism doesn't work. Not only is it false philosophically, it doesn't work in practical terms (in part because the former necessarily implies the latter). By following your course of action not only will you not surround yourself with Objectivists, but you will destroy your own credibility, and that of the philosophy, resulting in less people wanting to learn the philosophy, not more. And also, since most people respect moral certainty, and desperately admire it because they lack it themselves, if they witness people who exemplify moral certainty they are more likely to be interested than if those exemplars are being unassertive and waffling about moral standards. So any way you turn, you do not achieve the practical result you intend, in part because you violate the theory. Value cannot be divorced from fact. Ought is dependent on is.

---

Now, with all that said, I have to also emphatically reject your claim that Objectivists think that nothing outside Objectivism proper, including psychology, matters. This is false - no serious mature Objectivist considers it irrelevant, and it looks like you've been hanging out with the newbie students of the philosophy too long. The real long-timers in the philosophy all hold deep respect for it, and there are already a number of experts in psychology. Not only that, but Nathaniel Branden published a seminal work on Objectivism as applied to psychology of self esteem (around the period of the breakup, when he still could be considered an expert in it).

So the core of Objectivist intellectuals value psychology a great deal. And me myself personally, though I'm far from being on their level I recognize its importance to well being as well; I too, originally, was drawn to Objectivism because of its implicit psychological dimension (most notably the self-confidence of its heroes). As I indicated many times in our discussion already, it is my opinion too, that psychology ought to be taken into account when talking to other people. This is why, if you feel they might be antagonized by some aspects of what you're trying to say, you should bring up other aspects first and hope that by the time the talk gets to the antagonistic parts, the person will be more agreeable.

A little craftiness and a little hope is all you can do. Lying is not.

Edited February 28, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[TomL]

You can stress other aspects of it and try to avoid the subject of the philosophy's status as a closed or open system; that is a valid and sometimes practical course of action.

That is all I'm trying to say! If this is "pragmatic", then you're agreeing with that its valid. Make up your mind.

I have stated several times, and it seems to have been missed, that if someone asked me if Objectivism is closed I would answer "yes". But I would -also- say that it doesn't matter because there is nothing further to add, anyway, because the philosophy is complete. Are you instead saying that there are other philosophic premises beyond those which Ayn Rand stated, which are necessary? In other words: that Objectivism is not a integrated whole, without holes?

This doesn't mean that Dr. Peikoff's validation of induction is not useful. It is. But he has not added any new philosophic premise with it, either. The philosophic premise here is that "induction is valid", which Ayn Rand stated herself and is part of Objectivism already.

Now, with all that said, I have to also emphatically reject your claim that Objectivists think that nothing outside Objectivism proper, including psychology, matters.

I did not mean all Objectivists, but there are some -- and they do a great deal of damage because to non-Objectivists they "represent" Objectivism. What I mean is that Objectivism implies the use of introspection as a tool for discovering the cause of negative emotions, and those some Objectivists, when confronted with an individual performing some evasion, dismiss them or attack them rather than point out that some introspection and thought, in a proper cognitive framework, can help them alleviate their negative emotions such that the evasion is not necessary.

People choose to evade for a reason -- they do so because it hurts to acknolwedge -- it contradicts some false premise they already hold which has its own emotion attached to it -- and the new fact contradicts it. If you give them another tool to alleviate that, another way of resolving the issue rather than evading it -- what is the harm, exactly? Isn't it harmful to not point out introspection, when it is so obviously indicated?

As I indicated many times in our discussion already, it is my opinion too, that psychology ought to be taken into account when talking to other people. This is why, if you feel they might be antagonized by some aspects of what you're trying to say, you should bring up other aspects first and hope that by the time the talk gets to the antagonistic parts, the person will be more agreeable.

That's all I'm trying to say, and I'm very glad to discover that we agree on this completely.

Edited February 28, 2005 by TomL

[TomL]

Objectivism doesn't say anything about psychology because Objectivism is a philosophy, not psychology.

Which I've said myself, several times now. Perhaps I am mixing threads in my head, though.

Have you read Ayn Rand's essay "The Psychology of Psychologizing" in The Voice of Reason? It sounds to me like you're psychologizing your acquaintances too much.

Thanks for the accusation. Let me defend myself slightly:

In the essay, Ayn Rand says that "psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of the psychological problems..in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence." I can see how you would then accuse of doind this.

