Reblogged: Dr. Peikoff on Objectivism Versus Applications Thereof

[dianahsieh]

Dr. Peikoff on Objectivism Versus Applications Thereof:

On Monday, Dr. Peikoff released a podcast with the following question:

Do you distinguish official Objectivist doctrine from Ayn Rand's personal views?

His answer was excellent: it's a brief but clear explanation of the meaning and implications of the "closed system" view of Objectivism. That's what I advocate, what I practice, and what I defended in my recent blog post. If you're interested in these matters, I recommend listening to his answer. (It's only 2 minutes, 31 seconds long.)

Here's the transcription, courtesy of D Jason Fleming:

Philosophy is broad principles, about the nature of the universe, the means of knowledge, the nature of man, and then the value doctrines that all that leads to. All this is interconnected. In a proper philosophy, it's one system, as in Objectivism.

Now that does not mean that every specific application of that philosophy is inherent in the philosophy. A philosopher can hold views that do not necessarily follow from the philosophy, but are its application to a realm where facts are established by science, or observation, or some other appropriate means.

Philosophy is wide abstractions. That does not entail specific choices or specific interpretations of how they apply to concretes. For instance, take my theory of history presented in the DIM book. I make a definite distinction between official Objectivst doctrine and Peikoff's theory of history. Now, I believe that my theory is based on Objectivism, but it does not follow from Objectivism, it is not therefore Objectivism as such. It is my application and each person has to decide is this the correct application or not? It is not subjective, but it's still not a question of what is the philosophy, but what is its applications? And in that regard, Ayn Rand and I and others can disagree without anybody contradicting the philosophy.

Remember also that there are personal options in applying broad philosophic principles. You can say that, for instance, "sex is good" is a philosophic principle, but that does not necessitate any special particular position or clothing, et cetera. It does specify that the general principles of morality apply, such as fraud, force, evasion, et cetera. But as apart from that, there are many different interpretations and complete options which would be personal, not official.

So: yes, but without that implying a contradiction or a subjective viewpoint.

Hear, hear!

Original entry: See link at top of this post

[Wotan]

Is Objectivism really an open or closed system? Is Aristotelianism or Marxism? This strikes me as mindless nonsense and a false dichotomy. Philosophies are coherent or self-consistent or integrated or some such. They aren't "open" or "closed" in any serious sense. If a given philosophy deviates away from the mainstream or foundation, then it becomes known as a variant or a separate "school" of that self-same philosophy. If this philosophical view deviates away even more then it becomes known as a separate philosophy and acquires a separate name. To call a given philosophy "closed" means it's braindead, dogmatic and religious; to call it "open" means it's contradictory, chaotic and without a given nature or definition. I don't in any meaningful sense find Objectivism to an "open system" or a "closed system."