Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
TheNewIntellectual

Objectivism: "Closed" system

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Mike Joyous said:

Is there any material idea in Six Pillars that is untrue? If so,  please state it. 

. . .

I think it's really important for us all to look at many of her ideas critically. I am not talking about her fundamental principles,  but about many of her applications. 

The fact that any material ideas are true is not the criteria that makes them a part of Objectivism.

Likewise, the fact that any material ideas that are a part of Objectivism is not the criteria that makes them true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mike Joyous said:

I think it's really important for us all to look at many of her ideas critically. I am not talking about her fundamental principles,  but about many of her applications. 

I look at everything critically. I can't imagine doing otherwise.

Upon critical analysis, I usually find that I agree with Rand. But not always.

9 hours ago, Mike Joyous said:

Rand has led me to many wonderful truths and clarifications,  but if the folks who purport to spread Objectivism make me feel like the theologians who refused to look at Galileo's telescope, there is something wrong.

There exist dogmatic Objectivists (as well as Objectivists who occasionally act dogmatically). The "something wrong" is with them, not Objectivism, as such.

But if anyone -- Objectivist or otherwise (including Ayn Rand herself) -- told me not to look through some telescope, it wouldn't make a lick of difference to my decision to look. If that isn't an expression of "Objectivism," in full, then it is one of the most fundamental aspects of the philosophy. I see for myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much ado about nothing.

 

The debate over the closure of Objectivism is more or less directed at statements or conclusions which are not philosophical but are applications of the core philosophy based on assumed evidence of reality.  Since man is fallible those areas of application of the core philosophy are prone to error, but the core of the philosophy itself is not.

The basic fundamental facts of existence reality consciousness man ethics and politics do not change with the trends or the weather or the tides.  The core of the philosophy then is closed and it could be no other way.

More particular conclusions reached based on the philosophy as applied to more particular facts about which science continues to reveal must of course be refined over time. Those are not part of a philosophy but are conclusions reached with the help of a philosophy... they are not philosophy, philosophy makes them possible.  

This distinction is lost on almost everyone who wishes to argue about whether Objectivism is closed or not.  The core is closed and it's correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any material idea in Six Pillars that is untrue? If so,  please state it. 

Rand's insistence that her ideas are all that Objectivism is about has to be taken in context. It was a time when Objectivism and Rand were besieged by folks who did not understand her works. To speak that way about Branden makes no sense. At that time,  Branden understood her work but was not honest much of the time. However, in openly confessing his misdeeds, in his creativity in his field,  and his zeal in applying Objectivism within his field,  I see his cry for redemption. When Rand treated him as beyond hope,  that was shameful. 

I think it's really important for us all to look at many of her ideas critically. I am not talking about her fundamental principles,  but about many of her applications. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Mike Joyous said:

Is there any material idea in Six Pillars that is untrue? If so,  please state it. 

I'm not familiar with the "six pillars". However, let's say they're excellent set of ideas. Let's also assume that some of the stuff Rand wrote is wrong. What's the relevance? Under those assumptions, would you like to name "Objectivism" as being:

  • Rand's stuff
  • minus the stuff she got wrong
  • plus the stuff Branden got right

Is that the idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×