But I am not excusing them of it. I do hold them responsible. And I do not mean to dictate to them that I know something they don't and can't know, i.e. the contents of their minds are unknowable to them. What I mean to do is avoid antagonizing them, while at the same time asking them the questions necessary for them to discover the tools of cognition they need in order to resolve their own psychological issues. I do not intend to diagnose anyones problems for them (I judge them, but I keep it to myself) but I do intend to both recognize their problems and see if they can discover and work it out on their own.

If you mean psychologists who are also Objectivists, then there are plenty of those around, most notably Dr. Ellen Kenner, Dr. Michael J. Hurd, Dr. Edwin Locke, and Dr. Jonathan Rossman.

These people all have degrees where they studied the current science of psychology, which I consider to be of great disvalue, and that has got to influence them in some way. Ayn Rand herself said "As a science, psychology is barely making its first steps. It is still in the anteroom of science, in the stage of observing and gather material from which a future science will come. This stage may be compared to the pre-Socratic period in philosophy; psychology has not yet found a Plato, let alone an Aristotle..." ("The Psychology of Psychologizing" in The Voice of Reason).

I have listened to several lectures given by both Dr. Kenner and Dr. Locke at conferences, and I have to say that while I agree with a great many things they have to say, I disagree with a few because they seem to be rooted in behaviorism. I cannot recall the exact specifics now as it has been years, but based on that and people I personally know who have seen Dr. Kenner, I cannot in good conscience recommend Dr. Kenner's service to anyone. Please do not ask me for details as I am unable to give them for various reasons. I do not know anything about Dr. Hurd or Dr. Rossman and I will look into them as time allows.

The type of psychology practiced most often among Objectivists is cognitive therapy.

If that is what it looks like, then its definitely a far shade better than psychotherapy. But unless the science is rooted in Objectivism itself, it is open to error as it develops, and may very well already include some.

If you are not a psychologist, then quit trying to psychologize your friends. You are not trained to do so and can actually cause more harm than good.

I am not doing so, and I realize that trying to do so without being more of expert can be harmful, which is why I simply ask questions and let them figure it out. However, I don't see what there is to be an expert in. The essay we're talking about was written by Ayn Rand in 1971, granted, but is Aaron T. Becke the "Aristotle of Psychology"? I don't know.

All you are qualified to analyze is what they actually said and what they actually did. Agreed, but there are alternatives to the current trend of psychotherapy, such as cognitive therapy.

I am not offering anyone any therapy beyond introspection, and that is something that non-Objectivists are painfully oblivious of. If you get them to introspect -before- they start asking questions for which the answers will atagonize them, then you won't make them run, screaming that "Objectivists are <insert explitive here>".

Once again, Objectivism, as a philosophy, cannot tell us anything about psychology other than how to obtain our knowledge.

I've said that, but perhaps in another thread.

If you really want to advance the science of psychology, go back to school and get a degree in psychology. Then you'll be qualified to perform as much research as you want.

I'm almost afraid to study psychology in the current academic environment. Notwithstanding, my purpose in life is computer networks, not psychology. But that doesn't mean that I need to be completely ignorant of a method which has worked for me (pure introspection, and knowing when and how to use it) and not tell others what I've learned, first-handedly. It is knowable, it can be discovered, and all it takes is a little effort -- and the results can be extremely beneficial to our cause and our culture. I do not think that any of the doctors you quoted would discourage me from trying to get people to acknowledge and use their powers of introspection -- only good can come from it.

[redfarmer]

Which I've said myself, several times now.  Perhaps I am mixing threads in my head, though.

Thanks for the accusation.  Let me defend myself slightly:

In the essay, Ayn Rand says that "psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of the psychological problems..in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence."  I can see how you would then accuse of doind this.

But I am not excusing them of it.  I do hold them responsible.  And I do not mean to dictate to them that I know something they don't and can't know, i.e. the contents of their minds are unknowable to them.  What I mean to do is avoid antagonizing them, while at the same time asking them the questions necessary for them to discover the tools of cognition they need in order to resolve their own psychological issues.  I do not intend to diagnose anyones problems for them (I judge them, but I keep it to myself) but I do intend to both recognize their problems and see if they can discover and work it out on their own.

