Dominique

I actually remember reading somewhere that Ayn Rand titled her philosophy Objectivism so that it would survive separate of her, and I think this whole mess comes up because of TOC and their ilk misrepresenting the philosophy. I would say it is even more accurate to point at ITOE and say "this is Objectivism" but unfortunately, certain close friends of hers took on a gross misrepresentation of the philosophy, that it had to be furthur delineated. I think that ITOE is a closed epistemological construct, but it's an "introduction", because it is the skelaton, and then Peikoff fleshed it out in "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" (see that folks? right there-the philosophy of Ayn Rand ) But ITOE is complete. Ironically-calling it the philosophy of Ayn Rand actually delineates it (to separate it from the TOC ilk) and expands it (to encompass her other works-which is appropriate I think). Anyway this is just my guess.

Why would you want to call yourself an Objectivist if you had refined or improved Objectivism? Wouldn't you want to take credit for your own achievement? Objectivism refers only to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. You may see fit to in the future change some aspect of it. In that case, you would say you had been greatly inspired by Objectivism perhaps, but you would want credit for the advances you had made philosophically would you not? Why would you scoot it under the title of Objectivism (thereby implying Ayn Rand had discovered it)? Objectivism refers to a specific structure. To alter that structure is to create something new, perhaps a hybrid, a knock off, or a new philosophy. Whatever it is, that's up to you. But if I call a mule a horse-that's misleading-right? Especially if I was trying to sell you a horse, and you never saw it, and then I gave you a mule. You'd think that was wrong right? Perhaps that's a bad analogy? I'm trying to be as clear as possible. What it is, is that concepts (like that of Objectivism) have concrete referents (the philosophy of Ayn Rand). That's the definition. It's a title of a philosophy, and the only way it becomes the title of a person or group of people is by reference to that (people who adhere to the philosophy of Ayn Rand). That's all it is. It has no magic powers to make you suddenly moral, or to make you popular. But it does have a specific definition. To decide Objectivism means whatever you want it to mean, or to call yourself Objectivist while ignoring the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is simply dishonest. For no reason but that you are ignoring the definition of the word.

I would say to hold off on this until you have found an error in her structure. You are misunderstanding the meaning of *closed system*. Closed System means that nothing can be added that contradicts the basic structure. Logically, there is no error in Ayn Rand's system, as she outlined it. This does not mean (as had been said many times before) that we have to all like the same flavor of ice cream. It means that you adhere to her structure, and any claims you make as to what Objectivism is, go back to her structure and also identify your own interpretation as what it is-YOUR interpretation of HER philosophy. It may have been a discovery of the truths of reality, but Ayn Rand *did* create the system of identifying those facts, to ignore this is to ignore reality.

Your main error is right here. It's another example of the mind-body dichotomy and what you are saying is essentially: How we understand the world is irrelevant to how we understand the world. This does not however imply primacy of conciousness. The two are corrollaries. Nature to be commanded, must be obeyed, but the the laws of physics had to be discovered by man, beginning with concept formation. and that way is an epistemological system beginning with concept-formation. How does one do this if they haven't first formed the concepts of "theory", "precise", "prediction", "phenomena" ? Concept formation is the basis of all subsequent knowledge. If there is an error in your method of concept-formation, than all your subsequent conclusions are likely to be false.

And in answer to your original question: I'd say yes. Just like Capitalism raises the standard of living for everyone, so a business model for justice raises the level of justice for everyone, although it may mean that some individuals do not get what they want. Rephrase it to say: Suppose Osama Bin Laden was left free in order to punish the murderer of your dear loved one. Two years later OBL coordinates the attack on the World Trade Center. Would you consider that the proper action of a justice system? An objective justice system works in a trickle down way, where perhaps you do not get the justice of your one dear loved one, but five other dear loved ones never suffered that would have if the legal system did not operate the way it does.

I'd say yes. Isn't a buisness the proper model for most everything? You want to maximize the value of your given area i.e. your profit. If trade is the proper means of interaction between people, than business is the proper means of organizing that trade. Even in areas such as justice, foreign policy, even medicine. For example, hospitals goal is to maximize recovery, and they may often have to make decisions between patients in similar conditions of who has the most chance of survival in who they will treat first and how. It has to be done business like, that's the only objective means of deciding. That's why people say things like "It's not personal-it's business" because the personal element has been pulled out to make the objective decision of what will create a profit of what ever value to the most people.

Libertarians won't claim that rights are floating in the air-but they also do not have a philosophical structure with which to ground them. Objectivism is a complete system and structure which clearly defines the epistemology used to determine rights, and much more. Libertarians share many similarities with Liberals, and with Conservatives, (and as you noticed-with Objectivism) they are a hodgepodge of many ideas. Sort of a hand plucking of various aspects of other political groups with no foundation on which they are to stand (except the umbrella term *liberty*). That is why we would say that to them rights are *floating in air* up with their other abstractions.

Thanks for the feedback Eric! I understand what you are saying. Actually though the focus of this essay is less about abortion and more about the underlying premise which led to Rudolph's series of bombings (This has been posted on my site and you can follow the link there to the actual transcripts of his press release which this is a response to). You should read it, it's very chilling, because he's actually intelligent and logical. He followed his moral code to the best of his ability, and it led him down that road. It really demonstrates the importance of having the right premise, and the importance of ideas. I'm in the mind-body dichotomy section of OPAR so I'll probably try to write a couple more things about that which are more general and not so geared to religion. We should probably talk about this furthur in another thread or through PM. It looks as though you still have some emotional attachment here and it could be a problem for you down the line. (because it's an important premise that you haven't integrated) I know you said you accept the basics, but it's deeper than just that the government doesn't have the right. It's up to you, but if you want to talk about it, I'm certainly up for it. Question though: wtf?----> ? I got another kind of monkey for you [edited to switch links]

Oh Also, is it proper to refer to "the Inquisition"? Weren't there several?

Ah, ok good, I see. Hmm, that's an interesting point. Might be a good thread topic. Is it a thread somewhere already? I'll have to research it. So you think I should take those two lines (paragraphs?) completely out? OY! I thought I had gotten all those. Thank you soo much! That was very helpful! I really appreciate your taking the time to give me some thoughtful feedback. You're awesome I'm hoping to get some more essay/articles going pretty soon, now that I'm finally getting some level of integration with these concepts. Want to sign on as full time Editor-in-Chief?

Ok, thank you, that's what I thought but I wanted to make sure.

Thanks CF What would I do without you? One more question though-am I correct in saying that Objectivism rejects the notion of a priori anything-and altogether? So in other words it is never an appropriate term?

Ok, actually, I've got my OPAR out now, let's see if I can use it. On pg 148 Peikoff states: "This is the cause that explains the popularity of the notion that an idea may be "good in theory but not in practice" [...] The theory-practice dichotomy is itself a theory; it's source is a breach between concepts and percepts. Given such a breach, thought comes to be viewed as pertaining to one world (the world of Platonic forms, or of Kantian "phenomena", or of linguistic constructs), while action is viewed as pertaining to an opposite world (the world of concretes, or things-in-themselves, or of empirical data). In this set up, one expects to be schizophrenic. [...]" Ok, so I interpret that to mean that there is still a flaw in your distinction, which is the root of the contradiction you (punk) are holding. I am still trying to process this myself, so the more specific you and others can be the better (am I off-topic? If so please split the thread Felipe-I'd like to continue discussing).

In this case I'll have to come back. I'm not clear on all the issues here, but you've given me something to think on and I'll come back when I understand it better myself.

This is sort of informal, but it's the first comprehensive article I've been able to formulate without appeals to outside sources (except that it refers to the press release issued by Rudolph-the Olympic bomber) and I wanted to check the soundness of my argument and get some feedback here. Thanks in advance for any input.

There's another thread on this here [i merged the topics - GC]

In "For the New Intellectual" Rand describes: "those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists)---and those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists)." Which makes me think there is still an error here where you are divorcing statements from the concept or knowledge they represent. Because Objectivism is based on axioms and this is an example (as I understand) of your own failure to grasp the axioms. Similar to the issue with existence exists that was brought up earlier. (trying to stay on topic) I would say what you mean by an a priori statement is actually a theorum. I'm getting a little over my head here though, so perhaps someone else can jump in?

Valid to whom? Not to Objectivists. Objectivism rejects this as a false dichotomy. As already said by N_T there is no possible knowledge before (apart from) experience.

No I don't Not my problem. You have shown a refusal to answer direct questions yourself or provide any basis for your own assertions here, so what value could I possibly gain from furthur discussion with you?

Very good point. I was thinking on this as well and it makes much more sense to work from the angle of the positive (value) rather than the negative (level of transgression) And the word of the day is tergiversation 1. equivocation, tergiversation -- (falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language) 2. apostasy, tergiversation -- (the act of abandoning a party or cause) Great word

He seemed to not really *get it*. I think he did his best to internalize it and to act on it as well, but fell short, or got worn down (and out) before he could. Essentially, in the end, he had become stuck. He wanted to do what was right, but didn't seem to go much deeper than that-just by gut. At least that's what I finally came up with. I'm in the process of re-reading it now though so I'm *testing the hypothesis*. Welcome to the forum by the way

As opposed to polka dot up mode?

If you want to learn the philosophy you should read some of the literature that explains it. While I'm sure the people here can help you, it is not their job to teach it to you. I already provided the link to Fact and Value where Peikoff explains exactly what you are asking. That you still don't understand means you are not reading carefully and need to take your time and go through it again. If you don't consider the creator of Objectivism to be an essential characteristic of Objectivism, why would we waste time discussing it with you? If she had't created it-we wouldn't even be here discussing it, so for you to consider that *not essential* is to completely trivialize the whole thing.

Unfortunately I think I (necessarily) made some *sp-errors* of my own.

What is this "Merritt" you speak of? And who amongst you is fit to decide unequivocally what is of *merit* if you aren't willing to back it up by banning the member. By my opinion anyone who's allowed to be a member here neccessarily has some *merit*. If not-ban them and forego all manner of tact, they clearly are not worth it. But if it's worth having them be allowed to discuss here, it's worth identifying (and allowing them to possibly rectify) their mistakes.