These people all have degrees where they studied the current science of psychology, which I consider to be of great disvalue, and that has got to influence them in some way.  Ayn Rand herself said "As a science, psychology is barely making its first steps.  It is still in the anteroom of science, in the stage of observing and gather material from which a future science will come.  This stage may be compared to the pre-Socratic period in philosophy; psychology has not yet found a Plato, let alone an Aristotle..."  ("The Psychology of Psychologizing" in The Voice of Reason).

I agree with everything you have said in the preceding paragraphs. However, whether you like it or not, your statements to the effect of trying to anticipate your aquaintances' psychological evasions in order to not offend them with the truth is psychologizing (or at least you sure make it sound a lot like it). Do you or do you not tell them the truth? That is the fundamental question here.

I have listened to several lectures given by both Dr. Kenner and Dr. Locke at conferences, and I have to say that while I agree with a great many things they have to say, I disagree with a few because they seem to be rooted in behaviorism.  I cannot recall the exact specifics now as it has been years, but based on that and people I personally know who have seen Dr. Kenner, I cannot in good conscience recommend Dr. Kenner's service to anyone.  Please do not ask me for details as I am unable to give them for various reasons.

If you are unable to say why you don't like Dr. Kenner and Dr. Locke, then please withdraw your statement. I will not accept the statment that you do not like them just because and don't ask you for specifics.

If that is what it looks like, then its definitely a far shade better than psychotherapy.  But unless the science is rooted in Objectivism itself, it is open to error as it develops, and may very well already include some.

Any science is open to error. Philosophy exsists to correct that error. The fact that there are Objectivists in the field should be of some hope.

I am not offering anyone any therapy beyond introspection, and that is something that non-Objectivists are painfully oblivious of.  If you get them to introspect -before- they start asking questions for which the answers will atagonize them, then you won't make them run, screaming that "Objectivists are <insert explitive here>".

Nobody said you were trying to offer them therapy. No one said, either, that you shouldn't try to get them to introspect. However, the fundamental question here is, if the person asked you the question point blank, what are you going to tell them? The truth or a lie?

I'm almost afraid to study psychology in the current academic environment.  Notwithstanding, my purpose in life is computer networks, not psychology.  But that doesn't mean that I need to be completely ignorant of a method which has worked for me (pure introspection, and knowing when and how to use it) and not tell others what I've learned, first-handedly. It is knowable, it can be discovered, and all it takes is a little effort -- and the results can be extremely beneficial to our cause and our culture.  I do not think that any of the doctors you quoted would discourage me from trying to get people to acknowledge and use their powers of introspection -- only good can come from it.

No one would discourage you from practicing introspection or encouraging others to practice introspection.

[TomL]

However, the fundamental question here is, if the person asked you the question point blank, what are you going to tell them? The truth or a lie?

I have stated several times, and it seems to have been missed, that if someone asked me if Objectivism is closed I would answer "yes". But I would -also- say that it doesn't matter because there is nothing further to add, anyway, because the philosophy is complete.

Implicit in the question "Is Objectivism open or closed?" is the premise that it is NOT complete, and simply answering "Yes" tells them that the philosophy is somehow fundamentally unsound, because how can any philosophy ever be complete?

By clearly defining the bounds of "philosophy", and showing how all the essential questions of philosophy are answered by Objectivism -- not merely by saying "because Ayn Rand said so". While true, it leads to confusion and distrust, and even outright rejection on the (flawed) basis of it being a dogma, if one fails to explain.

Edited February 28, 2005 by TomL

[Cole]

By clearly defining the bounds of "philosophy", and showing how all the essential questions of philosophy are answered by Objectivism -- not merely by saying "because Ayn Rand said so".  While true, it leads to confusion and distrust, and even outright rejection on the (flawed) basis of it being a dogma, if one fails to explain.

I don't think that any Objectivist would answer "because Ayn Rand said so" when questioned on the validity of a certain topic. One might give that answer for "Why is this a part of Objectivism?", but not "Why is this true?". Acknowledging that the essential attribute of Objectivism is that it's the philosophy of Ayn Rand does not mean that the philosophy isn't true and provable regardless.

[Free Capitalist]

Implicit in the question "Is Objectivism open or closed?" is the premise that it is NOT complete

Not necessarily. Objectivism's completeness and its closed status have nothing to do with one another.

Oh and by the way, Objectivism does not have answers to all philosophical questions. Induction, for example, is absent. Why you would want to demand it to have all the answers is beyond me.

[TomL]

Not necessarily. Objectivism's completeness and its closed status have nothing to do with one another.

Oh and by the way, Objectivism does not have answers to all philosophical questions. Induction, for example, is absent. Why you would want to demand it to have all the answers is beyond me.

Yes, necessarily. Why else would any non-Objectivist ask the question?

Oh, and by the way, the assertion that "induction is valid" is present in Objectivism.

[TomL]

I don't think that any Objectivist would answer "because Ayn Rand said so" when questioned on the validity of a certain topic. One might give that answer for "Why is this a part of Objectivism?", but not "Why is this true?".  Acknowledging that the essential attribute of Objectivism is that it's the philosophy of Ayn Rand does not mean that the philosophy isn't true and provable regardless.

I know that any Objectivist would not answer a question of validity with "because Ayn Rand said so", otherwise an Objectivist nay they be. Unless, of course, the question is: "Why is it true that Objectivism is closed?"

[Free Capitalist]

Tom, so what that it says so? Does it prove it? Never mind I think you're too bogged down in the trees to see the forest here. I don't think I'm getting through to you, and your approach to philosophy seems to be just as dogmatic as that of the regular people you accuse of having it. So I'll just leave this conversation, considering my point stated.

[Cole]

I know that any Objectivist would not answer a question of validity with "because Ayn Rand said so", otherwise an Objectivist nay they be.  Unless, of course, the question is: "Why is it true that Objectivism is closed?"

Sorry for misreading what you wrote. I need to remind myself not to make attempts at responses right after having woken up.

[redfarmer]

Implicit in the question "Is Objectivism open or closed?" is the premise that it is NOT complete, and simply answering "Yes" tells them that the philosophy is somehow fundamentally unsound, because how can any philosophy ever be complete?

By clearly defining the bounds of "philosophy", and showing how all the essential questions of philosophy are answered by Objectivism -- not merely by saying "because Ayn Rand said so".  While true, it leads to confusion and distrust, and even outright rejection on the (flawed) basis of it being a dogma, if one fails to explain.

I guess I should ask: why on earth would you believe the philosophy is "complete?" Ayn Rand never claimed this. Leonard Peikoff never claimed this. No Objectivist intellectual that I've ever heard of has claimed this. Implicit in the statement, "Objectivism is complete," is the statement "There is nothing further to learn in philosophy." THIS is a dogmatic approach, the same approach as the dean had to architecture in The Fountainhead. If I really believed this, there would be no reason for me to be considering studying philosophy in school.

Please support your statement that Objectivism is a "complete" system. The fact that Ayn Rand defined essentials in every major branch of philosophy does not make it complete by any means.

[BurgessLau]

Is Objectivism -- the philosophy which Ayn Rand created, which is recorded in her writings and lectures, and which became closed at her death -- complete or is it incomplete?

Yes!

Objectivism is complete in the sense that it covers all the essential points that Ayn Rand believed important in answering five basic questions: What exists, How do I know, What should I do about it, How can we deal with each other to protect our rights, and, last, how can we integrate all the basic points into one easy-to-grasp experience? These are the five branches of her philosophy: metaphysics (ontology), epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics. No philosopher -- Plato, Aristotle, Kant, or Ayn Rand -- can be either omniscient or omniscribent, that is, write on ever subject in full detail. Philosophers pick the most important problems and solve them individually and as a system.

Objectivism is not "complete" in the sense of "no more work can be done." The title and content of Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology show that claim is wrong. Lots of work remains to be done. For example in the field of epistemology, someone should develop a theory of theories, as Ayn Rand sketched her theory of concepts (a revolutionary development that, even alone, guarantees her a place as one of the four giants of the history of philosophy).

[Free Capitalist]

Right, Burgess. It irks me when people imagine Objectivism spawning spontaneously and omnisciently from AR's mind.

Objectivism is complete in the sense that it is internally consistent, and has an important contribution to every branch of philosophy. For example, if it only had the ethical component then we could call it a complete ethical system. But it has a huge influence on every aspect of philosophy, so we call it a complete philosophical system.

However, that doesn't mean that there's nothing else to do and learn in philosophy. And it's really only the newbies to the philosophy who go around spreading ideas like this, because AR never claimed it, nor do any Objectivist intellectuals. She said it was revolutionary, and that it was fully consistent. And it is, of course.

Edited March 1, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[Styles2112]

I'm just gonna read as much as I can on here, and maybe pick up some of the books suggested. I'm not really sure I understand all of this, nor agree with all of it, but I'm certainly encouraged to learn.